ign.gamespot...

**odpr** · 08-14-2004

very funny,
either ign been paid by Microsoft, or I really can't explain why almost every game is in the editor choice... they are really funny, they really have no Idea about video games, not like gamespiot, when they give a grade to a game, it's almost every time exect.

**Koopa** · 08-14-2004

Originally Posted by odpr

very funny,
either ign been paid by Microsoft, or I really can't explain why almost every game is in the editor choice... they are really funny, they really have no Idea about video games, not like gamespiot, when they give a grade to a game, it's almost every time exect.

uh..i find it to be the opposite. gamespot nitpicks on certain games that don't deserve it, and praises others that are crap. their doom 3 review is a perfect example. i've followed IGN for a little over 4 years, and have agreed with almost all of their reviews.

but i think theyre both paid off by EA....or heavily influenced by the nice advertising money

**odpr** · 08-14-2004

I think that gamespot are really professionals, take a look t the games they give high score, you don't agree with them ?
they simply don't fall for the eye candy gfx, and all the hype games have around them if thy think it's crap they say so, the other sites give such high scores to gas and with no reason at all
IGN site every game is an editor chosce does it look serious to u ?
take a look at driver what gaemspo t did to it, and many holy cows that they simply kill..
p people some time get upset because they wait for a gmes so much time and when it finally arrives gamespot kills it.. .but it's the cold hard truth, that's pro.

**AlBoogy** · 08-14-2004

If youre gonna start nitpicking you have to give examples. To me though, Gamespot is the best place for reviews and IGN tends to rate games a little higher then they deserve. Not to say its always like that just most of the time.

**Sexaya** · 08-14-2004

I disagree. I think IGN are complete professionals, and above that I think their reviews (high score or not) are very informative, and I haven't felt mislead by any of their reviews. Gamespot however, tend to skip on some information and besides I believe that Gamespot are ps2 fanboys altogether. But that's just me.

**l Maximus l** · 08-14-2004

I think they're good, however, it's completely beyond me when they rate a ported PS2 game that's on XBox lower than the PS2 version. I just don't get it.

**The Jackal** · 08-14-2004

i trust ign when im lookin for ratings and informative reviews and updates on developing games

**Snowblind** · 08-14-2004

When Doom 3 recieved an 8.5 then I lost all faith in Gamespot.

EDIT:Ya I know what you meen Max. I hate it when anybody rates a ported game lower then the original as grapics and console specific add-ons being the only possible changes to the game.

**Variation-XBA** · 08-14-2004

Never was a fan for gamespots reviews anyways.... IGN > GAMESPOT

**TOTTEN** · 08-15-2004

I like ign better but if a game besides ea games get a high score they are must have games.

**SPARTAN VI** · 08-15-2004

Never really liked GameSpot. I disagree with their Doom3 rating, for one. It's like Koopa said, "they ran through the entire game with god mode and sissy mode to get the review out before IGN" and "they're probably just upset because PCGAMER got the exclusive first look".

I trust IGN more than GameSpot, but most of all, I trust PCGAMER. PCG and I have meet eye-to-eye on every single review. Only exception would be the obvious Halo port.

**odpr** · 08-15-2004

They are pro no doubt about it I will give a very good example, rocky in IGN as usual the best game on the planet, editor chose, in gamespot it got completely fail , why ? because they found bugs that u can play the game and finish it without moving at all, this is pro work , this is how u should d test games, Ign have no clue what so ever how to check games, the focus on things that aren't important, give me an example like what I gave just now ... you won't find it. About doom again great review, they didn't kill the game they said it's good but it has nothing new in it, for this u need a big balls, and by the way doom got nice score, I really don't know what you are talking about.
about gamespot being a fanboy of playstation, at first I thought so my self, but if you check now, most of the games got the same score on every console, and they really looking into the game and not taking anysides, I can't count the times that they recommended xbox version over all the other version, they even recommended to play the famous gTa in xbox format, not ps, this is a playstation site fanboys?

**Koopa** · 08-15-2004

Originally Posted by odpr

They are pro no doubt about it I will give a very good example, rocky in IGN as usual the best game on the planet, editor chose, in gamespot it got completely fail , why ? because they found bugs that u can play the game and finish it without moving at all, this is pro work , this is how u should d test games, Ign have no clue what so ever how to check games, the focus on things that aren't important, give me an example like what I gave just now ... you won't find it. About doom again great review, they didn't kill the game they said it's good but it has nothing new in it, for this u need a big balls, and by the way doom got nice score, I really don't know what you are talking about.
about gamespot being a fanboy of playstation, at first I thought so my self, but if you check now, most of the games got the same score on every console, and they really looking into the game and not taking anysides, I can't count the times that they recommended xbox version over all the other version, they even recommended to play the famous gTa in xbox format, not ps, this is a playstation site fanboys?

hey, its greg kassavin!

lets lynch him!

compare the doom 3 score to the painkiller one, then tell me they know what they're doing.

**AlBoogy** · 08-15-2004

I lost my faith a long time ago when they rated WWF Raw and Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions both 9.1. More recently, they proved what goofs they are over there by giving Rid**** an 8.5.

**OC Noob** · 08-15-2004

Originally Posted by AlBoogy

I lost my faith a long time ago when they rated WWF Raw and Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions both 9.1. More recently, they proved what goofs they are over there by giving Rid**** an 8.5.

That doesn't sound very pro at all.

They were stupid enough to rate those two games over Rid****???

Geez, it must've lost a whole point for being on the Xbox, not to mention those games suck. How the hell could you give Yakuza Missions a 9.1???

**Crazy Joe** · 08-15-2004

Originally Posted by Maximus

I think they're good, however, it's completely beyond me when they rate a ported PS2 game that's on XBox lower than the PS2 version. I just don't get it.

they rate for the system, Xbox is a better system, so they expect a better game, if the game is ported straight with no advances, it's gonna get a lower score since Xbox can do more, especially in the graphics category.

**CMX Jedi** · 08-15-2004

i dont trust any of those.
i think EGM is better

**LTM360** · 08-15-2004

Originally Posted by Doobus48174

i dont trust any of those.
i think EGM is better

I'd have to disagree, and say EGM quite possibly has the worst reviews I've ever read. Not at all informative, and they do not explain any reason at all for their reasoning for the giving score. Case and point: the ESPN vs. Madden review, they started a conversation... that was the review, a conversation. I mean, fine, Madden gets higher, I don't care, but at least explain to me in depth why Madden is better, and don't repeat the same thing over and over in a conversation with another reviewer. "Yeah I total agree with Kevin on this..." etc. etc. it's crap, and it isn't the only review that I thought was insanely uninformative (Shadow Ops).

I personally think Gamespot is harder to please, and IGN is too easily pleased. Which is entirely why I like Gamespot better, though the reviews aren't as in depth as IGN's, they are explained as to why they gave it such and such score. However, IGN breaks down each category at the end of the review which is great. Gamespot has a very good, yet bad review system. I don't like how the game is scored on Graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. And yet, I do at the same time, I just wish as a final score they would do as IGN and do an average.

**Jamo** · 08-15-2004

Gamespot does nickpik and they bash a game DOOM 3 for example because it offers nothing new FPS wise... as if it's a bad thing. They expect EVERYTHING to have something NEW and EXCITING everytime a game is released. They can never review and enjoy a game for WHAT IT IS!!! Although ign maybe a little lenient I'll read their reviews and see what I think for myself plus I like them better.

I personally don't read the score they give a game because they're all most likely horribly inaccurate. Just read about what the game has and what it can do and go from there. Gamespot is to negative it's always (in a squeaky sarcastic voice) 'oh this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong!' Thay hardly ever talk about the good aspects of a game unless they greatly overwhelm the bad points by a landslide.