Why the Dragon's Dogma Reviews are IGNorant Journalism

Wesley Copeland of VGI writes...

"Normally I would welcome a difference of opinion. People holding their own ideals on what makes a game great is often a compelling read. I love hearing people's different thoughts and feelings, especially when it contradicts that of my own. Whether that be reviewers or everyday readers. After all, no one single person's opinion is more or less valid that someone else’s.

My problem with these so called “objective reviews” is that many of them are wrong."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
grailly2395d ago (Edited 2395d ago )

I agree with the premise of it, but the complaints are dumb. One reviewer says that an aspect of the game isn't as polished as skykim's or DA's, he not comparing the games directly. putting "IGNorant" in the title while IGN is not even criticised is another very unprofessional move. Then he goes on and complains about how the score gets ported over into metacritic? yeah, anything he says now has no more value to me....

the problem isn't really ignorant reviewer as much as it is the scoring system that's broken

Blastoise2395d ago

Iv had enough of this running "Cant spell Ignorant without IGN" joke. I rarely agree with the scores IGN give on games but I still respect the opinions, and i enjoy the read.

Solid_Snake372395d ago


Nice try IGN employee

SAE2395d ago

Have you ever read Gt5 review ?.. Its the worst review or even the worst comparing i ever saw , they compare gt5 to forza instead of the old games or review it as its self , they didnt know how to play it so they write stupid things , i even doubt that they played it , they just played it less then a day and reviwed it Despite of the bad things in gt5 it worth more then 9 , theydidnt even mention the good stuff of gt5 , they just search for the bad things instead of telling the people of the good things , if they have advises they should send it to PD , but the review only mention the bad stuff

xAlmostPro2395d ago

I dislike IGN personally however this writer who thinks so highly of himself is a bit of a, well i don't wan't to say hypocrite as such but let's look.

When he quotes the joystiq review, you can see he starts the quote mid sentence. This is so he can take that section out of context and suggest the writer has flat out said "because the game isn't Skyrim or dragon age it's bad"

When in fact the whole paragraph of the review he quoted from gives a clear reason as to why the writer didn't like the quests and compared it to Skyrim.

Joystiq quote(original paragraph)
"Quests that advance the story are only tangentially related to The Dragon's appearance, sending you to roust out a goblin infestation or investigate a cult, but never sending you to actually go look for or attempt to learn about The Dragon. Seraphina always had something to do, but it never felt important. The vast majority of quests feel like they've been randomly generated by an algorithm parsing tired RPG tropes. It may never stoop to "go collect twelve wolf pelts" levels of inanity when it comes to main story quests, but it's nowhere near as sophisticated as Dragon Age: Origins or Skyrim in terms of its plot arc or its ability to construct a compelling narrative"

This guys snippet and reasoning
" “main story quests, but it's nowhere near as sophisticated as Dragon Age: Origins or Skyrim in terms of its plot arc or its ability to construct a compelling narrative.”
This is a critique? That Dragon's Dogma isn't Skyrim or Dragon Age? This is the level of reviewing now, to state that a game is not like another game? Dragon Age is nothing like Skyrim or Dragon's Dogma, what's the point?"

I'm all for sticking it to the man and fighting poor journalism but i'm also getting annoyed with these sort of "we're not as a big of company but hey look how much better we are and watch as we point out the flaws of their reviews"

Just as bad, good game journalism is good, it's that simple. There's no greed or comparisons needed be it from game to game or reviewer to reviewer. Trolls and fanboys excluded people can tell if the rview is nonsense or not we don't need sites commenting on other sites and declaring it 'news'.


Ducky2395d ago (Edited 2395d ago )

That's all I saw in the article as well.

Just quotes taken out of context, misinterpreted, and then bashed based on those interpretations.

The whole '7/10 should not equal %70' bit was also silly.
For someone trying to point out the ignorance in game journalism, the article's content was pretty ironic.

Revolver_X_2395d ago

I personally like Dragons Dogma better then Skyrim. Other then main quests, most side quests are boring and repetitive. Lets be honest about Skyrims lack of an interesting combat system.

Most reviews for Dragons Dogma are largely inaccurate, me being 20 hours in I would know. Pawns pose as a big help as to enemies and direction. ALL one has to do is listen. So the claims of endless roaming around is inaccurate. The game can be difficult, but so is Dark Souls. Difficulty should be mentioned in a review, but shouldnt effect the score. Just because the reviewer lacks skill doesnt mean it sucks.

I recommend everyone take every review for any game with a grain of salt. No review has ever determined my purchase of game. Do your own research, its called youtube. I dont wanna hear any crap about reviewers giving indepth details. Now days most reviews seem to be as insightful as the videos on Youtube. Chances are if your spamming reviews for a game you wasnt really interested in it to begin with.

Nimblest-Assassin2395d ago

This is a problem I have noticed a lot with gamers, and that is this idea of us caring about the opinions of multiple journalists... why do we do this?

The problem is the fact that most of the time, these journalists get the game first... we just watch what they played/ see and then have to make the choice of purchase based on the information they provide. Demo's and betas are the greatest form of marketing because people can try your product, and decide wheter they like it... without having to rely on someone elses opinion. But the problem is now thanks to sites like metacritic and N4G, people care about everyones opinion on a game.

Because no one ever has the same opinion... and we will always disagree with the review credentials. Since people compare dragons dogma with Skyrim.... how come many reviewers gave Skyrim the free pass when it came to bugs floaty melee combat... but hammer a game like Dragons Dogma? It makes no sense, because reviews are so hard to trust, because suddenly people review a game differently based on random credentials.

The best example is Uncharted 3 and the AV club. The reviewer Scott C Jones, unfortunatly I will see him, but ignore him at the upcoming fanexpo hyped the living hell out of Uncharted 3... but suddenly gives it a C... for the strangest reason.

He gave Uncharted 2, a perfect score... but blasts U3 for being the same. When the summer beta came out, I shit you not he said "it contains so much joy" and gave it a 9. The full game comes out, he says he doesn't care for it.(fun fact: they edited out him saying he thinks the game is not not good and his mp rant because it didn't correspond with his previouss statements, and his long rant on it) (beta review)

http://www.reviewsontherun.... (full review)

And thats why its hard to trust reviews, because you do not know the credentials they used to review the game

I do not like numbers, because they are a cheap way of getting attention, and because thats where everyone checks first... the number

Fishy Fingers2396d ago (Edited 2396d ago )

So what your saying is if you want an "honest opinion" (clearly something this site doesnt believe in)then we should come to you, VGI (who?) for our honest opinion right?

Do we really need, articles covering IGN (or other big sites) reviews? Can we not read and decide what to think of it for ourselves? Are you so in need of something to write/complain about?

ZoyosJD2395d ago

Dude, we need his input just as much as we need yours. Hes just as much entitled to speek his mind as you.

And this is not just an opinion. He's pointing out a lack of objectivity in several reviews, as well as some more professional ones.

"Are you so in need of something to write/complain about?"

Same goes for you.

ColinZeal2395d ago

Reviews aren´t supposed to be objective, they are always one man´s opinion, SUBJECTIVE.

Bimkoblerutso2395d ago (Edited 2395d ago )

I don't know why people fail to understand this. There is no objectivity in a review. The word "objective" nowadays is thrown around to the point that it has become absolutely meaningless.

It is generally understood (by those that are not otherwise blinded by nerd rage) that a review consists purely of observations based on a given authors experience with something. When an author says "Dragon's Dogma's story does not compare to Dragon Age," they are speaking on purely subjective terms, because gauging the quality of a storyline is not objectively quantifiable. The same can be said of basically every category of critique.

"Lying" would be saying something like: "Dragon's Dogma only runs in 480p."

ZoyosJD2390d ago


Of course reviews are subjective; they are an opinion.

But I expect some level of obectivity and professionalism in "professional" journalism. Some reasoning behind why someone feels a certain way is an obligation in reviews that seems to be meet less and less nowadays.

When we don't understand their reasoning, we don't understand their tastes that produce their specific feelings toward a game, and then we can't compare our tastes with theirs until we pay $60 or whatever to try it ourself.

Kamikaze1352396d ago

Somebody crying because a reviewer had a different opinion? Now THAT is being ignorant.

Baka-akaB2396d ago (Edited 2396d ago )

He might be whining , but he's not completely wrong . There something weird about some of those reviews , without feeding into conspiracy theories .

I chalk it up to the usual level of incompetence of big sites like IGN ALONGSIDE a clear bias toward blockbuster games .

Those guys have been constantly comparing smaller , lesser known and plainly obscure titles to powerful counterparts that actually got nothing to do with the games being judged .

Case at hand Dragon's Dogma . It is in very little way or shape like Dragon age , and hardly similar to Skyrim . If roaming a land freely is enough for that crap , they bring on some red dead redemtpion vs skyrim .

Worse , even if we were to accept on their premises those faulty comparison , it even get unfair .

All of the those big titles , Skyrim again in this instance , had reviews usually in the range of perfect 10 scores , glossing over their flaws however big or minimal they might be , or even ignoring technical issues that are apparent to common players .

And suddenly they wanna do the job properly and find the flaws in titles like Dogma .

Basically they give free passes to most big titles , and vent their frustration onto smaller ones

Captain Qwark 92395d ago

its actually really simple. many sites, ign in particular rate titles like this....

1. lots of hype / big name franchise. automatic 9 min.. flaws / tech issues are irrelevant

2. given exclusive review or are advertising on the site. automatic 9 min.. flaws / tech issues ignored once again.

3. any other game, do their job the way it was meant to be done.

now to be fair when the game doesnt fit the first 2, igns reviews are actually pretty decent. im not sure what dragons dogma should deserve although from the description in all the reviews i read, an 8.5 sounds about right. either way i picked it up and will know for myself later today. that said, skyrim is weak sauce, DA is amazing. having played both of those and the demo for dogma, the only thing they really have in common is a fantasy setting, all three play drastically different so i agree with baka that it is a wack comparison.

either way its all irrelevant, just buy the games you want. thats my policy. i look to reviews to see what features a game has and other info about its gameplay. from that i determine my buy, i completely ignore their opinion since i can form one for myself.

lastly, if i did trust any reviews or opinions, its never been disappointed by their reviews.

mananimal2395d ago (Edited 2395d ago )

EXACTLY, just more propaganda & reverse psychology methods. They NEVER do these type of EXAMINATIONS for The Established Franchises, only the smaller more obscure ones. They HATE that alot of gamers enjoy & would rather play this game than the Bigger Branded Titles(Bethesda's SkyPOOP or Bioware's DragonTURDS)lol they attempt to shove down gamers throats every year, with Big Marketing dollars & 9`s, 9.5`s, & 10`s review scores across the board DESPITE the FLAWS. PAID SHILL`s on there soapbox, SILENCE you filthy DECIEVER`s.

admiralvic2395d ago

"All of the those big titles , Skyrim again in this instance , had reviews usually in the range of perfect 10 scores , glossing over their flaws however big or minimal they might be , or even ignoring technical issues that are apparent to common players . "

No matter how you, me, and others feel... many state they loved it regardless. Our site does GOTY off USER votes and Skyrim won by a landslide.

Hozi892395d ago (Edited 2395d ago )

Great Point. I think what is going on these days is that big review sites like IGN and a few others reached a point where its no longer about playing a game and giving honest to good feedback to us the gamers. no instead, if a game developer doesn't give them what they want,(free stuff, money, etc) they bash their game to possibly damage the sales. I mean
every gamer with common sense knows that a games difficulty isn't something to whine about, especially when it doesn't hold you back from exploring the main story/quest of the game.

and while I love Skyrim, I can't deny that the game came filled with bugs that took a lot of the fun outta it. Yet still, we don't hear them complain so much about that and if they do they still give it a 9-10 score. Where is the sense in that?

Show all comments (51)
The story is too old to be commented.