Game ratings... (gamespot, ign)
 

Why does IGN ALWAYS give higher scores than Gamespot?

I mean, I don't believe I've ever seen a single game that gamespot has rated higher.

If I go to IGN and a game has a 9.2 for instance, I know that on gamespot, it'll be something like an 8.7.

Or If go to gamespot first and a game has a 6.7, I know on IGN they'll have a rtaing of like 7.5

So like what's the dealio, is it their rating system or what? ...Though I've known gamespot to pass "questionable" judgements on games more than half the time.

It probably has to do with their ratings systems and the personal taste of the writers...

Yeah, IGN inflates their shit a bit.

Like Xero said, it's probably just the personal tastes of the reviewers and such that dictate the averages. Gamespot isn't quite as generous though. You can usually take off .5 from whatever IGN gives something and you have GS's rating.

One thing that boggles me though is the reviews for Shadow the Hedgehog. A fucking 4.9 for it. As a huge Sonic fan, I pre-ordered this months ago, and I've been playing it since the week I got SvR '06 as well. On that note, I have NO idea how they got a 4.9. The average fan rating is somewhere around 8 - 9. A lot of that COULD be devotion to the Sonic series, but there is NOTHING (Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, etc.) in Shadow that constitutes a 4.9.

Meh, sorry to get off topic, but that bothers me. I think all of the game review sites were all passing something around when they reviewed that.

ON topic though, I think a lot of it depends on the hype of the game. Halo 2, for example, had TONS of hype, and the scores reflected it, whereas more obscure, less advertised titles get swept under the rug somewhat. Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari are exceptions to that one though. Those games are considered somewhat cult classic-ish, but still managed to get extremely high ratings from IGN (for good reason), but not QUITE that high from GS.



- Edit -

Off topic again, Jason Cage, you are the man. July 24th born here too. REPRESENT. :cool:

I think Gamespot has done a much better job in the past few years giving fair scores. I remember when games would easily get about 9.5 or above. I know both Chrono Cross and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 both got 10s. It just seems absurd to me that any game is perfect.

I don't look at IGN much, so I really don't know about their ratings.

Chrono Cross got a 10?

Wow. I love that game so much (CT beats it by a bit though), but to give it a 10 is crazy.

Gamespot is pretty good for reviews, generally. I like to base my game purchases/rentals on a combination of Gamespot and EGM's reviews.

I'd rather have stricter reviews than inflated ones.

Ìn a world where every game is "The best game ever," and every possible word of praise has been used to death, I say more power to people who don't hype up games beyond their support. IGN tends to be a more devlaued sensationalistic approach.

For reviews I go to Judgment Day, X-Play (both TV shows,) and EGM mag. Pretty fair balance between them.

I adore Judgment Day, but I hate Tommy Tallarico with a fiery burning passion.

The scores aren't really a big deal, whats written in the review really counts.

Which is probably where Gamespot and IGN fall down because they are both usually incapable of writing anything that gives you a decent overall impression of the game.

I dunno Gamespot is usually clear enough. Actually, Gamespot writers usually sound pretty negative, even when talking about good titles.

It seems like a lot of magazines/review sites, etc. tend to focus on the LEAST important thing about the game.

For example, a few of the flaws in the ONLINE play of SvR '06 got it a 2.5 out of 5.0 from Gamepro, equaling out to a 5/10 rating. I don't know about you guys, but online to me is the LEAST important thing about it. Never play online hardly, and I usually HATE playing online. Can't stand this thought that "Online gaming is the future", especially when so many people are tools online.

Gamepro completely neglected to mention the new OFFLINE features, such as the GM Mode, Title Defenses in Exhibition, etc. They basically centered their WHOLE review around the online section, and that's what is responsible for the lower score.

They're pandering to the majority of gamers. The minute you put online in a game, rabid fanboys will buy it no matter how shitty the game is. I'm working on licensing Pong, making it online, and chargign a subscriber's fee. People will rank it up there with HALO.

One of the things Day of Reckoning 2 was HAMMERED over was lack of voiceovers, while the total and utter shite that was storymode was ignored. Lack of voiceovers ruined it? Fuck that. Try shitty story, lack of quality, and no replay value. It can't go online? Wow, that's nothing compared to the fact that hit detection actually took a hit.

Voice overs are bad in wrestling games, because you can't have a branching story mode.

I mean, maybe a few phrases here and there from each wrestler like in WrestleMania The Arcade Game, but even that would get repetitive.

You could have branching storymodes, but it would require thousands of hours of footage.

Gamespot has always seemed hyper negative to me.

Yeah, that's what I sad. Better than being overly positive tho.

That's true. I'd rather have a lower rating, pick up a game and find that it's FAR better than what I imagined it would be, as opposed to getting a super jesus rating and finding that it's not quite up to par.

(It would depend on the rating....but) Yeah that's the thing...the lower rating would dissuade some people from getting it.