@Beast_Master
craptacular take like the fact that he gave inFamous 1 a 9.0/10? Or maybe the fact that he mentioned on his podcast that he has to disassociate himself from reviewing the game because he would give it a 9.5/10 regardless of the flaws? Try harder next time.
@NateCole
If you don't have enough brains to respond with a valid comment don't say anything at all.
@DualConsoleOwner
The only concern the reviewer has is that the camera is really wonky when you go into melee mode, which can clip through into the buildings. I assume this will be fixed once the game ships.
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).
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 incorr...
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.
The fact that you dodged away from my inquiry demonstrates that you do not have any evidence to support your fallacious claim.
AND if I wanted an intelligent discussion, I will have conversation with my University Philosophy Professors about how ignorant and stupid people can be, citing your responses as a prime example and prepare a dissertation on how Dirty Beaver represents the idiocy that accompanies anonymity on the internet.
@JoySticksFTW
Please refer to Despair's post above about "HD Makeovers". Like he said, you must consider how this game stands to current benchmark titles being released. If it cannot compare, why give it the same score those many years ago?
@Dirty Beaver
"catch the thief in the act"-->show me the evidence, otherwise your argument is null and void, and you do not deserve to discuss this issue intelligently.
Would you like me to PM you a comprehensive list instead? I will say, that it will take a while, because there are a lot of very good scores =P. Also, you will discover that IGN's scores are either inline with the metacritics/gamerankings average or even higher in many cases.
"IGN is on MS payroll". So taking this statement into account, we are assuming that any score given to a "Sony" related game will be low?
PS3
Uncharted 2 = 9.5
inFamous = 9.0
God of War 3 = 9.2
LittleBigPlanet2 = 9.0
etc etc etc...
PSP
Tactical Ogre: Let Us Cling Together = 8.5
Dissidia Duo Decim: Final Fantasy = 9.0
MGS Peace Walker = 9.5
Parasite Eve: The 3rd Birthd...
Or maybe after you take off your tinfoil hat and read the review, you would understand the faults of the package. Additionally, I never knew that a 7.5/10.0 is considered "bad'.
****@plb, refer to my post below regarding an extract of PS3/PSP games IGN reviewed. Also, listen to Podcast Beyond and then tell me if they are not the most biased PS3 fanboys ever =).
Although the IGN reviewer's language might have been somewhat excessive, he really did not say anything that was inaccurate.
Firstly, the review score is pretty consistent with a lot of the other reviews out for the game. On GameRankings, it shows that GameInformer, GameTrailers, VideoGamer, 1UP, and others gave Crysis a 9.0. Moreover, the reviewer (Arthur), criticized both Killzone and Gears for their muted brown colors, which indicates that he was being consistent in hi...
BEYOND!!!
Yeah, it is the same person. Arthur Gies reviewed both versions. He explained his review methodology on his blog here:
http://www.ign.com/blogs/ar...
In terms of whether or not the PS3 runs just as well, we should wait until Digital Foundry publishes their analysis on Saturday.
Not quite sure myself. Could have been a technical issue on IGN's part. Maybe they uploaded a rough draft accidentally for the 360 version. Stuff like that happens here and there.
So based on that last state, "Its sad when these sites give games good reviews for graphics only." You automatically concede that Killzone 3 does not deserve good reviews because it is differentiated based on graphics.
**Fair enough. As long as you are consistent in your argument. I like that :)
If you check the PS3 version of the review, you can see that Arthur mentions the AI deficiencies. Not sure why the PS3 review was more detailed than the 360 one.
****Nevermind, the 360 review was updated with the extra information.
That's why Uncharted 2 got a 9.5 or how MGS4 got a 10. Give it up.
mmhmmm. That's why IGN gave Dissidia Duodecim a 9.0 or maybe Tactical Ogre: Let Us Cling Together an 8.5. How about Street Fighter 4 - 9.3. Maybe Demon's Souls...9.4. Let's try MGS: Peace Walker - 9.5. So...I don't see any hate here.
You want to know why he has no trophies? It's because (90% of the time) reviewers receive copies of the finalized code of the game before they hit retail shelves. Hence those games do not work properly on a regular PS3. They have to use the PS3s (debug versions) at their office in order to properly play them. As a result, Greg does not have trophies on his personal account because he can't play the Yakuza 4 review code on a regular PS3.
@Rage_S90
That was GameSpot, not IGN. IGN gave R&C a 9.0/10 while GameSpot gave it a 7.5/10.