Topic: IGN reviews

[Edfishy]

Considering the fact that Nintendo now has 4.5 gigs of disc space to fill in their next Zelda game, perhaps voice acting will be a major improvement in the future.

I personally prefer text though.

[Renny]

Best voice acting evar: No One Lives Forever.

"How about a... nice massage?"
"That would be divine."

Lol the homoscientists. The writing was exceptional, of course. But it would've fallen flat without the VA talent. Fox could've been big in the games industry with original IP. Stupid Fox.

On topic: I haven't considered an IGN review since Monkey Ball 2. Eat my codpiece, Matt Assamassina.

[Chris1]

 Call of Duty 3 Review

[Mario]

So they've basically just admitted they value graphics > gameplay now. Good job.

No comparison to Red Steel I see, best FPS at launch? After all the effort Ubisoft has put towards that (and tweaking controls based on the stupid medias suggestions) it's about to get reamed by them. GOOD JOB!

Call of Duty Wii does seem pretty solid though.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
So they've basically just admitted they value graphics > gameplay now. Good job.

No comparison to Red Steel I see, best FPS at launch? After all the effort Ubisoft has put towards that (and tweaking controls based on the stupid medias suggestions) it's about to get reamed by them. GOOD JOB!

Call of Duty Wii does seem pretty solid though.

I didn't even catch that, you mean the end where they talk about using it to show off the FPS genre? Perhaps that was just a slip up on his part

[Mario]

Yeah they also made a dig at Red Steel in the Monkey Ball review, calling the FPS minigame superior.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Yeah they also made a dig at Red Steel in the Monkey Ball review, calling the FPS minigame superior.

Well they said it had tighter and more responsive controls, the game could still get a good score only hampered by controls.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon

Quote
Originally posted by: decoyman
Oops, back on topic, IGN reviews games?

Ouch, low blow!

Yeah, these IGN reviews are exciting to read, but... maybe they're just making sure they've got ceiling room for Zelda?

Who knows, Matt says he's re-examining the way his sectionr reviews games, so maybe he'll break from IGN tradition and Wii review scores will actually start to mean something?

... or maybe it'll be a noble experiment that'll be shot down in 2 months.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

There's a very intriguing possibility there.  At the moment, the score numbers and the review comments ("solid" "great" and all that other manufactured reviewing language garbage) we're used to correlating in the past AREN'T adding up at all in these Wii reviews we see from them.  By default, I can attribute this to IGN's general WEAKNESS and deterioration due to being priveledged members of gaming's high society for so long.  But I can agree there could be a deeper explanation, one that will hurt Wii's general hype machine but at the same time is trying to bring attention and clarity to the review system they've supposedly had "all this time."

I noticed lots of 7's and 6's.  Is Matt & Co being harsh?  Ye-- NO, actually.   Cuz you notice something under the overall review score that's been there for quite a while, a single word descriptor like "Good" or "Impressive", and it's all documented in the Rating Guide page.  Matt is probably making a new effort to conform to the review system (that he probably helped create) and is trying to re-educate the audience on how the scores are to be interpretted (lol, good luck internets).

The problem is with the INTERNET.  The general vibe I'm getting is a game aspect is ONLY GOOD at a minimum score of 9/10.  8's automatically brings it down to "iffy" land, and 7's and below are automatically NOT GOOD.  When you come across a gamer's buying habits that fall in line with "i don't have a lot of time or money for games, so I'll only get good games [by good i mean 9's and up, aka the best]" then you can get an idea where the attitudes grew from.  But in IGN land, a "7" REALLY IS SUPPOSED TO  TRANSLATE TO "Good", as in it's "positively competent and play-worthy, and manages to excel in some areas", and Matt is probably trying to get that point across.  Maybe people have focused on TOO many 8's and 9's and 10's that they don't have a feel for what a 7 (Good) is supposed to mean (I know what 7 is.  The most awesome 7 evar is Killer 7 on GameCube).  If there are so many 9's and 10's and so on, future 9's and 10's must clearly be able to differentiate itself from the preceding competition, otherwise 9 becomes the new "average" and a 10 is a 9 with a voice-acted online multiplayer cherry on top.  Get real.

The highest of scores are supposed to be reserved for tites that stand head and shoulders above its competition, and we're probably not going to escape the reality that inflated 9's and 10's are easily handed out.  But lower scores should definitely not be overlooked.  A game can automatically gain favor when one deems the shortcomings to be negligible, cuz that's a matter of taste.  (whether they have bad taste is a different matter).

So, some of the IGN review numbers probably are justified, though the borked comments still exist.  So they say they have reviewed some "good" games already, and they describe them with 7's and 8's, which brings us back to ZELDA... If they know what 7 and 8 are, they should know what 9 and 10 are.  Yeah, ZELDA is probably ALREADY the CEILING, standing above the other launch games, compressing their review scores under the weight of Zelda's fat ass of excellence.  The "lesser" games are still good games (the reviews are positive, afterall), but they have the simple MISFORTUNE of launching alongside the BIGGEST FOCKING ZELDA GAME TO DATE.  The grading curve was not skewed in their favor.

So, thanks to Zelda, we can expect Wii game review scores to be squished across the board untill 2007's heavyweights come out.  In the meantime, don't automatically dismiss a game due to low scores.  Just dismiss the reviewer and the establishment.  The best reviewer is one's self.  If not, I'm the next best thing.  Word.

[Nick DiMola]

Pro I agree with you 100% on that. The only unfortunate thing is the timing of the new system. People expect it to be a certain way and I'm hoping it doesn't scare away potential customers in the process. Not to mention other major sites like gamespot do the same thing. Their scale ranges from 6-10 and people adjust their opinions to compensate for the system. Matt should really make it a point to get the message out to people that this is why the scores may seem low, when in fact they are great games and the reviews are demonstrating that.

They did however, give the new Monkey Ball an Editor's Choice award when it wasn't at the 9.0 level, which is fantastic. People need to look for these little things in the reviews because they most certainly make a difference. I think the same happened with Chibi Robo.

[Mario]

*stands up and applauds Pros post*

Another big problem is people making comparisons, for example they'll see Tony Hawks Underground GC which was pretty average that got 9.2, and compare it to Downhill Jams inevitably lower score and dismiss this new one as crap. I wonder if Madden Wii is going to get 9.5 or whatever all the other ones got? If it doesn't, then people will assume the Wii controller brings it down, no matter what the review text says. Then again if it does it'll make all the other games look pretty crap to get much lower scores than Madden. IN CONCLUSION THERE SHOULD BE NO NUMBER SCORING SYSTEM. It's IMPOSSIBLE for them to be consistant, and people should just buy what they like, because they'll most likely like it!

Soon people will be reviewing reviews.

[Flames_of_chaos]

On a related note gamespot gave excite truck a 6.8

here are their pros and cons

The Good: Good sense of speed; hectic gameplay makes you feel just shy of losing control of the truck.
The Bad: Not enough here to keep you interested for long; should have been at least a four-player game, if not online.

So I guess on the good side is that its fun with good gameplay but its not deep enough. I sort of agree that it should be 4 player since 4 wii remotes is easier than 4 remotes + nunchuks.

[Hostile Creation]

Pro, you are a king.  Never before was it spoken so eloquently, and with such truth.

In other news, Gamespot is lame because EXCITE TRUCK clearly is a game that surpasses mere goodness, and excels into a realm of divine glory where one cannot assign a value.
So, not knowing what to do, they gave it a 6.8

[couchmonkey]

On IGN's reviews:

Graphics - I think they're focusing too much on graphics.  I will admit that very few of the launch games appear to be pushing the limits of even the GameCube, but I'm still seeing too many comparisons to Xbox 360 and PS3.  That's invalid since the system simply isn't designed to be that powerful.  I think this issue will stop coming up in reviews after a few months go by and expectations wear off.

Scores - Matt gave everyone a peek inside his brain when he mentioned in his blog how proud he was of the score IGN gave to Luigi's Mansion.  I think Matt considers it a big deal to be critical of launch games so that there's room for growth...if you score Luigi's Mansion 9/10, then what score does Super Mario Sunshine deserve?  I also agree with Pro's suggestion that he might be trying to bring game scores back to "reality".

Unfortunately I'm not sure the other IGN channels are onboard with that type of thinking.  Does the original Halo still deserve a 95.7% score (according to GameRankings)?  Not bloody likely.

[Ian Sane]

"should have been at least a four-player game"

ExciteTruck isn't?  I just assumed that being a multiplayer Nintendo game it was four players.  Hell, I would dock points for that too.  If every Nintendo multiplayer game since 1997 is four players than ExciteTruck should be as well.

Regarding scores I like having a numbered score because I honestly don't feel like reading every review to find out if a game is worth my time.  A score gives you an idea and then you can read from there if you want.  If a game gets a 3 I don't need to read the damn review to know the game is sh!t and I shouldn't buy it.  I think some sites overrate some games (IGN Xbox *cough*) but in general I think the scores are pretty good.  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.  This isn't just with gaming.  I apply this attitude to all entertainment.  I only have so much money and so much time.  I've noticed this "review scores don't mean anything" attitude became popular around here when the Cube release list dried up and only like one game every few months came out.  Numerous games got overrated because we had nothing to play so thus something that would otherwise be ignored got a lot of praise because compared to playing nothing it was pretty fun.  No one seems to care when decent-to-good games on other consoles get 7's.

[Kairon]

I would get excite truck if iot was 4-players, but it isn't so I won't.

BTW Ian, I agree that review scores are useful but ONLY if they're consistent. When someone scores Pokemon Gold and Silver 9.somethings and I got bored of those games 10 hours in, then I learn to distrust review scores because they're not consistent with my experiences. In this case, IGN Wii may be scoring games on a different scale than IGN in general and since consistency is lost, scores can't be compared cross-system even though they inevitably will be.

Reading Comprehension > Review Scores.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Artimus]

Whatever you think of IGN, you can't deny the Nintendo channels are the least terrible of them all.

[KnowsNothing]

Yeah, Excite Truck being 4-players really does suck....although honestly, I rarely play games with more than one other person (am sad), and Excite Truck would probably be nigh impossible with 4-way split screen (f-zero was very frustrating with only a quarter of the screen...).  So it doesn't really effect me all that much, but it really is stupid that they didn't put that in there.

It should also be online =(

[vudu]

I eagerly await Excite Truck 2.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"The problem is with the INTERNET. The general vibe I'm getting is a game aspect is ONLY GOOD at a minimum score of 9/10. 8's automatically brings it down to "iffy" land, and 7's and below are automatically NOT GOOD. When you come across a gamer's buying habits that fall in line with "i don't have a lot of time or money for games, so I'll only get good games [by good i mean 9's and up, aka the best]" then you can get an idea where the attitudes grew from."

I originally refrained from mentioning Ian when I wrote that, but he was who I had in mind and he apparently popped into the thread and is giving my statement some weight.  I'm not attacking the guy, he just turned out to be the obvious example.

"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."

I wonder what it takes for a "7" game to be worth one's time.  It looks like that 7 game will NEVER get a chance at being worthy since it's already been dismissed.  This is the big problem -- people automatically believe the reviewers' tastes automatically fall in line with their own?  What a tragedy.  WELL THEN, I guess StarFox Adventures deserves it's IGN "9" and maybe Wave Race: Blue Storm deserves Gamespot's "8" and not IGN's "9"?  Consistency is indeed lost and we (i'm assuming we're veteran gamers) can't rely on their judgement.  Last I checked, they get games for free while it's our responsibility to buy a game and feel cheated/ripped off and ultimately determine value in the real world.  And it's not hard to find gamers who disagree with some high scores, yet readily accept the low scores.  WTF?  GAMERS ARE WARPED AS WELL. (lol internets)

On the subject of opinion itself, when gamers only seem to play/buy 9's and 10's (only AFTER seeing the reviews; basically zero risk-taking or no desire to support nurture unpolished potential), how credible is their word when they automatically limit the breadth of their experience?  I understand that budget is a limiting factor, but judgements on "lower rated games" rooted in severely limited experience (the 9-10 gamer) should not be thrown around like they matter -- that's a sealed, empty can of Coke:  No substance, and only good "for show".  

[Rhoq]

Regarding Excite Truck: I thoroughly enjoyed my experience playing Excite Truck on the Wii kiosk a few days ago. Prior to playing it, I had it on my list of games to buy at launch. After playing it, I found that I liked it, but not enough to want to own it. I want a racing game at launch however, I don't see Excite Truck fulfilling that desire. I'm hoping that the reviews for NFS: Carbon are good. It looks like that will be the route I go.

[trip1eX]

I'm going to get Excite Truck.  IT's just a matter of what price.  It's just one review and I'm sure Excite Truck is a fun game.  Before this review it did sound like the type of game that gets closer to a 10 the lower the price aka a game worth playing and that's fun, but might be short on content.  See Mario Super Strikers.

[Kairon]

Tony Hawk's downhill Jam is my choice for a racing game! 4-players 4TW! Headless players 4TW!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Nick DiMola]

Seriously a 6.8 for Excite Truck!? WTF is that. Honestly I don't really care all that much about how many people I can play it with or the graphics or if it is online. When I read a review I want 1 question answered and that's all. IS IT FUN? If the answer to that question is yes, then I will read whatever else you have to say about the game. If the answer is no, and I thought maybe it should've been yes I will read.

The 10 point system has been obsoleted by these game reviewing douches like Jeff Gerstman over at gamespot. The simple questions I want answers to are always overlooked. Seriously the only site I ever trust on reviews is this one. I am a Nintendo fan and I happen to like the style of Nintendo games. When I read a review I want a Nintendo fan telling me what they think without the taint of negative bias. All I know is that Excite Truck, for instance, was a ton of fun to play. I want that experience again, and I want to be able to access whenever I want. As a result I will be purchasing the game. Just because I'm not playing with another person doesn't mean I can't play it over and over and still enjoy it. Either way, I am sure most Wii games will be a ton of fun to play and I'm guessing most reviewers will crap all over them for ridiculous reasons. Some auto score generator shouldn't decide the final number score of a game. Use your brain instead of a formula, there is more to reviewing than numbers.

Sorry guys, I needed to rant. Low scores on good games piss me off. Especially when reviewers turn around and give crappy games great scores for stupid reasons.

[wandering]

Quote
I only have so much money and so much time. I've noticed this "review scores don't mean anything" attitude became popular around here when the Cube release list dried up and only like one game every few months came out.

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.

Letting an arbitrary numerical value assigned by people like this inform your purchasing decisions is stupid. You have to actually read the review to find out if the reviewers concerns sound valid. There are people out there, for example, who really like God Hand. You might be one of them, but since you don't even read the reviews for games that score that low, I guess you'll never know.

That's not to say the Nintendo community doesn't overrate games. I didn't really care for Star Fox Command, or Chibi Robo. But that doesn't validate your notion that ign's opinions on games are always objectively accurate, it's review scores handed down by God to be believed by all but the sacred-golden-mario-worshiping unbelievers.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Well I was pretty upset with reading the CoD3 review, it was basically hit for its visuals, which honestly I think are pretty dang good even if they are not up to Xbox 360 standards (but I don't think there is a huge gap) and the game seems to run smoothly based off the videos.