Top
250°

IGN Posts Review, Gets Called Out by Dev, Edits Review

Gamerevolution: In my opinion, a reviewer should complete a game and try to experience as much of it as possible. Details of this rule of mine can come later, over tea and cakes, but what brings this up is IGN's review of PixelJunk SideScroller. Maybe the pressure of scowling bosses and quick deadlines made this reviewer crack and take the easy way out -- or rather, easy way through, as the case may be.

Read Full Story >>
gamerevolution.com
The story is too old to be commented.
PirateThom2238d ago

He's definitely right to edit the review and all reviewers should make changes if they are misinformed or they find they are incorrect but he should definitely point out, on the review, where and why he edited. Don't just delete it after pretending you played the full game but got caught out by the developer.

This isn't just a problem with IGN though, most reviewers just aren't playing the games properly or past easiest difficulties to run through as quickly as possible and, on this occassion, he got caught out.

Sev2238d ago

I am by no means defending this reviewer. But I believe it boils down to the nature of games journalism and the lure of bringing in more pageviews (and ad impressions) by being first to the web. Couple that with publishers who send review copies late and Editor-in-Chiefs who set demanding dealines, and reviewers must rush to get their review out.

Take this for example. Warner sent out copies of Batman to some reviewers as late as launch day. At that point a reviewer must skip sleeping and play the game nonstop to get a review out as close to release date as possible.

There's a lot of finger pointing that could be done here. This reviewer was dishonest and got caught lying. Instead of apologizing and doing damage control, he took the easy way out and swept it under the rug.

ftwrthtx2238d ago

There should be no excuse for a reviewer for not actually playing the game. Regardless of when they got their copy or download code, they owe it to their readers to give the game their full consideration.

Deadlines be damned, reviews should be done properly.

pangitkqb2238d ago (Edited 2238d ago )

There is nothing wrong with playing on casual. The problem is that this reviewer LIIED about it. That's dishonest journalism.

I'm glad to see him being called out. This will be a hit storm. He wont make the same mistake again.

doctorstrange2238d ago

Why some people think they can change something on the net, and that no one will notice.

It really wouldnt have been that bad if they'd updated it.

pangitkqb2238d ago

That's an excellent point. Peole aren't nearly as averse to updating something as they are to hiding things. well said.

knifefight2238d ago

And yet everyone gets all excited whenever they post a new review and somehow gives them more credibility than other sites. It's really bizarre how people's brains work.

clearelite2238d ago (Edited 2238d ago )

Indeed, a subject worth much study. It is genuinely bizarre how people equate mainstream/popular with quality/honesty.

JonnyBigBoss2238d ago

Pathetic. This is why I prefer smaller sites with writers who really love games versus it just being a job.

ftwrthtx2238d ago

I'd rather post a review several days after the original rush of reviews and have plenty of time invested in it.

despair2238d ago

problem is when you want a game launch day these smaller sites don't have the reviews up for sometimes a week after release. They are too small to warrant review copies and so bigger sites have the advantage in that department.

Also one reviewer does not represent the entire website. I read a lot of articles from IGN, reviews and otherwise, and I know which reviewers opinions I trust more that others from my experiences with the games and what was written in their reviews.

I also never rely on one review to determine if I want a game and sometimes ignore them all and get the game anyways. Its all about balance and never as cut and dry as "smaller site reviewers really love games and big site reviewers are just for the money".

Many reviewers on sites like IGN are passionate about games, automatically thinking that because someone works for a big name site they are just "corporate" is foolish.

ftwrthtx2238d ago

How can you truly review a game if you haven't played through it? How is that an honest opinion of a game?

Pintheshadows2238d ago

It's like Joystiqs Brink review all over again. What an awful practice. If a film reviewer only watched 20 minutes and said "that'll do, I have seen enough to review it" he'd get slayed.

Show all comments (29)
The story is too old to be commented.