IGNs score..

#1 Posted by mrtroy (25 posts) -

 

Presentation - 9.0

Graphics - 8.5

Sound - 9.0

Gameplay - 9.0

Lasting Appeal - 8.0

Overall - 9.3??

I just don't understand where the overall score came from.. if you average the sub-categories out you get an 8.7

And while I realize that they don't base their "Overall" scores off of the average, it certainly doesn't seem like the overall score should be higher than any of the sub-categories' scores.  I just find their final score to be rather odd...
#2 Posted by Xolare (1284 posts) -

IGN usually doesn't take the exact average. They add some opinionated bells and whistles. It's a great game none the less.

#3 Posted by Delta_Ass (3282 posts) -

They don't base their overall score off of the average.
 
Sometimes, a game can be more than the sum of its parts.

#4 Posted by Wes899 (2125 posts) -

The Overall score is more a general "feel". Don't go by IGN scores. They're mocked for "Presentation - . Graphics, etc". Read the review I guess, though I dislike IGN reviews because they don't have a page limit.

#5 Posted by Hourai (2795 posts) -

Because on IGN/GameSpot, anything less than a 9.0 is a bad game.

#6 Posted by Quacktastic (1066 posts) -

It's Hilary Goldstein.  Don't look for logic there.

#7 Posted by carlthenimrod (1597 posts) -

8.7 or 9.3, who gives a shit?

#8 Posted by MikkaQ (10336 posts) -

It's a sum of it's parts kinda thing. If I had to review, say Yakuza 3 I'd do: 
 

Presentation - 5.0

Graphics - 7.9

Sound - 8

Gameplay - 7.5

Lasting Appeal - 7 

 
Overall? 8.5 easy. Fun game.   
#9 Posted by HistoryInRust (6380 posts) -

Isn't there a disclaimer at the bottom of their score that explicitly states it's not an average?
 
In any case, I wouldn't put a lot of stock into the specificity of the score. They liked it, and that's really the bottom line.

#10 Posted by Dustpan (1694 posts) -

Already a topic on this.
 
Link

#11 Posted by wwfundertaker (1404 posts) -

Is that the US IGN score, i mean they will have different one for the UK and AUS. That doesnt make sense.

#12 Posted by FirePrince (1765 posts) -

That does not change the fact that the game is 5 hours long on normal.
#13 Posted by Talesavo (131 posts) -

This game was a major disappointment for me.

#14 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -
@FirePrince said:
" That does not change the fact that the game is 5 hours long on normal. "
While this is an issue for me, bear in mind there are a lot of challenges, similar to Arkham Asylum, as well as co-op missions and multiplayer modes.
#15 Posted by FirePrince (1765 posts) -
@WinterSnowblind:  

Of course I am aware of that,and I am even playing them,because every mode is awesome.  
But dude,5 hours.That is inhumane for a game of this caliber.

#16 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

When ubisoft leaves a breifcase full of money on ign's desk, it will score whatever ubisoft or anyone else with alot of money want it to score. That's the ign way, developer pressure will always influence the score. I bet when the reviews rolls in from other sites, it would be like a 87% game at the very end.

#17 Posted by niamahai (1407 posts) -

why are you bitching about this?
 
THIS. IS. JUH-AIEEEEEEE-UHN BOMB.
 
review scores are beneath us.

#18 Posted by MachoFantastico (4863 posts) -

IGN reviews are pretty awful, they've been bad for a while though. 

#19 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

The overall came from IGN wanting to avoid a million "why so low" threads from lifeless retards.

#20 Posted by DystopiaX (5352 posts) -

IDK, but whoever wrote it is retarded. They basically wrote a summary of what the game's features are and then slapped a score on it. That wasn't a review, it was a fucking back-of-the-box features list.

#21 Posted by JJWeatherman (14564 posts) -

I would guess the reviewer believed it to be more than the sum of it's parts.

#22 Edited by JasonDaPsycho (429 posts) -

Don't forget, Giantbomb gave MW2 a 5/5....

I believe it's a matter of takes, and to some number of reasons (like 500000 reasons if you see what I mean).
Who knows? Maybe it's actually his thought.

#23 Posted by theredcoat24 (218 posts) -

Game Informer gave it a 9, the same score they gave Metro 2033. So take that for whatever it's worth.

#24 Edited by djz (134 posts) -

 
Presentation:7.0
Graphics:8.9
Sound:7.6
Gameplay:8.3
Lasting Appeal:9.0
 
Overall:8.2

#25 Posted by Kibblez (702 posts) -

Yo.....WHO CARES?

#26 Posted by DJJoeJoe (1329 posts) -
omg guys like I put the review score numbers in my calculator and they come up as different then what the reviewer had, omg broken review? 
 
If you want actually interesting to watch and informing reviews, try the gametrailers video reviews. Always enjoyable and always give great coverage to good and bad parts of the game while putting those parts into perspective. For instance they highlight the game's shortness but also that it's tight and well done, it's a great experience and while being short sucks it's better to be actually good and short then long and just ok, no one likes a game that drags.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.