IGN's Unfair Reviewing Rears Its Ugly Head Again

Paul writes, "There have been issues pointed out by loyal readers of the IGN review system for a while now. Most recently we have seen the Gran Turismo 5 debacle where the game was not properly analyzed and in some cases given an unfair breakdown presented by some one who clearly hadn't finished the game (which honestly is a massive feat in itself). IGN was one of those sites.

Now IGN's Unfair Reviewing Rears Its Ugly Head Again."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
jizzyjones2830d ago

How did they score the 360 version 10 for sound and ps3 version a 9? even more bizarre when you consider ps3 supports more audio formats

ubiquitious2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Nice try, Examiner.

GT5 was panned universally by critics for not meeting expectations. Mass Effect 2 does have more audio formats and it does have extra DLC, but it also has serious anti-aliasing issues and frame rate drops. Additionally, the cost of this old game is outrageous.

Don't be fooled fellow PS3 owners. The only way we can get developers do make equal ports is to not buy them.

guigsy2830d ago

Seriously, are people actually complaining about a 0.1 difference in review? Sorry but this takes paranoia to a whole new level.

Wenis2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Well breaking down the scores I don't even know how IGN concludes each score. For example, the 360 got a 9.6 but it averages at a 9.8 if you break down all 5 sections (graphics, sound, etc.). The PS3 version gets a 9.3 when you break down all sections, but because of the change in review scores, rounds up to a 9.5.

But the fact is that when you break down the sections in each again, 360 got a 9.8 and Ps3 got a 9.3. They don't even indicate that the final score ISN'T an average, so I guess someone at IGN can't even do math let alone give an unbiased review.

So while at initial glance its only a .1 difference, it really isn't.

Dark_Charizard2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

I don't see how IGN is being unfair at all! 9.5 is a perfectly great score. If they give higher than that, it will have to be 10!

FrankMcSpank2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Examiner gave LBP2 an 8.5 so I don't see how one idiot review site can judge another. They both suck anyway..the reviewers, not the games. You can add Gamespot to this too, they are getting worse than IGN on unprofessional reviews, nitpicking, and flat out lying.

MysticStrummer2830d ago

You might want to look up "universally".

presto7172830d ago

I know that IGN switched to the 20 point scale, but I think that in this case, they should have made an exception. It just does not make sense that the ps3 version is BETTER (heck even IGN admits) but then they score it lower than the 360 version they say is inferior. Its just plain dumb.

ExplosionSauce2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

I don't mind the overall score, but...

Did they really deduct a whole point from 10 to 9.0 for sound?
That's odd.

And the same thing for graphics too, even though they say it looks better using ME3's engine?
I'm confused by this.

I'm not complaining, but it's just dumb... -_-

crxss2830d ago

IGN has one of the most retarded ratings system ever. I don't even know why they give categories individual review scores when they have 0 outcome on the overall rating.

If you average both scores out 360 gets a 9.8 and PS3 gets a 9.3.

antz11042830d ago

So was the review by the same person both times? If it was, then by reading both sides it seems like the reviewer was just "over it" (for lack of a better term) on the game itself; not half as enthusiastic about the PS3 release.

Overall though still very solid.

blitz06232830d ago

Wow people why don't you actually read IGN's rating system before bashing it. The overall score they give IS NOT the average of the 5 components. It's the overall experience of the game - look at Splinter Cell Conviction review.

Furthermore, they changed their system so now they only give by .5's - 8, 8.5, 9, etc. And anyway, why should a 0.1 difference matter?

Ryudo2830d ago Show
TheLastGuardian2830d ago

Why in the world is IGN is so popular? Most of the editors are biased. Their articles are boring and unimaginitive.

Gamesradar is such a better site. No matter what the article is about, the authors have a unique style and they always try to make you laugh. Their articles are very enjoyable to read. There editors are unbiased and funny. There podcasts are hilarious. Yet for some reason, there articles rarely ever get heated.

Maybe it's because N4G doesn't care about good journalism. All N4Gers want is a flame bait headline to comment on. Gamesradar doesn't do flame bait. It's honest games journalism and they deserve the success way more than IGN.

cobpswii36002830d ago

Dude. GT5 got trashed. It's fucking stupid. GT5 is the greatest racing game ever made, IMO. I don't give a damn about reviewers.
Anyways... 0.1 score difference? 2 different reviewers? Ok... This is dumb.

Soldierone2830d ago

Wait wait you notice all this and it affects the sound how? Maybe you should go write for IGN, heard they are hiring new anti PS3 monkeys now.

BattleAxe2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Its not that big of a deal, but it is kind of stupid to give the game 0.1 less overall, despite the fact that it runs on the Mass Effect 3 engine, has all the DLC and fits all on one disc.

If the game was fantastic when it came out, then with all of the things that are included in this version, it should have gotten a perfect score.

rockleex2830d ago

I guess they are reviewing PS3 Mass Effect compared to other PS3 games.

Of course it would score less! :P

Just kidding. But PS3 games ARE held to higher standards though.

What can be overlooked on other systems, become the "be all end all" on the PS3.

grailly2830d ago

no need to get so upset about the score!

2 different people reviewed the games, and if anything the PS3 review is better.
ME did not deserve a 10 in sound nor a 9.5 in graphics, and doesn't deserve a 10 in lasting appeal if you ask me!

just take the PS3 review for what it is, and don't compare it to the 360 review

HolyOrangeCows2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

"but it also has serious anti-aliasing issues"
BULLCRAP, troll.

"Seriously, are people actually complaining about a 0.1 difference in review?"
Read the article. Try that for once. Other ridiculous things like giving it a 9/10 as opposed to the 360 version's 10 when the PS3 has more audio options are discussed.

Let's see....
More sound options: Deduct 1 point
Better Graphics (their words): Deduct 0.5 points
Presentation, virtually no difference: Deduct 1 point

IGN "logic".....pfft.

inveni02830d ago

Wow...this is a sad article. Talk about not having facts straight. When ME2 was reviewed for PC/360, IGN used a 100 point system on a scale from 1-10. Now, they use a 20 point system on a scale from 1-10. In other words, they only grade in half steps. They can no longer give any game a 9.6. It automatically would default to 9.5.

VictoriousB132829d ago

GT5 was panned? What reviews have you been reading?

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 2829d ago
MariaHelFutura2830d ago

Who cares, IGN sucks for reviewing games this gen.

ME2 is a good game and you should all play it, if you haven`t already.

AKS2830d ago

How did either version score so high in sound? I have the PC version, and it sounds very good in 7.1, but it's not a 10/10 in terms of audio. I'm thinking 9/10 audio tops. Really well done for sure but not reference quality for gaming audio.

specialguest2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

IGN's ME2 9.5 score for the PS3 ends up being scored higher than all up coming PS3 2011 exclusives including KZ3, RE3, Infamous 2, etc.? AND ends up being GOTY for the PS3?

When that day comes, I'll be waiting in my bunker, because it's going to be all out war here, haha.

hennessey862830d ago

i can actually see a mob of ps3 fanboys attacking igns office can u imagine the news bullitin

visualb2830d ago


its a great game

its on PS3

...? whats wrong with that?

specialguest2830d ago

I don't see anything wrong with it. A great game will remain a great game.

zeddy2830d ago

if the examiner guy did his research he would know that the reviewer colin moriarty also voted this game of the year and if he'd listened to the ps3 podcast he'd known that colin moriarty is also a self-confessed ps3 fan boy. examiner are jumping on the whole ign biased band wagon to get a few more hits.

Xander7562830d ago

He voted the Xbox 360 version game of the year which is why it is so baffling to see the PS3 version (which is superior if anything) getting LOWER marks. Did you even read the article?

gamer20102830d ago

People keep saying it is superior, but is that even the case? The PS3 version has some advantages and disadvantages compared to the other versions.

It is all on one disc, but it has a hefty installation.

It has all the downloadable content, but at the end of the day it is still the same content PC and 360 gamers already got to play.

And while Bioware claimed it was going to be the best looking version and some sites mindlessly parrot that claim it isn't at all clear if that is actually the case. There have already been some reports that some of the issues that were seen in the demo are still present. If further comparisons show that to be the case it will mean that the PS3 version is not the superior version.

schlanz2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

PS3 reviewers hold games to higher standards?

I mean, I guess ME2 on Xbox is a 9.5, graphically, but on PS3, home of omgraphix, it's only a 9. Hmm?

Darrius Cole2830d ago

Compared to PS3 graphics it's not even a 9.

geodood2830d ago

Actually the PS3 supports 7.1 surround sound, for that reason alone it deserves an equal/slightly better sound rating than the 360 version.

BlackHairyTongue2829d ago

The reviews were done by two different people. So the 360 reviewer obviously liked the sound of the game more than the PS3 reviewer. No big deal.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2829d ago
Hitman07692830d ago

This is clearly some bull crap.. Sad that they can't get their stuff straight!

Jack-Pyro2830d ago

What's bull crap is that you wrote an entire article about a 0.1 difference in score.

I'd make a Cry Moar joke, but I don't think that's physically possible...

kdalnation2830d ago

IGN just keeps getting lower and lower, look how they tried not to reduce the scores too too much so they can have excuses later...

despair2830d ago

LMAO seriously people this would actually have some merit if it was the same reviewer, like Gamespot, but its someone completely different and considering they changed their review scale and review methods since ME2 was first released its not exactly unfair is it.

I often disagree with IGN reviews, but this time I don't see the issue.

WesMcLaren2830d ago

Brudvig doesn't even work there anymore, so I don't get why people are hating on Colin's review.

Score not an average

Now based on a 20 point scale instead of 100

-stop the hate-

vgcgames2830d ago

I never go to ign and this article points out why