Just because IGN grades something not to your satisfactory does not mean to make it in the General Game Chat section. Besides we all know not to really trust IGN when it comes to review.
Have you read the complaints for this game? Story mode is weak, controls are easy to learn which means more spamming, graphics are strange, few game modes, and worst of all; DLC. 8.5 isn't bad. You're acting like this game deserved a perfect score.
Playing devil's advocate here, but since when has story mode been important to fighting games, easy controls are generally a good thing and don't automatically mean more spamming, "strange" graphics were inevitable considering that its a crossover of multiple franchises and would you mind elaborating on the game modes and DLC complaints? Anywho, when was it that the gaming populace declared that any score lower than 9.5 is not worth playing? Hell, a few years back, the "average" score was said to be about 7.5. Games have been getting rated at a 4 point scale for years now and I'm sick of it. 8.5 is a great score, but yet, we have people *****ing and moaning about it not being higher. The reason for this is simple, the scoring scale is this: 9.5/10: Must own 9.0: Great 8.0/8.5: Average 7.5 and lower: bad Do you see the problem here? The scale should look like this: 10: Must own. 9: Amazing, but not necessarily must own. 8: Great, worth the money to buy. 7: Above average, try it before deciding on it. 6: Average, might be worth it at a discount if you like the genre. 5: Below average, worth messing around with, but nothing to call home about. 4: Mediocre, avoid. 3: Bad, really avoid. 2: Terrible, don't touch with a ten foot pole. 1: Makes you wish you were dead. Notice that I don't include decimals as that's just pointlessly making the system more complicated. There's a reason a lot of reviewers have abandoned the scoring system. EGM has used an A-F grading system for years (though their at least used to be quite good, I don't know how they've been since they relaunched), Kotaku doesn't even score things anymore. The only reviewer I know that still uses a score system that actually uses it how its supposed to be used is Blistered Thumbs, who few people know about since they've only been around since October. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a four point scale if its used properly and presented honestly. I mean, movies tend to be rated like this: Four stars: Must see. Three stars: Above average to great, still worth seeing. Two stars: Average, nothing to go out of the way to watch. One star: Mediocre to bad, not worth playing money for. The difference here to the "10 point" scale I posted earlier is that the four star system tends to be presented accurately and honestly, as opposed to leaving over half the scale under the same category of "bad."
I think that's a pretty good score, and if anything should be changed, in my opinion, it should be lowered. I though it was a pretty decent fighter, and the only reason it kept my attention was because of what Super Smash Bros did. Put all of your favorite characters from two franchises together. They did it well, but it didn't really lack depth for me, and the fights eventually got a little boring. That's just me though. There's a difference between someone not liking a game, and it being overrated.
It's not new for IGN to bitch about a game. It's been a proven fact that they will drop scores for big titles if that company doesn't hand them any favors and will knock off tons of points for the weakest points ever. Just wait until Duke Nukem Forever comes out. They're the only guys who are literally whining because it doesn't play like Call of Duty, with all other journalists saying it's tons of fun. I'm going to address your points because you've obviously never played the game let alone a fighting game before. Spoiler Story mode is exactly the same as it is in any other fighting game. You go a few rounds with various characters and fight the boss at the end just like every other one. If you buy a fighting game for the story then you should honestly check into a mental facility though. Controls being easy to learn is to allow more people to play the game which I'm all for. Why would you want to punish people who honestly want to play your game since a vast majority of gamers are not going to sit for hours learning how to master a single character. Plus it's easy to tell who's a spamming idiot and if you're good in this game you'll know how to smack them down. Graphics are stylized after comics. Sorry for not getting super realistic graphics for your COMIC BOOK game. They look fucking fantastic to me. Personally I don't need any stupid modes like score attack, time attack, or beating up a lame car. Give me multiplayer and I'll have fun doing what you're supposed to do with a fighting game, which is fight other players. Last point shows how much of a sheep you are. Companies make money off dlc so of course they're all going to include it. If you ran a business you'd do it too because your goal is to make money. The only on-disc dlc was Shuma, parts of Jill, and the first set of alternate costumes anyway. Shuma was only on there anyway because Capcom had finished him and wanted him in the official roster but Marvel told them to make him dlc. Be happy that those are it since many companies keep dlc they release months later on the disc, Capcom just had some dumb costumes and 2 characters which will cost around $4 when it's released and that's a great price for actual new characters.
honestly...its a B and that's really good. just because the score isn't what you would think it is doesn't make it wrong. personally..some of my favorite games got lower scores than i would have given them. IGN is being objective and trying to give average consumers a realistic idea of what they are buying. so calm down.
It's funny how the "accepted scale" for videogaming (ex. >9 are the only good games) can be compared to stuff like school. Some try-hards can only accept 90s on tests, whereas they cry about an 85. Is the whole world going MAD? D:
This is another example of people using the stupid 7-10 scale in reviews. No wonder publications don't go below 7 because people flip if something gets a 8. If I got 80% of a test I would be jumping for joy. No matter what way you look at it 8.5 is a great score. Well above average. I hate people who think anything around a 7 is crap. Besides IGN fails for completely different reasons. Look at their Pokemon Black & White review. They blanked out the embargo'd parts and posted an incomplete review just so they can say "FIRST". Don't get my started on their Dead Space 2 review.
IGN never really got God Hand did they. XD But on the flip side, you can't compare the 2 games. A 7.5 for a game like Imagine babyz is completely different than a 7.5 for hardcore games. Their score is and should be based on genre and similar titles it's being compared to. Ok sure it got a 7.5 but it will be nothing compared to a 7.5 shooter game or whatever. Different games are targeted at different people and I bet Imagine Babyz is decent to those it's meant for.
I think I only found one Review for IGN that seemed a bit unfair and that was KH2. Agreed the game play was way simpler and hearing everyone from the worlds go "Sora! Donald! Goofy!" did get annoying, but it should've at least gotten an 8. MVC3 in my opinion got a good score. (Though a 9 would've been nice)
