Just watched Ign's review of From The Gallows
I know its been a little while since they reviewed the finale of A New Frontier but I seriously don't get how they can give it an 8.4 'Great'
I'm sorry I just felt I had to post this and I would like to hear your opinions...
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Honestly, I was ragging on TellTale hard for this season, particularly for the super long delay between episodes 2 and 3, but I was really pleased with Episode 5. Was it perfect? Not at all, but it was quite good and I was quite happy with my ending. I'd probably give Ep5 a 7.5 or 8 out of 10 and Season 3 as a whole a 6.5 or 7.
Don't worry, not understanding their ratings is the second most common reaction to IGN, just behind closing the page in confusion and disgust
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'd honestly give it a 4 or a 5.
I'd do the same. Episode 5 had some clear issues, but I was satisfied with it.
IGN has always been bad at reviewing games. Here is an example:
Metal Gear Solid 5 The Phantom Pain 10/10
The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt (Which won the GOTY) 9.3/10
Alien Isolation 5.9/10
Outlast 7.9/10
The Evil Within 8.7/10
Outlast 2 8.3/10
Resident Evil 5 9/10
Resident Evil 6 7.9/10
Resident Evil 7 7.7/10
How much they rated resident evil 4
9.7/10 If I remember correctly.
What about REmake?
Above 9 is what I remember but they rated the HD Remaster 8/10
MGS and Witcher 3 pretty much earned their rankings though. Personally I would give MGS a 9 because of the ending but I could see how people would excuse that.
Ign? Serious reviews?
People have differing opinions?!
ᴵ ᵖᵉʳˢᵒᶰᵃᶫᶫʸ ᵍᵃᵛᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᵉᵖᶦˢᵒᵈᵉ ᵃ ⁹/¹⁰
Even as a fan of MGSV and not The Witcher 3, I don't think it's fair for MGSV to have a better score than Witcher 3.
Well, that mostly just boils down to "Subjective opinions". The rating "IGN" gives to the game, all depends on the one, singular, person who reviews it. This is why I think that IGN, or even many other review websites, should always offer a second opinion. One person shouldn't be the end all, be all, of what the website rates the game.
The basic offenders of this in your list are:
MGSV vs. Witcher 3.
Alien Isolation:
This was reviewed by Ryan McCaffrey. He did not enjoy the game. His main, possibly wrongful complaints about it were: "a.: It’s impervious to your weapons – be they a pistol, shotgun, flamethrower, or crafted items such as Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs. In fact, only the latter three of these can even annoy the alien enough to force it to temporarily leave the area. and b.: playing on Hard difficulty – which I only did because Isolation actually describes it as “the recommended way to experience the game” – was a terrible decision. It means the Xenomorph can get you anywhere at any time, giving you no opportunity to avoid death, and run you down if it hears so much as a pin drop. Sure, a flamethrower blast or Molotov cocktail can ward it off for a moment, but alien-repelling resources are extremely scarce. Don’t make the same mistake I did."
First off: The fact that you can't kill the alien was a given. It was plastered onto many articles with the devs, and would not make sense game-wise. If you're being chased by one, singular Alien for the entirety of the game(-- yes... I know.) It would be too easy to kill it and be rid of the scares for the rest of your game time. Second, he admits he played the game on Hard. Even if the game says: "This is the recommended way to play", and it is the hardest difficulty the game (at the time) has to offer, don't do it! I think many people who played this (or, well, at least I did) played the game on Normal for the first time. He died time and time again, not knowing how to defend himself properly (as you can see in the video review, he had a flamethrower many times when he dies with the alien, but did not use it.) Yes, the game did drag on a bit too long with this huge Android-only section for 60% of the game, as the alien didn't appear as much as those horrible robot enemies... but if Ryan played the game properly, and he was good at it, it would have gotten at least a 7/10.
Outlast 1 vs. 2:
I have not played Outlast 2, so I don't know how I feel about it, but for the gist of it: They were both reviewed by two different people. Differing opinions. Marty Sliva vs. Lucy O'Brien.
Evil Within (I have no comment, I barely know what that game is and if it was well-received or not) was reviewed by Lucy O'Brien as well.
RE5 vs. 6 vs. 7:
These were also reviewed by 3 separate people. Ryan Geddes for RE5... Richard George for RE6.. Chloi Rad for RE7.
Well, those guys SUCK.
Eh, disregard what they say.
If IGN and I actually agree on something in a game, its pure coincidence just because they are so full of shit in almost every regard. They give really inconsistent scores for certain games and they always seem to pick the least knowledgeable person in the entire company for a certain genre of gaming to review that particular genre of game.
I wouldn't worry too much about the score. Can't spell ignore without IGN.
MGS 5 and TW 3 are quite accurate ratings. Both are excellent games.
I'd definitely rate Alien: Isolation higher than outlast thought, AI has been a solid 8/10 for me while Outlast was a solid 7/10.
Can't say much about the rest of the games.
Yeah, I'm playing MGSV right now, it's my favourite stealth game of all time. I tried Witcher 3 once but I got bored of it after playing it for 2 hours.
Alien Isolation deserved a sequel, that's for sure. Outlast 2 was so fucking disappointing.
I watched a Let's Play of OL 2, and I really didn't know what to make of it.
Outlast had the Walrider and the cool psychiatry, and a decent story.
But OL 2 was just something about a cult and what not. The game itself was OK, the story was meh though.
I've never understood major review sites or organizations. What''s the point in cranking out these reviews that people have no attachement to? When it comes down to it, it's still only one persons opinion, but when they put up this very objective and formal front, it loses the personality and interest of an opinion, and it feels more like a product from a corporation. Why should I care about what some schmuck from IGN thinks about a game? Their opinion holds as much merit as literally anyone else's, but it's somehow different because it's their job to critique games. If I'm gonna watch or read a review, I want to read it because the personality it's attached to is interesting and I actually give a shit about what they think. With IGN, it's just some person I've never heard of talking about a game.
I'm not sure how anyone could give this anything more than a five. Conrad just leaves, David stops chasing whoever he was going to murder at the end of episode 4, whoever you saved gets killed off pretty unceremoniously anyway, Max, Lonnie, and whichever leader lived are just erased because they might want to cash in on it later, and David fights you regardless of your choices. It was not as bad as Ties that Bind but it was still really bad.