|
So I like IGN. They are one of the best gameing sites on the planet. In addition to reviewing video games, they also cover comics, movies and tv. Today, IGN released a video and article reviewing the long awaited sequel to Brood War. Now I will mention that IGN has let me down a few times as well as giving me warm and fuzzy feeling on ocassions. One such time of the former was when they gave CoD: MW2 a 9.5 (out of 10) and needless to say, I was pretty pissed. It was just another generic FPS game and you'll find thousands of others. It didn't do anything ground-breaking. However, when they gave Super Mario Galaxy a perfect score, I was overjoyed. I wanted to personally go to every 360 and PS3 fanboys house and give'em the finger. Anyway, back to the story.
To say that Wings of Liberty is impressing some folks is saying that A Clockwork Orange wasn't a good move. The scores are very good. GameTrailers gave it a 9.5, GameSpot scored it a 9.6 and GamesRadar gave it a perfect score along with VideoGamer.com. Again, I was super-psyched about these numbers and then I read the review and score.
They gave it a 9.
After reading a review where they basically praised the game and watching a video where they didn't touch on any negatives whatsoever, they gave it a 9.
I am super pissed off while writing this and I'll site some examples first being the most obvious.
This game was scored lower than another generic and, quite honestly, shitty game in Modern Warfare 2. In MW2, you kill hundreds of people in an airport. In the written review AND video review they didn't mention it once.
Not one time. It has to be one of the worst levels in a video game and they didn't even touch on it on lousy time. Another part of the review that pissed me off was when they say some of the lines are cheesy. Who cares? I've always said that if you are being told a story, and if it is engaging and if it capture you're attention and IF you are enjoying it, dialouge shouldn't matter. It's presentation shouldn't matter, what's being said is a factor but shouldn't hinder the plot and lines shouldn't matter.
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome. The multiplayer has bugs but its what makes StarCraft, StarCraft and the visuals are stunning if you don't have a low graphics card. You see what I did? I just wrote a better review then IGN did in about 3 sentences. This game deserves a better rating then some others right now (including Joe Danger whatever the hell it is) and it's another prime example of why IGN has let me down.
And finally, yes I know I sited Call of Duty and Mario on a StarCraft site so let me say this to you the reader. One, if you don't like it, don't read and defenitely don't comment on it. Two, I don't care what anybody says in the comment section, CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS besides Halo S-U-C-K! There's nothing revolutionary in the games. Three, stop hating on Nintendo because if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have the PS3 or 360 and by extension the awesome games that we have today on console. Finally, StarCraft is the best, the greatest, the be-all-end-all, video game franchise. There is no debate about it. It blows everything out of the water.
I'm done. Maybe this picture will cheer me up.
![[image loading]](http://www.walrusbucketsaga.com/images/01-i-has-a-bucket.jpg)
Ha ha. Classic.
 
|
I liked what you said until you said "CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FPS BESIDES HALO SUCKS"
Call of Duty 1 was far better than any of the shit spewed games theyve produced today and marketed as "FPS" games
SC2 should still have gotten a 10 though i dont disagree
|
oh no a video game publication gave my favourite game one point lower than i think it deserved
who fucking cares
ok i actually read your whole post
its like every generic internet opinion in one goddamn
|
There are several reasons it shouldn't be a 10, not the least of which are the lack of multiplayer features (which will undoubtedly be argued here in great length). There's also the issue of their archaic ranking system and placement system, the underdeveloped map-developer section, and the region-locking.
|
OH NO A FUCKING 9/10 THATS SO TERRIBLE NO ONE WILL EVER BUY SC2 AGAIN BECAUSE IT ONLY SCORED A 9 WTF.
User was warned for this post
|
i think starcraft 2 deserved a 10 too
hi5
|
SC2 is definitely not a 10/10. They released the game before it was even fucking complete.
There's so many things missing from b.net 2.0 it's embarrassing.
The game itself is okay though.
|
a 9 is ok.. no need to rage..
|
No game should ever score a 10/10, but SC2 did not deserve a 9.
|
9 seems about right to me, don't see why you care so much.
|
On August 04 2010 09:57 prototype. wrote:
SC2 is definitely not a 10/10. They released the game before it was even fucking complete.
There's so many things missing from b.net 2.0 it's embarrassing.
The game itself is okay though.
This. SC2 is not a 10/10 game. 9/10 seems appropriate considering bnet2.0's short comings. Hopefully Blizzard brings it up to 10/10 by the time the second expansion is released.
|
9 is great.
MW doesn't deserve a 8. But Activison bought the grade to boost sales, why not?
|
|
|
On August 04 2010 09:46 supernova wrote:
Really, there is no reason this game shouldn't be a perfect 10 out of 10. The campaign, from what I've heard because I don't have enough damn money to actually buy the game, is awesome.
umm...
Seriously though, I stopped caring about online game ratings since MGS4 and GTA4 on the PS3 both got perfect scores. Sure both games were good but I have played better games in my life. Does that mean those games deserve a rating above perfect?
The only use for online reviews are to help you decide what game you would like to spend your hard earned money on. Almost any decent to good game with awesome graphics now can manage to get an 8.5 and up. It's just the other details that satisfy different people's needs. No single website can create a rating that satisfies the entire gaming population.
|
United States47024 Posts
I think an 8.5 or 9 is appropriate for SC2, given the B.net 2.0 issues, but I also think MW2 deserves way worse than a 9.5.
|
On August 04 2010 09:52 arb wrote:
I liked what you said until you said "CALL OF DUTY AND ALL FPS BESIDES HALO SUCKS"
Call of Duty 1 was far better than any of the shit spewed games theyve produced today and marketed as "FPS" games
SC2 should still have gotten a 10 though i dont disagree
Definitely agree, CoD1 and expansion still the best FPSes I've played
|
I just can´t help but laugh my ass off when they talk about the Characters beeing cheesy or twodimensional in a fucking RTS?!?!
I mean come on there are many RPGs out there wich are much more liveless than the characters in sc2.
|
What is wrong with you. I think it is disgusting that Starcraft 2 has no negative reviews. Games never get negative reviews. They just get a 75% or some shit. Game reviewers need to stop being pussies and instead of doing half objective bullshit in their reviews just say what they think about the game. There should be plenty of negative reviews for Starcraft 2. When I look at a great movie like Inception there are plenty of negative reviews. Real critics actually give their opinion. Game critics are a complete joke.
|
On August 04 2010 10:08 Clamev wrote:
I just can´t help but laugh my ass off when they talk about the Characters beeing cheesy or twodimensional in a fucking RTS?!?!
I mean come on there are many RPGs out there wich are much more liveless than the characters in sc2.
What is wrong with you? Some one enjoys different aspects of games than you so even though in the end they give the game a massively positive review (when it probably shouldn't if they have a problem like that with it) you still get all butthurt. Sad.
|
On August 04 2010 10:04 Jyvblamo wrote:![[image loading]](http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/312144020_oNG2h-L-2.jpg)
Thank you for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
