Madworld IGN Review!

That's all well and good but wasn't the point. It isn't the end result of the review of the problem it is the method. I think it is great you found a game you enjoy but play along with me for a second here..

Imagine you played the first two levels of madworld and you hated it (remember play along and imagine). Then imagine you wrote your review of the game based on those levels. Now imagine the rest of the game was actually really fun and your review misled the people who read it into thinking the entire game was something it wasn't. Do you think people would trust your reviews after that? I hope they wouldn't unless you made a formal apology and vowed to never do such a poor job reviewing a game again.

I am not saying This IGN dude's review would have been any different (aside from the completely false parts) after finishing the whole game.. it is the fact that he clearly didn't finish the game before writing his review that is a problem. A big problem for a lot of gamers who use reviews as a means of obtaining information about games not neccessarily opinions. I could care less about opinions but if the facts are wrong then there is a problem.

piratedrunk

Oh, you just want a reviewer who finishes all of his games before reviewing them.

...Well good luck with that.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

It's still not showing up for you?

You have no idea what he did?

He lowered someone else's review to keep the reviews area doctored

Also he reviewed the new Sonic game without playing it

Yeah. Doctoring reviews and not playing the games he reviews, who'd be angry at that? lol

Jaysonguy

Yeah, so he lied about it then?

Because ask Gabs what he thinks of that

Jordan posted it in here that proves he didn't play the game

So I'd say check your facts before telling someone else to check their facts over checking facts about someone who doesn't know what facts are lol

Oh dear, we have found a predicament... Listen, facts are something you seem to be avoiding right now. Also, just because someone agrees with you on an internet forum, that does NOT make it any more true. How could you say he did not beat the game, when he gave such an in depth review?

Yes, so he bashed another game that is not good, but you like it, so of course that means it is a flawed review... WRONG! He said the levels were clunky and slow and they contrast what sonic is all about: Speed. Even if one or two of the levels were actually good, the majority of the game is not. Also, he liked MadWorld, so he hyped it. You say because he hyped it it has to get a good rating. Look how much coverage he gave Sonic:

http://wii.ign.com/articles/952/952097p1.html http://wii.ign.com/articles/946/946778p1.html http://wii.ign.com/articles/959/959384p1.htmlhttp://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sonicblackknight_vdr_030509.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sbk_trl_launch_030309.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/blackknighttrailer_030209.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sbk_gawaintrailer_022409.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/SBK_PercivalTrailer_021809.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sonicblack_trailer_021009.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sonicblkknght_020609_nycc2.html http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14268379/sonic-the-black-knight-/videos/sonicblkknght_020609_nycc.html

He covered it and gave it a bad rating!

That's all well and good but wasn't the point. It isn't the end result of the review of the problem it is the method. I think it is great you found a game you enjoy but play along with me for a second here..

Imagine you played the first two levels of madworld and you hated it (remember play along and imagine). Then imagine you wrote your review of the game based on those levels. Now imagine the rest of the game was actually really fun and your review misled the people who read it into thinking the entire game was something it wasn't. Do you think people would trust your reviews after that? I hope they wouldn't unless you made a formal apology and vowed to never do such a poor job reviewing a game again.

I am not saying This IGN dude's review would have been any different (aside from the completely false parts) after finishing the whole game.. it is the fact that he clearly didn't finish the game before writing his review that is a problem. A big problem for a lot of gamers who use reviews as a means of obtaining information about games not neccessarily opinions. I could care less about opinions but if the facts are wrong then there is a problem.

piratedrunk

Great hypothetical announcement there, but one problem, the game had the same end result, so there was no problems with the review. Also, a GOOD reviewer can get the giest of the game before beating it, and that is one of Matt's strong points.

Great hypothetical announcement there, but one problem, the game had the same end result, so there was no problems with the review. Also, a GOOD reviewer can get the giest of the game before beating it, and that is one of Matt's strong points.

So you are saying a good guesser is something you like in a reviewer? Hey if that is ok with you then great but that is no way to treat your JOB. It is this guy's job to play games and let people know about them. If he (or any other reviewer) isn't doing that then they shouldn't be paid for such a half-assed job. Like i said the end result isn't the point it is the process. My hypothetical situation is an important one because in the event that it does happen then his whole review process is seriously lacking and that one game could go ignored by people who would otherwise play and really enjoy it.

Sorry quote system seems to be a bit off*

Yeah that's great. Now can you answer this? [QUOTE="AlexSays"][QUOTE="snover2009"]Sure I can't prove that I have it over the internetAlexSays

Fine, after the inside cover, showing the warnings, esrb rating and official nintendo seal, the pages are number 2-16 in black bloody handprints, then the limited warranty page, then a HOTD Overkill advertisement on the back cover. Also, in the box is a paper advertizing the conduit with "IGN Wii game of E3 2008" on it including 3 screens and a rated pending esrb.

[QUOTE="AlexSays"] Yeah that's great. Now can you answer this? [QUOTE="AlexSays"] How many pages are in the game's manual?snover2009

Fine, after the inside cover, showing the warnings, esrb rating and official nintendo seal, the pages are number 2-16 in black bloody handprints, then the limited warranty page, then a HOTD Overkill advertisement on the back cover. Also, in the box is a paper advertizing the conduit with "IGN Wii game of E3 2008" on it including 3 screens and a rated pending esrb.

Oh snap lol

Jasonguy your killing me. You only dig your own grave when you mention the Factor 5 information. Everyone knows thats valid andevenif the game is cancelled now the game was in the works. Factor 5 is in some sort of trouble right now which is consistant with the fact that there is no new info on Kid Icarus. How many times to does IGN have to explain this to stubborn forum goers. Miayamoto even acknowledged its existance.

What next are you going to mention the Halo DS incident? LMAO

Sonic and the Black Knight had major flaws that broke the game and all you can say is that he did not finish it. Not only does his partner mention those parts in the game (proving they did finish it), this isnt Fallout 3. You dont have to completely finish this game to know its really bad. Its like complaining that a reviewer did not completely finish a Super Mario Galaxy, if you complete the whole game then play some of the extra missions you immediately know the quality of this game. EVEN FIRTHER you do not know if he finished it.

I would like to mention one more thing, just for kicks, you never responded to the fact that GAMESPOT, the site you seem to love, gave Aftermath a 4.5. Matt did not manipulate the review he worked it out with Clements. Do you realise what he is saying, the game does not take advatange of the Wii's features and deserves a lower score.

You still have not said one thing that gives people a reason to dislike Matt C. He is a great journalist who always gets exclusive news for his readers. I never see Gamespot getting any exclusive news for Wii let alone the fact that all the news for Wii comes about 2-3 days late. Whatever personal vendetta you have agasinst Matt Casamassina is unwarranted.

"You still have not said one thing that gives people a reason to dislike Matt C. He is a great journalist who always gets exclusive news for his readers. I never see Gamespot getting any exclusive news for Wii let alone the fact that all the news for Wii comes about 2-3 days late. Whatever personal vendetta you have agasinst Matt Casamassina is unwarranted."

I've gotta agree with you there. If you're a Wii owner and follow online game sites...I don't see how you couldn't appreciate Matt C's coverage of Wii games. I think he's reliable and doesn't have a bias. I've seen him rip alot of Wii games and commend them as well--that's how I know he isn't biased. He also offers alot of detail in his view points. I mean come one 3-4 page Madworld review vs Gamespot's one page review--give me a break--especially when I see GS is giving 2-3 page reviews towards big name PS3/360 titles.

[QUOTE="snover2009"]

[QUOTE="AlexSays"]eric813

Fine, after the inside cover, showing the warnings, esrb rating and official nintendo seal, the pages are number 2-16 in black bloody handprints, then the limited warranty page, then a HOTD Overkill advertisement on the back cover. Also, in the box is a paper advertizing the conduit with "IGN Wii game of E3 2008" on it including 3 screens and a rated pending esrb.

Oh snap lol

guess that proves it

"You still have not said one thing that gives people a reason to dislike Matt C. He is a great journalist who always gets exclusive news for his readers. I never see Gamespot getting any exclusive news for Wii let alone the fact that all the news for Wii comes about 2-3 days late. Whatever personal vendetta you have agasinst Matt Casamassina is unwarranted."

I've gotta agree with you there. If you're a Wii owner and follow online game sites...I don't see how you couldn't appreciate Matt C's coverage of Wii games. I think he's reliable and doesn't have a bias. I've seen him rip alot of Wii games and commend them as well--that's how I know he isn't biased. He also offers alot of detail in his view points. I mean come one 3-4 page Madworld review vs Gamespot's one page review--give me a break--especially when I see GS is giving 2-3 page reviews towards big name PS3/360 titles.

Tri-Enforcer

^^ This.

I understand how some of you have issues with Matt C. He's not perfect. I don't agree with some of his reviews as well.

But, when you step back and look around, he and the IGN Wii team are probably the best one we've got (for the Nintendo console anyways). Jeff G and the GiantBomb cast are ok, but they focused more on the 360/PS3 platform. The 1up Yours/Listen Up crew (Garnett Lee, John Davidson, and *sniff* Shane B) is the best. The game comments and opinions you hear in their podcast is unrivaled IMO. They're so insightful and informative! Unfortunately, this doesn't carry over to 1UP's reviews. 1up's review system is simply terrible. As for Gamespot, all I can say is that the reviewer crew exodus ready hurted them. Kevin V is the only reviewer that I respect now, but I feel he is the lone ranger and overworked. He's pratically doing very major review...no wonder his Madworld review is so short. I'm guessing he's gonna do the Resident Evil 5 review too. Poor Kevin :(

If you're a Wii owner and follow online game sites...I don't see how you couldn't appreciate Matt C's coverage of Wii games. I think he's reliable and doesn't have a bias. I've seen him rip alot of Wii games and commend them as well--that's how I know he isn't biased.Tri-Enforcer

He's clearly biased towards the Wii, but that just comes with his job and isn't a bad thing. You obviously wouldn't want someone biased against the Wii as the primary editor for that section of the site.

I've seen Matt's bias within the realm of the Wii, though, which I've brought up elsewhere (or maybe it was this thread, I can't remember :?). I've called it his hardcore agenda, where he writes and argues for the more stereotypical hardcore crowd. Like I've said before, that's fine, because that's the type of gamer he is and that's the type of gamer that cares about his opinion.

My point is that everyone has biases, and occasionally they show themselves. People throw around the word biason internet forums too much, I think, and it's almost always painted in a completely negative light. In the most basic sense of the word, though, bias simply means a leaning one way or the other. I have a bias towards Gamespot because I prefer their style of journalism, I have a bias towards Nintendo because I prefer their style of games, and I have a bias towards the Wii Forum because I enjoy the topic of discussion and the people here. The problem with bias comes when you let it cloud your judgment, but a leaning one way or the other doesn't necessitate that.

He's clearly biased towards the Wii, but that just comes with his job and isn't a bad thing. You obviously wouldn't want someone biased against the Wii as the primary editor for that section of the site.

I've seen Matt's bias within the realm of the Wii, though, which I've brought up elsewhere (or maybe it was this thread, I can't remember :?). I've called it his hardcore agenda, where he writes and argues for the more stereotypical hardcore crowd. Like I've said before, that's fine, because that's the type of gamer he is and that's the type of gamer that cares about his opinion.

My point is that everyone has biases, and occasionally they show themselves. People throw around the word biason internet forums too much, I think, and it's almost always painted in a completely negative light. In the most basic sense of the word, though, bias simply means a leaning one way or the other. I have a bias towards Gamespot because I prefer their style of journalism, I have a bias towards Nintendo because I prefer their style of games, and I have a bias towards the Wii Forum because I enjoy the topic of discussion and the people here. The problem with bias comes when you let it cloud your judgment, but a leaning one way or the other doesn't necessitate that.

JordanElek

But, I don't think Matt's supposed hardcore agenda/bias is clouding his judgement though.

He still criticize hardcore games (See No More Heroes). He still praises casual games (See Boom Blox). To me, he just wants good games on the Wii, regardless of what they are categorized as.

[QUOTE="Tri-Enforcer"]If you're a Wii owner and follow online game sites...I don't see how you couldn't appreciate Matt C's coverage of Wii games. I think he's reliable and doesn't have a bias. I've seen him rip alot of Wii games and commend them as well--that's how I know he isn't biased.JordanElek

He's clearly biased towards the Wii, but that just comes with his job and isn't a bad thing. You obviously wouldn't want someone biased against the Wii as the primary editor for that section of the site.

I've seen Matt's bias within the realm of the Wii, though, which I've brought up elsewhere (or maybe it was this thread, I can't remember :?). I've called it his hardcore agenda, where he writes and argues for the more stereotypical hardcore crowd. Like I've said before, that's fine, because that's the type of gamer he is and that's the type of gamer that cares about his opinion.

My point is that everyone has biases, and occasionally they show themselves. People throw around the word biason internet forums too much, I think, and it's almost always painted in a completely negative light. In the most basic sense of the word, though, bias simply means a leaning one way or the other. I have a bias towards Gamespot because I prefer their style of journalism, I have a bias towards Nintendo because I prefer their style of games, and I have a bias towards the Wii Forum because I enjoy the topic of discussion and the people here. The problem with bias comes when you let it cloud your judgment, but a leaning one way or the other doesn't necessitate that.

Well if thats what you mean by bias. Your using the word bias when you should be using "preferred."

Matt Casa is not biased toward hardcore elements, he prefers them. Theres a difference. My proof that he is not biased is his Wii Fit review. Thats a game he championed and it is very casual driven. He also liked how SSBB had many control options some of which were aimed at casuals. He has also said he does not have a problem with casual game, he has a problem with the unequal distribution of casual games to core games, even if he if this appeals to his readers its what he thinkes and its certainly helping a majority. He looks down upon times when (third parties for the most part) mistake casual elements for laziness which happens ALOT in Wii games.

As you alluded to in your post he is not required to speak out for casuals and Im not saying he has been completely fair with casual games but he has been more fair than anyone else ive seen on gaming sites. And trust me he does not "write" for his readers. Many a time has he pissed off his readers because he had an opinion they did not agree with.

And trust me Im not saying hes perfect. He gets really impatient with his readers. Too impatient at times. He definitely has that love em or hate em attitude.

But I dont see how so people on here diss him so much (while being so terribly uniformed) and not realise him and his team ARE the definitive Nintendo news team. I know your a mod and all but you have to realise that Gamespot does not cover the wii, its game, and its news are neglected at Gamespot. If I am wrong on this please let me know, I dont want to be like Jasonguy who shoots his mouth off when he does not know what he is talking about.

I know your a mod and all but you have to realise that Gamespot does not cover the wii, its game, and its news are neglected at Gamespot. If I am wrong on this please let me know,kardine

But yeah, preference is a term we can use. But a lot of times, people accuse reviewers of bias simply because they can see that the reviewer prefers a certain console or type of game. It's painfully obvious that most GS staff member prefer either the 360 or PS3; but rarely do I see that preference reflected in reviews or news stories. That's why I occasionally bring up the definition of bias and distinguish between its neutral use and its negative use. There's a huge difference between simply preferring one thing and letting that preference get in the way of your job. And I know you understand that, but you're not the only one reading this. ;)

[QUOTE="kardine"]I know your a mod and all but you have to realise that Gamespot does not cover the wii, its game, and its news are neglected at Gamespot. If I am wrong on this please let me know,JordanElek

But yeah, preference is a term we can use. But a lot of times, people accuse reviewers of bias simply because they can see that the reviewer prefers a certain console or type of game. It's painfully obvious that most GS staff member prefer either the 360 or PS3; but rarely do I see that preference reflected in reviews or news stories. That's why I occasionally bring up the definition of bias and distinguish between its neutral use and its negative use. There's a huge difference between simply preferring one thing and letting that preference get in the way of your job. And I know you understand that, but you're not the only one reading this. ;)

Ya I understand why they wouldnt use specific teams for specific platforms. Fanboyism is not an illness exclusive to forum goers, but its clear that this bias is checked at IGN. The people who keep these journalist teams in check are the forum going readers and other IGN teams check eachother in somewhat of a cohesive process. I think GS does not have the resources IGN (owned by Fox I believe) has so thats another thing to consider. It just seems like to me, there are less Wii reviews and news, this development isnt bias but it is going to alienate GS readers and ultimately hurt GS because people like me will then just go where there is news and reviews.

Still I do not know where all this hate for the IGN team is coming from esp when I cannot get ONE good reason that cannot be completely broken down and refuted. Am I wrong in saying this....

As for helping people understand here is a good way to reach them:

"letting that preference get in the way of your job" = negative bias

Jasonguy, you left me hanging... Wheres the witty little response?

guess that proves itsnover2009

It doesn't prove anything.

You answered three hours after I originally asked the question. And you were online.

But I don't care one way or the other.

[QUOTE="kardine"]

Great hypothetical announcement there, but one problem, the game had the same end result, so there was no problems with the review. Also, a GOOD reviewer can get the giest of the game before beating it, and that is one of Matt's strong points.

piratedrunk

So you are saying a good guesser is something you like in a reviewer? Hey if that is ok with you then great but that is no way to treat your JOB. It is this guy's job to play games and let people know about them. If he (or any other reviewer) isn't doing that then they shouldn't be paid for such a half-assed job. Like i said the end result isn't the point it is the process. My hypothetical situation is an important one because in the event that it does happen then his whole review process is seriously lacking and that one game could go ignored by people who would otherwise play and really enjoy it.

Sorry quote system seems to be a bit off*

Who is guessing when you have already played the game? He played it enough to where I can trust him as a good reviewer, and that IS a positive quality.

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="kardine"]

Great hypothetical announcement there, but one problem, the game had the same end result, so there was no problems with the review. Also, a GOOD reviewer can get the giest of the game before beating it, and that is one of Matt's strong points.

kardine

So you are saying a good guesser is something you like in a reviewer? Hey if that is ok with you then great but that is no way to treat your JOB. It is this guy's job to play games and let people know about them. If he (or any other reviewer) isn't doing that then they shouldn't be paid for such a half-assed job. Like i said the end result isn't the point it is the process. My hypothetical situation is an important one because in the event that it does happen then his whole review process is seriously lacking and that one game could go ignored by people who would otherwise play and really enjoy it.

Sorry quote system seems to be a bit off*

Who is guessing when you have already played the game? He played it enough to where I can trust him as a good reviewer, and that IS a positive quality.

And this is where opinion comes into it. I can't speak for anyone else who does not like his method of reviewing but I can tell you that I personally don't feel that is enough. Like I said if that is something you are ok with then great but thats just not for me and I feel he is worse at his job for it.

[QUOTE="kardine"]

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

So you are saying a good guesser is something you like in a reviewer? Hey if that is ok with you then great but that is no way to treat your JOB. It is this guy's job to play games and let people know about them. If he (or any other reviewer) isn't doing that then they shouldn't be paid for such a half-assed job. Like i said the end result isn't the point it is the process. My hypothetical situation is an important one because in the event that it does happen then his whole review process is seriously lacking and that one game could go ignored by people who would otherwise play and really enjoy it.

Sorry quote system seems to be a bit off*

piratedrunk

Who is guessing when you have already played the game? He played it enough to where I can trust him as a good reviewer, and that IS a positive quality.

And this is where opinion comes into it. I can't speak for anyone else who does not like his method of reviewing but I can tell you that I personally don't feel that is enough. Like I said if that is something you are ok with then great but thats just not for me and I feel he is worse at his job for it.

not to beat a very dead horse into the ground but GS gave Sonic and the Black Knight a 4.5.

not to beat a very dead horse into the ground but GS gave Sonic and the Black Knight a 4.5.

kardine

I didn't care about the score he gave it; I cared about the fact that his complaints were just plain factually wrong.

This review is much better, considering that it acknowledges Sonic moves fast and has the capacity to jump over enemies. I obviously don't agree with the score, given that I enjoyed the game, but I have no problem with it at all. It's certainly orders of magnitude more professional than IGN's review, as it simply discusses the game rather than doing the literary equivalent of gleefully curb stomping it.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="kardine"]

not to beat a very dead horse into the ground but GS gave Sonic and the Black Knight a 4.5.

GabuEx

I didn't care about the score he gave it; I cared about the fact that his complaints were just plain factually wrong.

This review is much better, considering that it acknowledges Sonic moves fast and has the capacity to jump over enemies. I obviously don't agree with the score, given that I enjoyed the game, but I have no problem with it at all. It's certainly orders of magnitude more professional than IGN's review, as it simply discusses the game rather than doing the literary equivalent of gleefully curb stomping it.

GabuEx