Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Im starting to get pissed at western gamers giving reviews for Japanese and Korean games... am i the only one? Ragnarok gets a 5/10 from IGN http://www.ign.com/a...-odyssey-review on the other hand... Destructoid gave it a solid 9/10 http://www.destructo...ey-237672.phtml Ragnificent The biggest problem with the PlayStation Vita is that many titles don't quite "get" it. Either they go in deep with all manner of touchscreen hybridization at the cost of player comfort, or they concentrate so hard on providing a full console experience they forget people don't always have over an hour to spare when playing on the road. Ragnarok Odyssey is such a success because it gets the PlayStation Vita. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it's damn near perfect as an example of exactly how Vita games should be. This, right here, is a masterclass in handheld software design. Read more at http://www.destructo...vxJGZVyGKYOq.99 THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST QUOTES ABOUT THE VITA in general... SO TRUE! and better yet... users at Just Push Start gave it a 9.7 (HOLY CRAP AWESOME!) only the site scored it at a 8.6 (still a great score). http://www.justpushs...odyssey-review/ Metacritic users gave it a 9.8 http://www.metacriti...agnarok-odyssey gamefaqs rating 8.3 (it shows as being the #1 vita game and #1 on message boards as of today) http://www.gamefaqs....agnarok-odyssey here's my question... what the hell is wrong with IGN... i now have ZERO faith in them end of rant... thanks for listening! Edited October 31, 2012 by piggie_pie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoreTheVictim Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Wait I heard this earlier before. I also heard IGN rated AC3 really bad. Perhaps they are a bit butthurt? But about what? That's the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirbz Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 they took points off from dark souls for being too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoreTheVictim Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) they took points off from dark souls for being too hard. That doesn't make sense. How can they review a game based on it's difficulty? Edited October 31, 2012 by MrCostari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlay_ Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 In the past they have shown console and developer bias. They also assign people to review games that are outside their personal expertise... like a sports game fan playing an RPG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 they took points off from dark souls for being too hard. thats SUPER funny because that was the whole point in Dark Souls and Demon's Souls... the devs made it exactly how they wanted it done and its a great game, lol added a quote in my original post from Destructoid... quote of the day "RAGNIFICENT" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidmarkgn Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 So far Angry Joe is the only reviewer I'll actually use for reviews. I'll go to other sites and watch their reviews, but only for gameplay footage and possible bullet points about game breaking problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoreTheVictim Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I don't buy games or not based on reviews. I just read them when I'm bored, or watch them in case of GameKings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHGSniperFox Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Meh. A review is a single person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like a game. That's an impossibility. Getting upset/ticked off because someone rates a game you like poorly is useless - you're getting upset because someone simply doesn't think like you do. The only time it's even worth it to get even the slightest bit upset, is when a review is flat out wrong and biased. IE: If a review gave, say, Superman 64 [An absolutely terrible, broken piece of garbage] a 10/10 just because they liked Superman, ignoring every possible flaw in the game. Obviously, the person who wrote the review at IGN didn't enjoy the game. Not only that, the review is far from terrible - it's average at worst. But this is the exact reason I feel scores should be a thing of the past - the review itself wasn't bad at all - he simply didn't enjoy the game, and didn't enjoy some of it's mechanics. Edited October 31, 2012 by Fox 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 So far Angry Joe is the only reviewer I'll actually use for reviews. I'll go to other sites and watch their reviews, but only for gameplay footage and possible bullet points about game breaking problems. Angry Joe is BOSS! i have agreed with all of his reviews so far... he tells the truth without bias (at least thats what i have noticed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlay_ Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Glitches.. that's all that matters in a review. And responsive controls.... and voice acting.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Bee Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Meh. A review is a single person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like a game. That's an impossibility. Getting upset/ticked off because someone rates a game you like poorly is useless - you're getting upset because someone simply doesn't think like you do. The only time it's even worth it to get even the slightest bit upset, is when a review is flat out wrong and biased. IE: If a review gave, say, Superman 64 [An absolutely terrible, broken piece of garbage] a 10/10 just because they liked Superman, ignoring every possible flaw in the game. Obviously, the person who wrote the review at IGN didn't enjoy the game. Not only that, the review is far from terrible - it's average at worst. But this is the exact reason I feel scores should be a thing of the past - the review itself wasn't bad at all - he simply didn't enjoy the game, and didn't enjoy some of it's mechanics. I agree with this 100%. There is no point getting angry at a review as it is simply one persons opinion. Just because an amazing game is made that most people like, does not mean that every HAS to like it. In my opinion, a game like Tokyo Jungle is almost perfect. Since graphics aren't really an issue for me, I have no real complaints about the game. That does not mean that I will be upset if other people advertise that there are flaws that they found and don't like. I am actually a fan of IGN, I get most of my reviews from them, and I find that my opinions more often then not coincide with theirs. If you disagree with their writers opinions, then go to a different site. You don't need to rag on them, or tell them they are doing a shitty job, just go find a reviewer you tend to agree with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 Meh. A review is a single person's opinion. Not everyone is going to like a game. That's an impossibility. Getting upset/ticked off because someone rates a game you like poorly is useless - you're getting upset because someone simply doesn't think like you do. The only time it's even worth it to get even the slightest bit upset, is when a review is flat out wrong and biased. IE: If a review gave, say, Superman 64 [An absolutely terrible, broken piece of garbage] a 10/10 just because they liked Superman, ignoring every possible flaw in the game. Obviously, the person who wrote the review at IGN didn't enjoy the game. Not only that, the review is far from terrible - it's average at worst. But this is the exact reason I feel scores should be a thing of the past - the review itself wasn't bad at all - he simply didn't enjoy the game, and didn't enjoy some of it's mechanics. My point is like Aeirou said... they have sports gamers playing RPGs and rating them or RPG gamers play sports games and rating them... thats my whole point... I actually don't read reviews because i tend to LOVE games that get mediocre reviews... someone pointed out this review and i had to compare it to other sites... and thats what sparked the rant. of COURSE not everyone will like every game i like... I hate sports games and racing games but thats exactly why i would never write a review on one... its just silly... and im starting to see those types of scores more and more from IGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoreTheVictim Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would say there are 2 kinds of games. There are games who where made with the only thing in mind, we want as much money as we can for this game, so let's finish it ASAP and don't care about glitches. Then you have games who were made with a lot of effort, and making money was put on the 2nd place. I would say any EA game falls into the money-whoring category. Sorry, but I just don't like (read: hate) EA since they are money-whores now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 people are reading the wrong part of my original post... I could care less about a game that i love getting a bad or mediocre review because im very use to that... JRPG get the short end of the stick most of the time and that is 90% of what i play... my point in the whole thread is that they should have the RPG lovers cover the RPGs... the Sports gamers cover the Sports games... the Shooter gamers cover the Shooters... so on and so forth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirbykidx Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 people are reading the wrong part of my original post... I could care less about a game that i love getting a bad or mediocre review because im very use to that... JRPG get the short end of the stick most of the time and that is 90% of what i play... my point in the whole thread is that they should have the RPG lovers cover the RPGs... the Sports gamers cover the Sports games... the Shooter gamers cover the Shooters... so on and so forth... I agree with that to a point. I think it's good for someone who isn't a shooter fan to review a shooter every now and again, just to kind of gain perspective on it and see their point of view. That being said, I don't think that it should be the main review, but it should be mentioned. If nothing else, the comedic possibilities are huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piggie_Pie Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 I agree with that to a point. I think it's good for someone who isn't a shooter fan to review a shooter every now and again, just to kind of gain perspective on it and see their point of view. That being said, I don't think that it should be the main review, but it should be mentioned. If nothing else, the comedic possibilities are huge. good point... the scores are very clear that that is exactly what happened, lol... everyone else gave it an 8+ and IGN gave it a 5... its just so much different that it begs the question (for me at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarnHabbo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Check Medal of Honor Ign review... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahanshah1991 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 IGN reviewers are so casual. they nagged on Mortal Kombat Arcade Collection for being hard( in video review he admits that he couldn't even finish the ladder on easy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I browse IGN from time to time but never really read their reviews. I sometimes watch their videos just to see some gameplay because that is much more important to me than someone elses opinion. The only man I actually trust with reviews is Mark from Classic Game Room (none of the Undertow crap) because he just talks about the games good parts, flaws and fun factor. He never gives any scores to games and lets you make the choice as to buy it or not. In other news, holy crap I completely forgot Ragnarok was out. I need to go pick my copy up. Parker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordIchikyo Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I remember a time when Gamespot review Atelier Meruru, giving it bad marks but especially wrote non-sense stuff on the text thinking the game was a whole loli-eechi-hentai stuff... So i stop trusting IGN and Gamespot and only relying on friends and my own instinct. I dont care if IGN gave a bad review for Ragnarok Odyssey, most of people did the same for White Knight Chronicles which was actually an awesome game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skidmarkgn Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Some magazines years ago (EGM comes to mind) used to have three people do the reviews for every game they put in, it really worked. After a while I was able to gauge who was on the same wavelength as me and they became the ones I followed. On the flip-side it was pretty easy to see who was on the opposite end of the spectrum and disregard every score they gave. Like I said, it was a great system... it was not uncommon at all to see a game get a 3, 4 and 8.5, if the 3 and 4 came from those who had a habit of going opposite of me, and the 8.5 came from the individual I usually agreed with then I would start to pay attention to the game. I'd love to see a system like that return so we could kind of... almost customize our charac... uh, game reviews. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielVT Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Wait I heard this earlier before. I also heard IGN rated AC3 really bad. Perhaps they are a bit butthurt? But about what? That's the question. They did not rate ACIII that badly. I think it got around an eight. Game Informer however, gave ACIII a 9.5. If we want to talk about a game that got rated HORRIBLY, then look at Medal of Honor Warfighter. While, yes it had issues, it was not a bad game at all. It totally deserved a 7. It was average, but arguably the best MOH ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartUnderBlade Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Wait I heard this earlier before. I also heard IGN rated AC3 really bad. Perhaps they are a bit butthurt? But about what? That's the question. They gave AC 3 an 8.5 as far as I'm concerned, that isn't too bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamburger Helper Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Most reviewers can kiss my ass simply because they always want to rate some boring as shit thing a 9/10, 10/10, etc. and when you finally get your hands on the critically acclaimed product, it's like,"Wow, this is utter shit." Oh, and don't get me started with IGN. They've the most bullshit on their plate because of their 9's and 10's left and right for games that barely deserve the award. From what I've learned, if you want the product, then go for it. Don't let others shape your opinion, cause you can miss out on some great things. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now