Former IGN Employee Admits Review Scores Skewed

I don't believe it this. Former disgruntled employee looking to take shots at his former employee. Seen it a dozens of times. Not saying it isn't possible that this happens, but I don't believe this person when they have zero proof.

 

i don't know, there hasn't been any scores that i've seen that i completely disagreed about. i know that doesn't mean that they aren't motivated by other reasons that make then biased.

 

...

 

It's really impossible to avoid bias when reviewing games and other entertainment. Even when trying to keep an open mind about something, there is just something innate that can tip the scale one or two points that seemingly makes a psychological difference between an 8/10 and a 9/10.

Of course, there are many other factors besides having a bias that can "skewer" the scale. Whatever the case is, I am attentive about who is reviewing it, complementary with what is being reviewed.

 

I have never really 100% trust game reviews to begin with. Don't allow someone to judge a game they believe to be horrible when you yourself might think it is one of the greatest games you have in your library. It can go vice versa as well. I have played dreadful games that people said were fantastic. It is all preference people.

 

I was wondering why every cod game got such a high score. The only decent cod games are cod 4 and world at war. in my opinion anyway.

 

The problem is that this may be more accurate than you realize. Remember the case when Gamespot's review of Kane and Lynch was a 4/10 and immediately afterward, the review's writer was fired? Notice that bigger and more commercial sites tend to score popular, but rehashed games like Madden and Call of Duty and constantly give 9s and 10s, while smaller, less commercial sites like Kotaku (credibility based on their tendency to report on minor and insignificant rumors notwithstanding) and Blistered Thumbs will give the same games much lower scores? Likewise, less popular, but still rehashed games like Dynasty Warriors (saying this as a Warriors fan) get low, mediocre to average scores from the bigger sites, but sites like Blistered Thumbs give them scores on par with the popular rehashed titles.

The point is, I question the ethics of IGN and Gamespot editors for several reasons, this kind of news is just one of them. And take it from me, a journalist, if a journalist doesn't follow journalistic ethics and has no journalistic integrety, then they should not be trusted.

See, the thing about reviews is that they are ultimately opinions. Professional and journalistic reviews are usually done with the writer eliminating as much bias as possible, while looking for things that make what they're reviewing unique or well made, ultimately tying it up with their opinions. So preference isn't the only thing that goes into a review.

Another point against Gamespot and IGN reviews are the occasions when the writer will admit bias against or for what they are reviewing. This should never ****ing happen. It is their JOB to look at the games without bias and go into it with a clean slate. If they can't get over their bias for or against a game, they should not have been assigned that game in the first place.

 

I will admit, that did seem a bit fishy, and it could hint towards scores being bought. I still don't consider it proof, which is really what this is all about. I'm not going accuse someone of something so corrupt with no evidence at all.

Call of Duty they do give good scores to, but with Madden, every Madden game until this year has been called out on rehasing the same material, getting lower scores, and the reason why it got a good score this year was because they really did change a lot by adding a new physics system and created a new "connected careers" mode. People are saying it's good, so it could just be good this year. As far as Call of Duty, what's wrong with giving Call of Duty games good scores? Like you said when replying to Myst, reviews are essentially writer's opinions. I rarely play a different genre of game outside of RPG and Strategy, but I actually found Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops to be pretty fun. Valve basically makes a new IP and then "rehashes" it over and over again as seen with Counter Strike, Left 4 Dead and even DOTA2 being too close of just a remake of the original. Nintendo does the same thing with Pokemon. It's just good business when you find something that is successful, you keeping making that thing until it's time to move on.

But don't you think that maybe Kotaku, RPS, and BT all their own agendas as well? Just because they aren't getting paid off by a publisher, doesn't mean that it's not possible that they change their scores based on other factors, their fan base being the biggest factor. The IGN fan base is different from the RPS fanbase, which is different than Kotaku, etc. Each site needs to stay in business, which means they need to have a strong fan base, and have an overall "theme" to attract more people of the same fanbase. Like I said, I'm not going to accuse anyone of changing scores, but if one site can do it for money, than so can another site. IGN is all about big blockbuster AAA titles, and RPS is all about the hardcore PC gaming crowd. So of course they're going to hire journalists who are fans of those particular things.

 

Good business or not, the point still stands. Again, like I said, I am a fan of the Warriors franchise and am also a fan of Pokemon and many of Nintendo's franchises (though, for the most part, Nintendo is formula, not rehash). A rehashed game is not necessarily a bad game. It just means that little has changed and, usually the game is released once a year. Again, while reviews are ultimately opinions, they are professional, journalistic and educated opinions. They aren't only based on how much the reviewer enjoyed the game, but on how well the game was built, how new and original the content is, how much value the reviewer feels that players will get out of the game, among other things.

The problem with a game like Call of Duty is that, every year, it is the same multiplayer game with a short single player that, in today's age, could have been a $20 expansion pack to Modern Warfare. World at War was Modern Warfare in WWII, Black Ops was Modern Warfare in the Cold War and Black Ops II, if history is anything to go by, will likely be Modern Warfare in the near future. They have consistently featured very brief, 3-5 hour campaigns and the same basic multi-player with a few new maps and weapons.

This does not necessarily make them bad games, however. AAA titles? No. They really offer no more content than what could have been an expansion to the first Modern Warfare, which, I think is inexcusable if they're going to charge $60 for them, but it doesn't make them bad. They are well built games and even their most vocal critics admit that they do have their moments. However, they also have serious issues. The multiplayer requires no real strategy and is just point and click and try to get as many kills as possible before you go down yourself, the single player campaigns have unimaginative, unrealistic and cliched stories that wouldn't be out of place in a Michael Bay film and are, again, too damn short to be worth $60.

As for Madden, if they actually changed it to make it effective a new experience, great! But if it still plays the same way and feels the same way, new physics or not, it is not a new experience. Again, it doesn't necessarily make it a bad game, just not a truly great game.

Well, Blistered Thumbs is probably the most ethical gaming site on the net right now and their mission statement flat out states that they trying to serve the readers, which is exactly how journalism should be (side note, BT is the only site I know of that game Modern Warfare 3 below an 8/10 by giving it a 5/10 (average) based on what I said above and more). Kotaku abandoned any sort of scoring system to avoid the usual problems with scoring systems. Believe it or not, but many developers actually use reviews to find constructive criticism, even their game is acclaimed.

Based on what I've seen from Gamespot and IGN, they've stopped serving the readers. This is very frustrating to me as I see the importance of journalistic ethics. It is inexcusable to let ANY advertisers make any decisions in a publication. If they pull funding, then you do what you can to find new funding and soldier on. Gamespot and IGN are more than big enough that they don't need to resort to compromising their ethics to keep advertisers. If they refuse to send review copies, you publish an editorial to explain the situation, then write the review based on a retail copy. If your reviews are trustworthy enough, it will make them think twice about refusing review copies. Ethics are probably the most important part of journalism and even being under suspicion of fixing scores should send up a red flag.

In fact, video games is the only medium I can think of where reviews have such problems with ethics. Film studios have learned to accept poor reviews because most film reviews have solid ethics. You don't see Ebert changing his mind about the Twilight films just because the studio threatens to pull their advertising. I don't know what we have such a problem with video game publications.

Also, side note as it has stopped being relevant at this point, but I actually don't know the credibility of the OP's source. I probably should have looked at it first. Meh, I'm going to blame the fact that it was about 12:30 and I had just gotten home from picking up Assassin's Creed III and, as such, am tired.

 

I don't doubt the accuracy of this article when it comes to IGN to be honest. I've had my beef with their reviews for a long time. Thing is, they're one of the big review places, and they have lots of bills to pay for all the genuinely cool stuff they do have, so it only makes sense they cater to the guys who give them the big pay checks.

Which is why I stick to the little guys for reviews, along with Yahtzee, because he and I somehow end up always having for the most part the same opinions on games.