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.

[PirateThom]

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.

[Sev]

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.

[ftwrthtx]

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.

[pangitkqb]

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.

[doctorstrange]

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.

[pangitkqb]

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

[knifefight]

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.

[clrlite]

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

[JonnyBigBoss]

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

[ftwrthtx]

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

[despair]

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.

[ftwrthtx]

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

[Pintheshadows]

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.

[Cyrax_87]

LOL @ pic

[ftwrthtx]

and should be slayed.

This reviewer should be banned from future reviews

[jack who]

its all most 2012 ppl still listen to reviews?

[knifefight]

Derp derp derp because wanting ethical reviews is the same as getting down at night and praying to reviewers, and A = Z, and all that hurdurrr...

[TheDivine]

I can understand not beating every game for a review. Some reviewers played dark souls for 30hrs and reviewed it without seing the ending but they had an idea of the game as a whole. I can play something like deathspank halfways and know enough to review it. Just dont mention the ending if you havnt seen it and let people know that you got so far in and its fine. DONT LIE! Most reviewers never finish, imagine having to finish huge rpgs, mmo's, racing games, it just isn going to happen especially on a deadline. If it does they rushed and didnt take time to enjoy it. Id rather someone play half a game at their pace (exploring and tinkering with stuff) than rush.

Honesty is best, lying is bullshi* and im glad they got called out on it.

[Sobari]

Typical IGN. They'll always be the laughingstock of reviewers.

[D3stinySm4sher]

Fact: Not all reviewers can (or NEED) to play entirely through a game to review it.

Problem: There isn't a lot of transparency about this in reviews and thus people EXPECT things to be a certain way.

This is what happens sometimes as a result.

[knifefight]

Re: "Fact: Not all reviewers can (or NEED) to play entirely through a game to review it. "

The "can" part is a fact, but the "need" part is an opinion, according to, y'know, the definitions of the words.

[MaxMurdoch]

wow what a shame

[littlezizu]

reviewer has played the game in casual so wat...the experience is not gonna change alot in normal difficulty... besides the diff in this game for completing in normal is gettin a cutscene which does not make difference to the game review of it... I think ppl r still mad IGN gave U3 10/10 and r tryin any & every chance to bash the site... Accept the fact IGN>>> most review site especially Gamespot..

[Zechs34]

It makes a difference in this particular review because the reviewer complained specifically about the end stages and sequence... he played on casual, therefore missed what is obviously considered a big part of that ending sequence and then complained about it...

The reviewer is a douche. Simple. And btw, the way Dylan called him out was very professional and justified.

[stormeagle6]

IGN got pwnt yet again.

[BigWoopMagazine]

This is why I always play my review games in normal mode. I always want to have a standard to judge games on, and assume that normal mode is intended for the average consumer, and is therefore most relative to the review.

I too though always have some fear that I'll put my foot in my mouth by talking about a feature I think doesn't exist, only to find out later it does. I always beat games I review, but often times it's impossible to explore every nook and cranny in depth and get the review published in a reasonable amount of time.

[Oaklnd]

gotta let the reviewer do his or her thang on it