Author Topic: IGN reviews (Read 33110 times)

SixthAngel · « **Reply #75 on:** November 15, 2006, 10:24:26 AM »

Not having four players is disapointing but I can't comment on the reviews since I haven't played it yet.

I think game sites should start doing a two thumbs up scoring system. 2 thumbs is great, 1 is recommend and no thumbs is don't recommend. Siskel and Ebert knew what was up.

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #76 on:** November 15, 2006, 10:28:57 AM »

CoD3 was also hit hard for a lack of multiplayer functionality. You can't blame them for that.

The Omen · « **Reply #77 on:** November 15, 2006, 12:18:23 PM »

Quote
My "review scores don't mean anything" attitude has always been there, because reviewers have always been morons. Two of my favorite films are A Knight's Tale and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas If I had listened to the reviews like you do, I never would have seen them. Game reviews are even worse, because game reviewers tend to have radically different tastes than me.

IMDB has your movies rated at 6.4 and 7.3 respectively. Would you not consider a movie or game in the 6 or 7 range? Because that's kind of the complaint in this thread.

Personally, I wish the gaming scene was like it was back in the late 80's/early 90's. You bought games based on meager previews and you imagining what the games would be like. You also were stuck with them-no trade ins, and no exchanges back then. So in effect, it forced you to find the positive factors of every game you played. And you know what? Every single game I bought, almost blindly, had it's good points. Nowadays games are dismissed out of hand because they're ranked below a 7 for devils sake. You'll almost never find that hidden gem anymore. And that's ridiculous/

Kairon · « **Reply #78 on:** November 15, 2006, 01:00:25 PM »

You wish that we bought games on potential?!?!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

zakkiel · « **Reply #79 on:** November 15, 2006, 01:04:20 PM »

For me, $50 is too much to spend on a game unless I'm very sure I'll enjoy it. I'm happy to treasure hunt when there's less cash at stake.

Mario · « **Reply #80 on:** November 15, 2006, 02:00:29 PM »

Quote
A 7 game usually isn't worth my time. Why should I bother with stuff that is merely decent when I can get something great for the same price.

SO you're basically conceeding your opinion to ONE person. "Here sir, decide what my tastes are!" The point is reviews AREN'T indicative of what YOU will find to be quality.

If someone is looking forward to Excite Truck, loves the gameplay vids and info about it, and has even played it briefly, a review score should NOT stop them from buying it, because they WILL love the game.

Then on the other hand, you have people who never intended to get a game use a review as "proof" the game sucks to justify their trolling.

Did you dismiss Mario Kart 64 as not worth your time after it got 6.4 from Gamespot and lots of 7s elsewhere?

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #81 on:** November 15, 2006, 02:04:47 PM »

NEVER FORGET that 6.4 from Gamespot. There's a lesson in there boys and girls.

And Mario just explained it.

IceCold · « **Reply #82 on:** November 15, 2006, 02:17:54 PM »

GameSpot gave Jungle Beat a 7... I don't know how on earth they managed that, but they did.

Mario · « **Reply #83 on:** November 15, 2006, 02:31:28 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
GameSpot gave Jungle Beat a 7... I don't know how on earth they managed that, but they did.

LOL!!! I just realised Jeff Gerstmann reviewed DKJB as well. That also reminds me of the ET review "you CAN do all this extra stuff, but I didn't so the game lacks depth".

Chris1 · « **Reply #84 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:13:43 PM »

Excite Truck Review!

ShyGuy · « **Reply #85 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:31:16 PM »

The Excite Truck reviewer Craig is probably my favorite (maybe that's the wrong word) reviewer over at IGN. He's tough, but he's fair. Okay, fair-ish. Alright, he's not as whiny as Matt and Bozon can be.

Rhoq · « **Reply #86 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:45:17 PM »

I hope they allow Craig Harris to write more Wii reviews, though he's probably just helping his Nintendo brethren out during the launch madness. This was the first IGN Wii review that didn't knock the game for it's "last gen" graphics. It's probably because he's so used to playing DS and GBA games that just about anything on any current system would look great to him. Cassamassina and Bozon need to adopt Harris' perspective when reviewing Wii games, quickly.

I know I said it earlier in this thread, but I can't emphasize it enough: graphics should only be judged based on the capabilities of the system they were designed for. It is in no way fair to compare just about any Wii game to it's XBox 360/PS3 counterpart. Gameplay, sure. Graphics - definitely not.

Smoke39 · « **Reply #87 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:47:06 PM »

It'd be nice if he explained what this "Super Excite mode" is.

Cortez the Kiler · « **Reply #88 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:55:21 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
I hope they allow Craig Harris to write more Wii reviews, though he's probably just helping his Nintendo brethren out during the launch madness. This was the first IGN Wii review that didn't knock the game for it's "last gen" graphics. It's probably because he's so used to playing DS and GBA games that just about anything on any current system would be look great to him. Cassamassina and Bozon need to adopt Harris' perspective when reviewing Wii games, quickly.

Agreed. It is going to get really old if every Wii review says the graphics do not meet the standards set by the PS3 or the 360. The purpose of the review should be to review the game, not the system. It is common knowledge that the Wii is underpowered compared to the other systems and subsequently will not have the same visual impact. If this is going to be a continued practice I would hope that the editors of the other systems would include when the controls of their versions were not a fun as the Wii version. Sadly, this will most likely not be the case.

Chris1 · « **Reply #89 on:** November 15, 2006, 05:56:49 PM »

Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam Review

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #90 on:** November 15, 2006, 06:41:07 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Cortez the Kiler
Quote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
I hope they allow Craig Harris to write more Wii reviews, though he's probably just helping his Nintendo brethren out during the launch madness. This was the first IGN Wii review that didn't knock the game for it's "last gen" graphics. It's probably because he's so used to playing DS and GBA games that just about anything on any current system would be look great to him. Cassamassina and Bozon need to adopt Harris' perspective when reviewing Wii games, quickly.

Agreed. It is going to get really old if every Wii review says the graphics do not meet the standards set by the PS3 or the 360. The purpose of the review should be to review the game, not the system. It is common knowledge that the Wii is underpowered compared to the other systems and subsequently will not have the same visual impact. If this is going to be a continued practice I would hope that the editors of the other systems would include when the controls of their versions were not a fun as the Wii version. Sadly, this will most likely not be the case.

Indeed, indeed.

Can you not agree that the reviewers are penalizing game visuals because WE, the CONSUMERS aren't shelling out another $100-$400 more on the console purchase? Catch my drift?

It's craziness.

Pittbboi · « **Reply #91 on:** November 15, 2006, 07:53:46 PM »

I think IGN has been pretty fair with their graphics ratings thus far. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that they're being lenient BECAUSE they know the Wii is so underpowered this gen.

However, that doesn't change the fact that most of the games released thus far look like Gamecube games and don't seem to be taking advantage of the extra power we know the Wii has (just how much more power is still unknown). I don't think Craig whined less about the graphics than Matt because he has a better perspective. Truth be told, Excite Truck is one of the nicer, if not the nicest, looking games for the Wii launch. From the games that I saw in person, Excite Truck came the closest to actually looking like a next-gen game, and even then it still looked like it could have been done on the Gamecube with ease. I think these games look good to us because they look like great Gamecube games and we aren't expecting next-gen graphics like with the Xbox360 and PS3. However, when you take into account that while the Wii may not be nearly as powerful as those two consoles, according to Nintendo it's definitely more powerful than the Gamecube, you can see why Matt and IGN Wii is expecting more, and I agree. It's not the fact that Wii games aren't looking as nice as Xbox360 and PS3 games, it's that the launch games aren't showing what we're led to believe the Wii is capable of, even in it's first generation.

And I think a lot of first gen games are going to look like Gamecube games. Remember, it was Nintendo that waited until the last minute to give out dev kits. It wasn't until months ago that most devs even knew more about the console than we as fans did...which was pretty much nothing. I don't expect games that truly show what the Wii can really do to be released until mid-to-late 2007. Until then, expect most games to look like Gamecube or even early Xbox games, and expect reviews to reflect that.

The Traveller · « **Reply #92 on:** November 15, 2006, 07:57:23 PM »

Is a 7 really that bad when it comes to a score? if 5 is completely average, then 7 should be above average and on the verge of a great purchase.

I actually wrote an article about this. Im not one to 'spam' but if anyone wants to take a read heres the link. www.tendo-gamer.blogspot.com

Strell · « **Reply #93 on:** November 15, 2006, 08:11:03 PM »

I think people equate the scale to grade school, where a 7 = 70 = average score.

I think you can partially lower the score for no-online, given that Nintendo really should have gotten that under control before the system launched. 'Course, they have to test the stuff themselves, and they want their own games to get on servers first, so I understand why they are going the route they are.

The graphics argument is stupid and totally worthless at this point, at least in a comparative sense. That would be like taking a point off every PS3 games' score because the PS3 will inevitably have hardware issues. Or that the PS3 orders can't be filled, so I'm going to lower the score.

The point with the Wii is that the graphics aren't everything. You know that going into it. Now if the frame rate sucks, that is one thing. But worse graphics overall isn't a valid argument at this time.

Also, I really don't think anyone honestly goads themselves into thinking motion control makes up or eliminates the need for online play. That's just silly.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #94 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:33:18 PM »

Xbox360 doesn't have any motion control, automatically dock points.

Artimus · « **Reply #95 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:36:21 PM »

I think games are receiving average graphics scores because there are issues with them that relates to more than horsepower. Zelda, for example, is mainly receiving criticism for pixelation and poor textures, which is because it's a GCN game. But it's not a GCN game, it's on the Wii. And in a review you can't give a game a great score just because it started on another system. I'm sure if just GCN it would be receiving 10s in the graphics. As is, we KNOW Nintendo purposely chose not to improve them for the Wii. They are admittedly not top-calibur as far as the Wii is capable of (even for first gen games). There's nothing wrong with that, but when rating that specific aspect it's only fair.

Let's be honest, something like SMB looks great and far superior to its GCN version. But does it look better in relation to the original when it debued with the GCN? Let's compare the graphics scores of the original SMB and the SMB:BB.

SMB
7.0: A superb, constant fluidity of 60 frames per second is a relief. But otherwise nothing terribly special.

SMB:BB
7.0: Crisp, clean, colorful cel-shaded visuals are a natural fit for the franchise. Runs at 60 frames in pro-scan and 16:9 widescreen. Still, the graphics are very simple.

In otherwords, both are nice but rather simplistic. Not a bad score by anymeans, but it leaves plenty of room for superior games. And, IGN gave BB a better overall score than SMB, so there you go.

To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.

And, oddly enough, Tony Hawk earned 7.0 for both its first GCN game and its first Wii game.

These graphics scores are in no way abnormally low...

Artimus · « **Reply #96 on:** November 15, 2006, 09:41:56 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I think people equate the scale to grade school, where a 7 = 70 = average score.

They may do that, but they're wrong to. In school you are graded in part for right and wrong. In math, for example, a 50 isn't acceptable because it means you don't know as much as you do know. It's totally unrelated. Essays are a little different in that they're more ambiguous, but in that case the score is again made so that it matches with the right/wrong courses. You have to make the scale so a great paper in English is going to get the corresponding mark to a great math test. 70 is sort of the threshold for acceptability in math (and other right/wrong courses) so it sort of developed into a standard.

In "art" (I hate using that word, sorry in advance) it's totally ambiguous. The better the reviewer the wider their score range. A lot of reviewers give like 7.0 and 7.3 and 7.2 and 6.8 and such. How can you even judge what that means? You should be using 5 as the median because it gives you equal on either side of bad and good. I know people do do that always, but the closer you are the better.

Mario · « **Reply #97 on:** November 16, 2006, 02:17:05 AM »

Quote
To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.

Wow, nothing special or memorable? Blue Storm still holds up to this day as having the best water in any videogame. I guess it's sort of part of the gameplay though.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #98 on:** November 16, 2006, 02:31:58 AM »

The scores for these games seem really low for what they are as I have said before. The new control of these games should be adding something to the scores. Excite Truck for instance was exhilirating when I played it. I love racing games, but no other game ever made me feel that "into it." That experience is worth something in terms of points, and overall should be boosting the score. Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but it should be ok to bump the final score of the game because it is flat out fun. That said, I thought the IGN review was pretty on the spot, because at least at a solid 8.0 people may consider it for purchase.

Artimus · « **Reply #99 on:** November 16, 2006, 03:05:47 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Quote
To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.

Wow, nothing special or memorable? Blue Storm still holds up to this day as having the best water in any videogame. I guess it's sort of part of the gameplay though.

One element hardly makes it worth a 10...but really, that wasn't the point of my post. You can easily agree or disagree with ANY score, but the Wii graphics scores are NOT oddly low. And, at the same time, the games aren't receiving lower scores because of their graphics. WR got a 9.1 even with an 8 in graphics. So if ER got a lower overall score, it was for other reasons.

News:

Author Topic: IGN reviews (Read 33110 times)