The editors at IGN read the vast majority of the comments. This is what happens when they respond to them.
The last comment was awesome.
"The motion blur looks great, the textures are sharp. All of those things combined result in a game that for Xbox 360 is, in my opinion and the opinions of a number of other IGN editors, the best looking game on consoles." Crysis 2 was one of the most overhyped games of 2011 If KZ3 shipped with even half of the issues Cry2 had it would have received a much lower score. ▪ the story and acting was average ▪ SP gameplay was boring ▪ jaggies everywhere! ▪ sub-hd texturs for both versions ▪ text pop-in to the extreme much more so than any other game I've play. you couldn't walk a couple of feet without seeing some degree of pop-in. ▪ AI was a glitchy POS ▪ MP was boring and uninspired and the maps mediocre at best And yet you gave it a score of 9/10 Yeah! Moving on... buh-bye IGN
they will miss you... move on.
Lol, this was a good read. Good for ign...
I'm not going to comment on the actual reviews, because I had and still have no interest at all in reading them, but I never get why people rage at reviewers including their opinion. The whole basis for a review is opinion. The actual amount of "factual" stuff that would/could go into a review is incredibly minor, and would result in something that resembles a Lens Of Truth article.
there is no room for normal, well thought and objective opinions anymore in this cloud of opinions we call the internet. Its either black, or white. Yet in the real world, it is shades of grey.
very well answered by IGN.
is ign really that insecure about their review that they have to reply to trolls and pissed off people. its almost like ign is n4g!! hehe
It's almost like they have an agenda. Strange.
Agenda in the sense that they are actively engaging their readers and trying to cut out the stupidity that is plaguing their comment section? Then yes, they do have an agenda. Its obvious that they are trying to highlight how inaccurate and uninformed people's comments and perceptions are. I mean seriously, if Arthur played the whole game and others have yet to, I'm pretty sure he knows a heck of a lot more than those individuals who claim they are king shit of the internet.
@ chaos there a lot of reviewers at IGN who dont finish the game before they review it and a lot of them dont even take the time to explore the game see what its about and would probably guess they put the gameplay on easy just to rush through it. The problem with IGN is that their reviews lack credibility not that people just disagree with their opinions.
@Chaos Striker I don't mean to sound like anymore of an ass then I already do but, try another sucker please.
I mean no hostility in my comment (I apologize if it came off as brash). I just wanted to highlight how uniformed some people are and how it is essentially a cancer for other people trying to have a civil conversation. I am sure you would react the same if someone said "you suck" every single minute of every day (I mean no disrespect, by the way).
@Chaos Striker I didn't disagree with you but IGN and civil conversation doesn't go together very well. They have some good articles from time to time, but they love the flamebait.
Dont see the need to reaffirm what he said ... not like they lied .. whats up with his insecurities anyway.
It's mostly to call out those idiots who constantly flame their comment section. You should see a lot of the immature and ignorant comments that are detracting from real discussions occurring within the comment section. Also, it's not so much insecurity as it is challenging the ignorance of people. Countless commenters claim they know more than the reviewer in every single review that gets posted. Something has to eventually give. How would you feel if you were incorrectly criticized day in and day out? (no hostility to you of course, just using an example) ***agreed :)
true to what you say ppl, do rush and blast stuff on their keyboards out of an emotional outrage without actually thinking first.. what can one say.. benefits of the internet, one can be "anonymously stupid"
i feel like if they really werent insecure about their review they wouldnt have said anything. if they really felt it was an accurate review they shouldnt even bother with the trolls. it just makes them seem as petty as the the people who get in flame wars. and its not like posting this is gonna stop the thousands of tards out there who wanna comment and troll or argue. if they really want to "debate" do it in the comments with them, not in an article where no one else can answer back.
@Laika Why can't they just answer back in the comments beneath the article?
i love IGN and their insecurities.
This is where people attempt to trap IGN. If they don't respond, you all will continue to criticize them. If they do respond, you all will call them insecure. They are just trying to clear their name. If people started bad mouthing you off of information that was inaccurate, would you just let that spread around or would you say something? I guess in the end, someone will always find some kind of excuse to attack something they disagree with.
Some of those comments brought up valid points, regardless of angry tone. IGN firing back with an editorial about how their $*#% doesn't stink doesn't really backup any of their points, especially since people have now played the game at length and know when someone's blowing smoke. Example. Gies said the AI was super. It's actually pretty darn dumb, on all platforms. Campaign is quite boring initially as many other reviews have said. The object/texture pop-in is legendary. Hit detection online is poor. Silent protagonist is underwhelming. Hardly the 2nd best shooter on the platform with issues that other shooters (including COD) don't even have. You can literally cloak walk through the entire game on Supersoldier difficulty and barely fire a shot. The pacifist's shooter, lol? Ok Arthur. Don't get mad if people disagree with you in a post BioShock/HalfLife world. His parting shot at NES games is a bit cheesy too. Yeah you can beat Contra in 30min, but you sure as heck can't nano-walk through 9/10 of the game invisible either. Not without a Game Genie. Silly IGN. :p
Its odd how he's so sure "it's a fact" that the 360 version is superior when so many sites dedicated to comparing the differences were less than sure about it. He goes on about those "facts" while saying reviews are based on opinions. Hmm. I was under the impression there was no clear "winner" between the two. And of course the pc version is a lot (not just a bit) prettier. IGN shouldnt be replying to comments like this really.. It's stooping pretty low for a supposedly top tier news site.
Yeah, exactly. I'm confused. I have actually written articles on how much misinformation IGN puts out. One time when I did put one up, the writer for the article (free lancer) came to our forums and got really mad. He was a good guy, I just don't understand the need to do this.
Yeah, one of his quotes from this article is: "[The PS3 version] got a lower score because it runs worse than the Xbox 360 version at a lower resolution, and is missing lighting effects in spots and has lower res shadows as well. Those are facts." That's not the impression I got from Digital Foundry, so where does this guy come off calling it a fact? According to DF, the PS3 version runs at a more consistent, smooth, and playable framerate even during high-intensity situations whereas the 360 version tends to cripple, and the 360 version has screen tearing, while the PS3 version is V-Synced. The PS3 version's resolution is actually very slightly lower than the 360 version's, but not so much so that if you played one version one day and the other version the next day you'd ever actually notice a difference, plus DF mentioned that there is some special post-processing that goes on that completely mitigates any difference in actual resolution. And DF mentioned that shadows don't render properly and look grainy in the 360 version in some situations, as well. The issue DF pointed out was that sometimes shadows appear behind the texture instead of on top on the PS3 version, but that when the shadows are working, they are higher res than the 360's grainy shadows. Both games have some glitches here and there which make performance and appearance take a hit. To go on and on and ON about how the PS3 version is factually inferior when you don't even know the facts makes your opinion/criticism kind of worthless Arthur Gies. You're pontificating about things that the rest of the gaming media and all physical evidence directly opposes you on.
Seems he's too defensive over his review (as evidenced by the fact this article even exists) to be able to objectively see the visuals' flaws. I lol'd when he brought his friends into it, saying other IGN staff side with him. Is this a popularity contest too? I'll just pick out one of his arguments. He says it's the "best" partly because of large levels. Thing is there's literally nothing to see or do in 3/4 of the level space. Yakuza/GTA it ain't. Kicking a car into a garbage can on the wrong side of the map isn't a great trade-off imo for all the visual pop-in/pop-out during objectives. Far Cry 2 was a far larger FPS than Crysis 2 and even had weather, day/night cycles, fire propogation AND great graphics without the issues Crysis has simply loading a lamp post or its shadow. Shouldn't that technically make Far Cry more impressive to him? He's still ignoring the tearing too. In the interest of fairness, that's a lot of cheeks to turn for an alleged masterpiece. I guess some people called him on it, albeit with some colorful language.
"According to DF, the PS3 version runs at a more consistent, smooth, and playable framerate even during high-intensity situations whereas the 360 version tends to cripple" yeah, in the very very rare situations where that happened, the PS3 held up better. BUT - and its a HUUUUUUUUUGE "but" - for the other 99.5% of the game, the 360 version has a higher and more consistent framerate. win for the 360. "and the 360 version has screen tearing, while the PS3 version is V-Synced." the 360 version only had what, less than 1% screen tearing? and when it tears, it tears at the very top few lines of the screen, making it virtually unnoticable to the person playing. v-sync is what makes the PS3 versions framerate lower than the 360 version. so they effectively made the framerate worse for 99.5% of the game just so that in <1% of frames there wont be a tear in the top few rows of pixels that noone notices anyway. "The PS3 version's resolution is actually very slightly lower than the 360 version's, but not so much so that if you played one version one day and the other version the next day you'd ever actually notice a difference" well thats not entirely true. looking at screenshots of the 2 versions you can tell that the PS3 is running at a lower resolution, especially when you look at the difference in aliasing. also, the difference between the PS3 version and 360 version in terms of resolution is pretty much EXACTLY the difference between the 360 version being full 720ps 1280x720 and being 1154x720 that it is natively. so essentially, what youre saying is that if the resolution difference between the 360 and PS3 versions is not-noticeable then the difference between the 360 versions slightly lower 720p and regular 720p is not noticeable. therefore the fact that its 'sub-hd' isnt an issue on the 360, but it is on the PS3 because its twice as far off 1280x720 than the 360 version is. "plus DF mentioned that there is some special post-processing that goes on that completely mitigates any difference in actual resolution." well no, they just mean that with all the post processing - bokeh, DOF, heat haze, etc - that it is harder to see the native resolution, much like how the 70+ post processing layers in Alan Wake make it look much better than its geometry resolution by itself. but the difference is still noticeable. "And DF mentioned that shadows don't render properly and look grainy in the 360 version in some situations, as well." its not that they dont render properly, its just that they render DIFFERENTLY on the 360 than on the PS3. theyre not higher resolution, theyre just rendered a different way. looking at them side by side, its not a matter of one looking better or worse, just slightly different. but the PS3 version, as has been pointed out, has some problems with offsets on its shadows. the 360 doesnt. the fact is that the PS3 version is technically inferior. - lower resolution - lower framerate 99% of the time - shadow offset errors - some post processing effects not as good
Crysis 2 (PC)checkpoints I would rather save a game when I want to, is that to much to ask for so I dont have to listen to the wife getting angry because my dinner out. Only kidding I just shut the door over lol
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.