.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers
Entertainment (Read Only) => Games => Topic started by: Deathie on October 20, 2012, 04:16:42 AM
-
(http://puu.sh/1gJpQ)
-
I guess Crytek didn't pay IGN enough.
Not like Crysis, even if it's on the 360 is one of the (if not) greatest looking games for that console.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Ironing_a_shirt.jpg/220px-Ironing_a_shirt.jpg)
-
Because you know, it's all about graphical realism right?
-
Because you know, it's all about graphical realism right?
It's more their reasoning.
Crysis is literally the best looking game on the xbox 360, but it got docked points becuase it didn't live up to the PC counterpart.
Minecraft got the same score as crysis for no apparent negative reasoning.
Basically, point systems are retarded.
-
9.5 - "It's okay."
-
It's more their reasoning.
Crysis is literally the best looking game on the xbox 360, but it got docked points becuase it didn't live up to the PC counterpart.
Minecraft got the same score as crysis for no apparent negative reasoning.
Basically, point systems are retarded.
http://teamcoco.com/video/clueless-gamer-minecraft-07/24/12 (http://teamcoco.com/video/clueless-gamer-minecraft-07/24/12)
-
It's more their reasoning.
Crysis is literally the best looking game on the xbox 360, but it got docked points becuase it didn't live up to the PC counterpart.
Minecraft got the same score as crysis for no apparent negative reasoning.
Basically, point systems are retarded.
Last time I checked, IGN went full retard when they became sell outs and sucked various publisher dicks. As long as they get another payroll from EA, it's all good to them.
-
Last time I checked, IGN went full retard when they became sell outs and sucked various publisher dicks. As long as they get another payroll from EA, it's all good to them.
To be fair, all gaming websites are sell outs. They actually kind of run the industry as well...
It's more their reasoning.
Crysis is literally the best looking game on the xbox 360, but it got docked points becuase it didn't live up to the PC counterpart.
Minecraft got the same score as crysis for no apparent negative reasoning.
Basically, point systems are retarded.
I believe minecraft was at one point (early on) supposed to get real graphics, but then Notch just called them a "style".
The PC Minecraft review is retarded because the game has bugs and glitches and shit on the release review and it got a pretty high fuckin score, ignoring all that.
-
The PC Minecraft review is retarded because the game has bugs and glitches and shit on the release review and it got a pretty high fuckin score, ignoring all that.
It's not like the bugs stay in the game for very long. When one is discovered, more often than not they fix it next update
-
To be fair, all gaming websites are sell outs. They actually kind of run the industry as well...
That's pretty much true. The industry has been ruined by them. All they do is just praise the consoles, make you feel like you're not a true gamer unless you buy $100 worth of shit for your XBL account and buy every Call of Duty release that comes out.
-
It's not like the bugs stay in the game for very long. When one is discovered, more often than not they fix it next update
IGN has given marks on their reviews plenty of times for a game releasing with bugs.
-
It's not like the bugs stay in the game for very long. When one is discovered, more often than not they fix it next update
I hear when they fix one bug like 30 more are created. I wouldn't really know though. I dropped minecraft after playing for 5 minutes.
That's pretty much true. The industry has been ruined by them. All they do is just praise the consoles, make you feel like you're not a true gamer unless you buy $100 worth of shit for your XBL account and buy every Call of Duty release that comes out.
It's not really even that though. It's more of that all reviewers all paid off. A lot of people hate this, but there is literally no way around this. If they weren't being paid, they would stop running the site. No one would ever know about games coming out(unless they post it on like their official site, but that's a pain in the ass to check for everyone), no one wouldn't know anything about games. I mean in a since they pretty much run the industry. There scores usually also have a huge influence on people even though they shouldn't.
IGN has given marks on their reviews plenty of times for a game releasing with bugs.
Yep. When something is called the full game, it should be treated as so.
-
It's not really even that though. It's more of that all reviewers all paid off. A lot of people hate this, but there is literally no way around this. If they weren't being paid, they would stop running the site. No one would ever know about games coming out(unless they post it on like their official site, but that's a pain in the ass to check for everyone), no one wouldn't know anything about games. I mean in a since they pretty much run the industry. There scores usually also have a huge influence on people even though they shouldn't.
Uh, that sounds a little too extreme.
If they stopped getting paid to review, they'd still generate enough ad revenue to keep the site up and produce other shit, like the daily "Let's play minecraft" and "another generic call of duty commentary, VO'd with my important future updates".
-
You know how you beat these people? You don't give a fuck about them.
It's not that simple though.
You have to passively show how you don't give a fuck. Why is this important? Because negative publicity is still to much. Here's a good example:
"Meh. I've known that IGN gives flawed reviews for a long time now. If you guys don't like them that much then why don't you ignore them?"
See what I've done? I've expressed my distaste for IGN while simultaneously suggesting that I don't care about them and stating that you shouldn't care about them too. You see, the more people don't care about IGN the less weight its flawed reviews hold.
-
You know how you beat these people? You don't give a fuck about them.
It's not that simple though.
You have to passively show how you don't give a fuck. Why is this important? Because negative publicity is still to much. Here's a good example:
"Meh. I've known that IGN gives flawed reviews for a long time now. If you guys don't like them that much then why don't you ignore them?"
See what I've done? I've expressed my distaste for IGN while simultaneously suggesting that I don't care about them and stating that you shouldn't care about them too. You see, the more people don't care about IGN the less weight its flawed reviews hold.
Doesn't mean you can't speak out on how much of a horrible pile of shit they are. It doesn't exactly get them much more attention than they previously get.
-
Doesn't mean you can't speak out on how much of a horrible pile of shit they are. It doesn't exactly get them much more attention than they previously get.
Well, that, and the attention you're giving them is negative, meaning anyone who reads what you're saying about them will shine them in a negative light.