I finally realized something about Gamespot's reviews

I've always tried to figure out the difference in the GS vs IGN review debate and I finally figure it out!

GS is pessimistic while IGN is optimistic.

I finally came to this conclusion after reading the review for the Wii game Dragon Blade: Flame Swords etc. whatever.

While it's a given that the game is going to suck, IGN decided to point out all the promising things to look forward to if there's ever a sequel and also took into account all the reasons why the title probably suffered. Gamespot, on the other hand, just sits and complains about how much everything sucks, even if it seems obvious or redundant.

So there you have, pessimism vs optimism.

EDIT: Someone asked me later on in this thread for more examples other than just the original one I mentioned. Well, I think it's fitting to include the newest PS3 game review and compare IGN's take and GS's. ... I think I've made my point.

So in other words, GS rates the game that is released, IGN rates the game that it could have been?TBoogy

lol biingo

IGN also seems slanted towards certain types of games. Can't spell IGNorance without IGN.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]So in other words, GS rates the game that is released, IGN rates the game that it could have been?blue_hazy_basic

lol biingo

IGN also seems slanted towards certain types of games. Can't spell IGNorance without IGN.

OMG! They have three letters that are equal to the first three letters in a bad word! They have to suck horribly!

I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.SpruceCaboose

You are right that they are opinions but I mean you kinda of take them into consideration and not just think of them as opinion. Most of the time the reviews that GS gives are pretty acurate when you are actually playing the game.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.xscrapzx

You are right that they are opinions but I mean you kinda of take them into consideration and not just think of them as opinion. Most of the time the reviews that GS gives are pretty acurate when you are actually playing the game.

Accurate?

People who play the game will see things that annoy them or attract them depending on how they view "what a game should be."

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]So in other words, GS rates the game that is released, IGN rates the game that it could have been?oyvoyvoyv

lol biingo

IGN also seems slanted towards certain types of games. Can't spell IGNorance without IGN.

OMG! They have three letters that are equal to the first three letters in a bad word! They have to suck horribly!

OMG! I bought a PS3 and I'm desperately trying to justify it! Everyone else, except the one site (which obviously has to change each time except SDF I "heart" them) I want to use as a source for game "x", is biased!

i prefer pessimistic reviews

i hate sites that review games all excited upon its arrival and declare "BEST GAME EVER!!!!" after a couple of runs just cause its a hyped games

examples that come to mind: Zelda Blurred Princess and Doom 3, only GS had the balls to rate those games for what they really are, everyone else just threw 9s and 10s around

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.xscrapzx

You are right that they are opinions but I mean you kinda of take them into consideration and not just think of them as opinion. Most of the time the reviews that GS gives are pretty acurate when you are actually playing the game.

Not true for alot of people. Not everyone has the same standards and definitions of fun.

Actually, I generally don't see IGN as an "optimistic" review, I see it as a realistic review. Instead of comparing a title to previous versions of said game, they compare the game to what is out, and you end up with an honest review. Now go look at Gears of War, for example, it's an entirely new series, even if every concept has been borrowed from other games, as long as the NAME doesn't have a 2 or a 3 following it, it'll pull a nice review at Gamespot.

Twilight Princess had a lot to live up to, but in comparison to WHAT IS OUT NOW it is an amazing game, and deserved much higher than an 8.8. Now if you replaced all of the in-game characters with different ones, and re-named the game to something else, and changed the developers names and company name AND.. well, you get the idea.

-----
Yeah, reviews are just opinions, which is why small, independant magazines that are just learning to walk go out and give "over-rated" games a low score....

but.. if they agreed with the bigger websites and magazines, nobody would notice them, would they?

Basically what I'm trying to say is that there are opinions, and then there are vapid opinions. Don't get them confused.hydrophoboe

Brilliant explanation. I'll get back to reading those IGN reviews.

Give this man a cookie!! :P

On topic: I like reviews that are harsher. Too many places sugar-coat their reviews.

I thought you were going to say something witty about how it isn't only famitsu that gives high scores based on franchise fame.

Yes, Gamespot's much harsher than IGN is. For the same review:

IGN: 'despite some small flaws, this game is incredibly fun, and a must buy for everyone'

Gamespot: 'Sure this game has high production values, great graphics, story and gameplay, but the wall textures are only okay. This game stinks.'

As a person who likes games instead of hating them, I think i'll stick with IGN.

I thought you were going to say something witty about how it isn't only famitsu that gives high scores based on franchise fame.

Yes, Gamespot's much harsher than IGN is. For the same review:

IGN: 'despite some small flaws, this game is incredibly fun, and a must buy for everyone'

Gamespot: 'Sure this game has high production values, great graphics, story and gameplay, but the wall textures are only okay. This game stinks.'

As a person who likes games instead of hating them, I think i'll stick with IGN.

osirisomeomi

I've already tried to figure out the difference in the GS vs IGN review debate and I finally figure it out!

GS is pessimistic while IGN is optimistic.

I finally came to this conclusion after reading the review for the Wii game Dragon Blade: Flame Swords etc. whatever.

While it's a given that the game is going to suck, IGN decided to point out all the promising things to look forward to if there's ever a sequel and also took into account all the reasons why the title probably suffered. Gamespot, on the other hand, just sits and complains about how much everything sucks, even if it seems obvious or redundant.

So there you have, pessimism vs optimism.

Kalel559

Yeah except in the IGN review for Dragon Flame:Blade Sword they mentioned several times that $50 was too much for the game, even though it has been out for a week and costs $40. I don't trust any reviewer who makes blatant easily checkable factual errors. Of course that includes whoever reviewed Scarface on Wii for gamespot.

Give this man a cookie!! :P

dhjohns

I also used to be under the impression that IGN gave out higher scores than GS, but if you look in depth you will realise that is not the case. There are a number of games where GS scores them higher than IGN or the same as IGN.

I think that on the whole IGN is more consistant with its score than GS. This shines out mostly when you get two or more reviews of the same game in IGN (e.g. IGN Aus/US/UK). They usually end up getting very similar scores.

I had a simplified version of this revelation a while back:

GS is snotty and dumb, IGN is just dumb.

I prefer just dumb.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.xscrapzx

You are right that they are opinions but I mean you kinda of take them into consideration and not just think of them as opinion. Most of the time the reviews that GS gives are pretty acurate when you are actually playing the game.

Pure ignorance.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]So in other words, GS rates the game that is released, IGN rates the game that it could have been?blue_hazy_basic

lol biingo

IGN also seems slanted towards certain types of games. Can't spell IGNorance without IGN.

Actually, it means "Imagine Games Network".

If a game is bad I want to know if its bad. Don't you?-R3Volation

Yeah, but a lot of times GS says a game is bad when it isn't, or at least has flaws that only they would consider flaws.

Reference the amazingly retarded "Controls feel a little TOO good" comment in the "Cons" of MP3.

I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.SpruceCaboose

I like you. (referring to your sig)

TC, you only picked out one review, show me some others that do the same.

GS's reviews suck.

they just like to play shooters, thats it. :wink:

I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.SpruceCaboose

Dream on :P

I thought you were going to say something witty about how it isn't only famitsu that gives high scores based on franchise fame.

Yes, Gamespot's much harsher than IGN is. For the same review:

IGN: 'despite some small flaws, this game is incredibly fun, and a must buy for everyone'

Gamespot: 'Sure this game has high production values, great graphics, story and gameplay, but the wall textures are only okay. This game stinks.'

As a person who likes games instead of hating them, I think i'll stick with IGN.

osirisomeomi

Unless a game I've planned on buying completely bombs all around I don't want to read some pessimistic review that will remind of all the reasons I might hate it while it play it. I'd rather focus on all the reasons it's good.

It's like living with that Debbie Downer character from Saturday Night Live...

I thought you were going to say you realized they were just opinions.SpruceCaboose

If your professor reviewed and graded your essay and gave it an F, would you think it's just his "opinion" ?

Anyone who's whining about Gamespot's review system should probably get lost, because the winner of the war is decided on good games, and we judge those only with GS reviews, not other review from IGN, or Gamespy, or w/e. I do have to agree about IGN being more optimistic, but their music reviews are so much worse, they're game reviews don't seem so bad in comparison.

Anyone who's whining about Gamespot's review system should probably get lost, because the winner of the war is decided on good games, and we judge those only with GS reviews, not other review from IGN, or Gamespy, or w/e. I do have to agree about IGN being more optimistic, but their music reviews are so much worse, they're game reviews don't seem so bad in comparison.

V_Isle

Not true anymore. Things have changed for the better, my little nubcake. It's also rather silly to judge a good game just by gamespot reviews. The reason is self-explanetory.

Actually, I generally don't see IGN as an "optimistic" review, I see it as a realistic review. Instead of comparing a title to previous versions of said game, they compare the game to what is out, and you end up with an honest review. Now go look at Gears of War, for example, it's an entirely new series, even if every concept has been borrowed from other games, as long as the NAME doesn't have a 2 or a 3 following it, it'll pull a nice review at Gamespot.

Twilight Princess had a lot to live up to, but in comparison to WHAT IS OUT NOW it is an amazing game, and deserved much higher than an 8.8. Now if you replaced all of the in-game characters with different ones, and re-named the game to something else, and changed the developers names and company name AND.. well, you get the idea.

-----
Yeah, reviews are just opinions, which is why small, independant magazines that are just learning to walk go out and give "over-rated" games a low score....

but.. if they agreed with the bigger websites and magazines, nobody would notice them, would they?

Basically what I'm trying to say is that there are opinions, and then there are vapid opinions. Don't get them confused.hydrophoboe

I have a problem with your statement. I think it is the complete opposite. Zelda, if compared to adventure games OUT NOW, as you put it, is terrible. It has an old formula, text based dialogue, old simple puzzles, old everything. It's just old and outdated. If you renamed everything, changed the company and changed the characters, it would be a 8.0 game AT BEST. It wasn't that good. I enjoyed Wind Waker much much more than I did TP, because I felt the entire time I had already played TP 10 years ago, when it was called Ocarina of Time.

Sometimes IGN is harsher on games than Gamespot.

Like Paper Mario, Sonic and the Secret Rings, THPS3, among others.

hrmm, i'm a gamer of very discrimating tastes so i rather prefer a gamespot review than most, but for some games a game may lose a few points from a flaw that no one in their right mind would notice or more to the point care about.

except for 360 shooters, most of which seem to be free from these tiny point losing flaws for some odd reason.......