It may be just me, but IGN sucks for reviews!

Ok over the past few years, IGN has been giving great games some decent to bad reviews. Examples: Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think? 

FUCKIN' OPINIONS, HOW DO THEY WORK?

IGN often have some terrible writing but complaining about the scores is silly.

IGN's not exactly known for being a quality game site :P

PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH ME, FFFFFFFFF

Man, that guy has a different opinion than me. He really sucks.

Oh, and in before the horde of IGN haters.

I  bet they only get reviews "right" when you agree with them....

 Ok over the past few years, Giantbomb has been giving great games some decent to bad reviews. Examples: Brink got 2 stars were as outland got a 4 star which i think is retarded to even get over a 3 star, and dead nation only a 2 star? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think?  

I lol'd

FUCKIN' OPINIONS, HOW DO THEY WORK?IGN often have some terrible writing but complaining about the scores is silly.

I think your strong emphasis towards scores sucks.

Did you know that IGN and Fox News are part of the same company? *whistles x-files melody*

IGN rate games down for being difficult, and they gave Metro 2033 an utterly retarded review that was very unfair.

Don't read many reviews these days, have a glance on here to see if a game is generally regarded as being decent and that's all I need.

8 is a good score dipshit

Somebody call the wahmbulance

People have different opinions than you, sorry to say. If IGN consistently goes against your own tastes, then you need to take that into account each and every time you read a review there. Some parts of reviews are based on facts, but a majority of it is up to the opinion of the reviewer. They could hire 10 new people to write reviews for them and there's a pretty good chance that most, if not all of them, won't share your tastes.

You didn't like Back to the Future 2, but there are certainly people out there who do. There are people who don't like Brink, but you obviously do. It's all subjective. If you have such a major problem with them, stop reading their site.

Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5?

Ok over the past few years, IGN has been giving great games some decent to bad reviews. Examples: Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think? 

I SHOULD WRITE REVIEWS ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE CLEARLY NO ONE CAN WRITE REVIEWS AS GOOD AS ME. MY OPINIONS ARE THE ONLY WRITE ONES IN THE WORLDDDDDDDDDDD

The only thing I care about from IGN is their television focused podcast, Channel Surfing.

Some of you misunderstood me it seems, oh well. 

When will people learn opinions from facts. Fiction to non fiction.

Fuck.. Why are there so many Brink apologists?

I haven't read IGN in almost 11 years.

Did you know that IGN and Fox News are part of the same company? *whistles x-files melody*

haha somehow i knew from seeing your avatar you were going to complain about something brink related. 

IGN's not exactly known for being a quality game site :P

IGN rate games down for being difficult, and they gave Metro 2033 an utterly retarded review that was very unfair.Don't read many reviews these days, have a glance on here to see if a game is generally regarded as being decent and that's all I need.

Eh I never used to be a fan of IGN, mostly just due to the site layout really, but seeing their Starcraft 2 league and how well it was put together, I'm down.

Opinions about opinions eh? Well see ya later

I think 6.0 is pretty accurate for Brink.

Ok over the past few years, IGN has been giving great games some decent to bad reviews. Examples: Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think?

Grrr, fuck differing opinions!

All of my heels are high. I mean, 4+" or you're not doing it right, amirite? Sure it hurts after a night on the town or dancing but they're just so goddamn good looking.

Oh wait, sorry, I thought I'd counter inane gibbering with inane gibbering.

Critics' Reviews aren't about what YOU think about a game, it's about what THE WRITER thinks of a game. I generally agree with the GB reviews, in particular my tastes are very similar to Brad Shoemaker's so when he reviews a game, I will generally listen to it, the same with (beleive it or not) Jim Sterling's. For different types of games I will go to different people because I know how well to interpret their opinions in relation to my own. If you generally disagree with IGN's reviews then you should either find another site if you can't match your opinions in any meaningful way, or simply read them in the knowledge that you are likely to disagree and therefore should interpret them on a kind of negative or skewed scale. If you consistantly disagree with a writer, you can still gain something meaningful from it, so long as you aren't posting "Duh, <game> should have gotten a <score> instead of a <score>. you're retarded lolololol and do the write shit." in the comments or slagging it off on another site to feel big about yourself.

Jeff gave the game 2 brooms out of 5.

IGN often have some terrible writing but complaining about the scores is silly.

Examples: Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think? 

You realize that most sites have been giving Brink low scores right?

Then don't go there anymore. Boom. Problem solved. I'm a fucking genius.

Okay, now I'm usually the last person to back up IGN, but reviews are opinions.  If you want to know why IGN gave Brink a 6.0, or Back to the Future an 8.5 there's a whole text there for you to read.  My problems with the reviews are more like they don't always edit them, and not always well written.  But for your "problem" just remember, their opinions.

How about you respect their opinion and shove this thread up your ass.

ive stopped loking at review score almost all together. I just follow the games progress and see who the developers are and grad it to there track record. Take Brink its from the team who made Quake ET and look at the game was supposed to come out fall 09. If you like team based FPS and liked QET you would prob like it. Just keep in mind its an PC focused game and the reason its gottten bad reviews are just (bad pop in, bad lag and hardly any singleplayer content). 

I just want to punch the dumb out of you.

Do people even want reviews anymore? I mean, the way I see it is there are two different kind of people in terms of reviews. There are people who just don't read them at all, and there are people who read them only to bitch about them for various reasons. I can't help but think it's not just that nobody is writing good reviews anymore. Do screen shots and gameplay videos eliminate the need for reviews?

Ok over the past few years, IGN has been giving great games some decent to bad reviews. Examples: Brink got a 6.0. were as back to the future 2 got a 8.5 which i think is retarded to even get over a 5.0, and dead nation only a 7.5? Sure the get a right review every now and then, but I think they either really need to rethink there reviewing strategy or just rehire gamers! I may be the only one that thinks this, maybe im not? What do you guys think? 

which i think is retarded

6.0 is a generous score for Brink.

Stupid.  Difference in opinion =/= low quality review.  A lot of IGN reviews are badly written though.  Some of their editors merely do checklists of what the game consists of.  Only a few editors dole out consistent quality stuff.