IGN responds to comments made about DNF reviews

it sort of happens here, Kevin V and Tom (LOL) Mcshea pop in every now then after a review ususally in a hype thread to answer some questions

Zaibach

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

I'm not acting like the whole world hates DNF, but it's widely regarded as crap. There's no real way around that :/

Master_ShakeXXX

Nier's regarded as pretty average, yet you act like only GameSpot f'ed up the review. Maybe you can find something in common with the Duke supporters, after all :P

Most critics ****ed up their review, but NIER has garnered a lot of respect from the gaming community over time. For DNF, we will have to wait and see if it garners the same kind of respect.

I dunno, that argument is pretty weak. I mean, the gaming community at large hasn't really regained faith in traditional JRPGs, and NIER, if accepted like you think it is, would have the same fame as Demon's Souls holds for Japanese developed games.

However, I'm suspecting those that enjoy NIER are similar to those that currently like Duke Nukem Forever. They're not exactly the greatest games out there, but those that can get past the flaws enjoy it for what it is.

I've only read the first response and it already sound contradictory. It says all Duke does is standard for the genre, yet it has more variaty and interaction than most shooters today. Why are games like CoD scoring so high when all they allow you to do is run down the corridor and shoot the gun? You don't get to do anything else except drive a boat down a river and ride down some slope on a snowmobile. Everything they described about what a FPS requires to be good, is not found in 90% of them.

(Now I've actually read the whole thing)

I don't understand what's so bad about the platforming sections. Some parts I actually had to stand back and say "How do I get there?" where other FPSes just have you follow the NPC until it says game over. There's nothing done to mask that crap. It's a lot nicer to have some damn variaty for once.

Then they go to criticize the interactivity. Would men go around throwing a piece of **** around IRL? No. Would they in a game? It was funny just throwing it around and making splatters and throwing it at people. Would I microwave a rat? No because then everything I cook in there would taste and smell bad. Would I in a video game? Yes, because it's funny. It's no more childish than thinking shooting people is fun. Then they bag on how Duke represents the unrestricted American spirit. So what? That makes him predictable? How about all the super-serious-military-men that never utter a damn word and follow orders like an android? They never question themselves and neither does Duke. Duke does though with reason though.

It's their job to do a quality review. That's what they're paid for and that's why we visit the website. If they don't want to do that, then piss on them. Get new reviewers who can do their job.

dude if you had fun with the game thats great. thats what playing video games is all about, however the game was crappy bro....i mean compared to some of the other quality titles out there this gen....its far below the wost fps ive played. the critics, the gamers and everyone inbetween is right about their reviews. specificly because its their point of view on the game...if you cant handle it then dont read it but dont have a fit because someones point of view is different than yours....slvrraven9

The game being crappy is an opinion, therefor my opinion of it being a quality FPS and a step above what I've played this gen is valid. I hate Bayonetta and MW2 and think they're one of the worst games released this gen. There was almost no redeeming qualities about them. Yet reviewers disagree. Point is that is goes both ways.

I have a problem with reviewers who can't do their damn job though. It's not my fault they're too ignorant to review the game properly (And DNF isn't the only one.)

It's universally considered as a bad game. Get over it.

It's universally considered as a bad game. Get over it.

ImaPirate0202

I'm not angry at the scores (Except Gamespot's.) I'm angry at the reviewers who bashed it and didn't even give it a proper review (Exactly like IGN.)

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

it sort of happens here, Kevin V and Tom (LOL) Mcshea pop in every now then after a review ususally in a hype thread to answer some questions

II_Seraphim_II

If you read IGN often, you've likely noticed how large advertisements tend to pop up across the site around a game's release date. This is not something that editorial has any involvement with. The sales department of IGN and its editorial writing staff are very consciously kept separate.IGN

Too bad the same cannot be said about gamespot:P

Duke Nukem deserved no less than a 5. It's not the worst game by any stretch of the mean. It's funny at times, it's silly, it's frustrating and even stupid sometimes. But I never once expected much anything other than a Duke game...and I got one. I can name 20 games that got a higher rating and that were horrible by most of the GS community census. I don't think DN was a great game at all, but I think it is worth at least a 5 and a rental. MP is horrible though.

Just look at the average user score: PS3 - 6.4 XBOX 360 - 5.9 PC - 6.3 Gamers are not crazy. Now go look at the average user score at InFamous 2. Reviews don't matter. Personal preferences and taste does.