Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo You're kidding, right?
Yeah, actually. I think owning multiple consoles gives a better perspective.
I don't honestly think that it's impossible to be a Nintendo fan while owning other consoles, but I trust IGN about as much as I trust a den full of rattlesnakes.
The fact that even the alleged Nintendo editors (ie. editors paid to focus on Nintendo) seem to piss all over some of Nintendo's best games is bad enough (like MK: DD, for example), but when they turn around and praise some craptacular games on competing consoles, the fact that they've accepted money hats becomes too obvious.
I've always loved and looked to PGC's reviews because there has seldom been a case where I disagree with the reviews of the games. The reviews are fair and unbiased, often pointing out that, even if the reviewer didn't like the game, the reader still might for a certain reason or another.
To be fair, I never look to IGN for reviews anymore because they went through such a period of Nintendo hatred that getting an accurate Nintendo review out of them was like getting blood from a stone. They may have changed since then but the fact that even their Nintendo editors seemed anti-Nintendo makes it clear that IGN is a fair-weather friend, to say the least.
My prediction: Matt here, seeing that the Wii will be the dominant console next gen (it's pretty obvious that it will be, unless Nintendo does something to royally screw it up), will praise it to no end because it's the leading console in the market. He already did that with the PSP and only reversed his stance when it became blatantly apparent that he was full of sh*t.
I have news for you: fans who only support a company when it does well aren't real fans. Matt is basically paid to acknowledge the good points of Nintendo (of which there were many) and yet he doesn't even do
that.
Until Matt starts being willing to support his alleged focus company (Nintendo) through both the good times and the bad, his opinions are absolutely worthless because they're clearly based upon something OTHER than quality of the product which, if I'm not mistaken, is what reviewers are supposed to accurately communicate to their readers.