Jump to content

Some reviews (aka "IGN, WTF?)


DarqueDragon

Recommended Posts

I was looking for reviews of this game after seeing a myyahoo article from IGN having a review. The differences between them, Joystiq, and Game Informer are so different that I just had to say something.

Joystiq gave it 4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Game Informer gave it 8.5 out of 10.

What did IGN give it? 3! 3 out of 10.

I am just...shocked. IGN yet again has shown they don't know what they are doing. If it's not CoD or Halo, they don't seem to care.

For anyone interested, here are links to the reviews:

Game Informer

Joystiq

IGN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because IGN gave it a 3 doesn't mean they are wrong. If the article has poor justifications for the low score, then I can follow your logic.

 

*Edit*

 

And as I read through the review, I agree with you more. They claim that the beat-em-up genre isn't very "good" anymore, yet they also highly rate Castle Crashers and Scott Pilgrim. Both of those games are more modern in terms of design than this Double Dragon reboot seems to be, but that is a bit of a contradiction.

 

Regardless of the point, if the reviewer in question doesn't like beat-em-ups, he shouldn't have been given the task of reviewing the game. Regardless, I have a feeling that I'm not going to enjoy the game very much. It doesn't even look good from the videos.

 

I'll see in 40 minutes or so when I'm finished with dinner.

Edited by KingSigy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played the game but IGN has really messed up there with that review, you simply can't use difficulty as an argument to give a game a 3 when the game was made deliberately difficult as it is based on an old-school game. Under that logic Hard Corps: Uprising should have gotten a 3 as well but it got an 8.5...

 

And you also have to consider the audience towards which the game is targeted, this game is clearly targeted at older gamers who grew up playing DD so the review should be targeted at those guys instead the reviewer complains that more modern games do "this and that" when this game was deliberately made as an old-school game.

 

Also the guy appears to hate beat em ups, why did he even review a game of a genre he clearly doesn't like? Bias is a bad thing in reviews, IGN should double check their staff of reviewers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge flaw with the IGN review.

 

He doesn't like the game because it is too faithful to the original game, and all the original games negatives are preserved along with the conversion. He doesn't like it because they didn't 'modernize' it.

 

However, staying faithful to the original, warts and all is EXACTLY what the developers set out to do!

 

So reading through that review, it sounds like the developers efforts were a huge success!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly. This game isnt for cry babies.

 

I don't even care about that. My problem is this: if I hate beat-em ups, why am I reviewing a beat-em up? For example, I hate sports titles. Should I be commissioned to write up the next FIFA review?

 

Also the guy appears to hate beat em ups, why did he even review a game of a genre he clearly doesn't like? Bias is a bad thing in reviews, IGN should double check their staff of reviewers...

 

Exactly. Get a more varied staff.

 

He only seems to give one (vague) reference to actual gameplay (something about controls not being tight enough). That wouldn't pass muster even for an Amazon review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as how I find reading video game reviews about as edifying as trying to read tea leaves, I never actually read the links in all of these endless "IGN is ruining my world" threads; because I never read them I'm always left wondering if - as I suspect - the people who make these threads are a bunch of whingers and narcissists (or whinging narcissists) or if, in fact, IGN really is trying to ruin someone's world (apparently because they take so many bribes in order to promote Call of Duty games...:|).

 

Well, today I've actually read two of the links (the Joystiq one isn't working for me) - maybe because I'm sitting in a wi-fi enabled lecture hall bored out of my bloody mind - and...yeah, I'm going with the whole whinging/narcissist angle.

 

Taken individually, those two reviews are...well, reviews - "meh" writing by "meh" writers on mostly "meh" games; a single review is about as helpful as the aforementioned tea leaves in terms of actually judging whether you should buy something or not - you're never gonna know until you play the game in question, and that single review is going to do nothing other than flatter or aggravate your own opinion (and opinion of yourself - there's a reason why people become so hilariously inflamed by these things).

 

Taken together, though, the Game Informer review and the IGN review work perfectly for prospective consumers: the two reviews say almost the exact same things about the game on order to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions:

 

Game Informer's closing:

 

The strength of Double Dragon Neon lies in its cartoony homage to the brawler genre and the time period in which the original game released. Some of that charm may be lost if you’re not familiar with the references, but the solid production and mechanics have a universal appeal.

 

IGN's closing:

 

Let’s address a sad truth nobody wants to hear: The brawler genre is not very good anymore. The beat-‘em-up was built on the back of arcade game design; difficulty didn’t come by design, but by consequence of clunky mechanics meant to scam kids out of more quarters. Double Dragon, much as we all love to remember it, exploited our love of games so we’d keep paying for it. Double Dragon: Neon functions in a similar way. It’s a brawler that’s too focused on amusing you with 80s flair, and it comes at the expense of worthwhile gameplay. Double Dragon: Neon doesn’t bother to keep up with contemporaries such as Castle Crashers, Shank, and Scott Pilgrim – and you should let it fall behind.

 

The Game Informer reviewer is clearly writing from the point-of-view of someone that looks back fondly on cabinet arcade games and welcomes the chance the revisit them in as faithful a form as possible; the IGN reviewer is clearly writing from the P.O.V. of someone who remembers the bygone era of cabinet arcade games, is glad to be free from it, and has little to no desire to revisit what he considers it's outdated mechanics and sensibility...

 

Because the two reviews actually say more or less the same thing in order to arrive at opposing conclusions, you, as a consumer, can now decide which of the two camps you actually fall into: do you want to revisit an old-school cabinet brawler with all of the pure cheesy fun and all of the mechanical anachronisms that will likely entail, or do you have a limited sense of nostalgia with no desire to revisit the patience-testing anachronisms of a dark age of gaming...Taken individually, each review is worthless; taken together they're almost perfect precisely because they praise/complain about the exact same things: you can now make a very informed decision.

 

(And, btw, the Game Informer review is the more narcissistic one, while the IGN review is the more helpful one: the GI reviewer basically says "I love these old-school games, therefore x out of 10", whereas the IGN review is saying: "These games weren't hard but cheap in order to suck money out of kids; if you don't have a sense of nostalgia for these types of things you probably won't like it"...The GI reviewer is concerned with his own sense of nostalgia, while the IGN reviewer is actually addressing what he takes to be his prospective audience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game isn't even that hard. IGN seems to always have dumbasses reviewing games.

 

White Knight Chronicles was reviewed BEFORE THE ONLINE SERVERS CAME UP. I know people who got review copies, the servers weren't up before release and the game got a 5.1 before they even had a chance to play half the game.

 

Disgaea 3 got a 6.7. UNLESS you are playing it on a 5 inch screen. THEN it apparently gets the review score it deserves of an 8.5 which is essentially about what every game in the series has gotten on average every single freaking release and rerelease. All they did was bundle DLC, add a couple story segments, etc. and suddenly it jumps up 1.8 points. Well to be fair it's actually just that the person who reviewed it on PS3 didn't understand or ever play the series before and the guy who played it on Vita enjoyed the series.

 

IGN is just a terrible company. Now that you've linked to it, and other people are reading the review you are giving them exactly what they want. More freaking clicks. Don't give them the satisfaction.

 

Just stop clicking on IGN's darned pages. I only found the review because I typed a question into google and clicked the first link stupidly. Had nothing to do with reviews. It was about the 3 chests at the end of the game.

 

Please don't look up their crappy reviews I mentioned above. Don't give these wankers more traffic. It's funny that they say don't waste your 10 dollars when none of the smarter gamers can waste their money on this game because it's free with Playstation Plus and Playstation Plus is a damn good value. Even though that shouldn't be necessarily part of the review, it's still hard to make a statement that free game is not worth the 10 dollars.

 

Then of course you have the gamers who aren't smart. Anyone who frequents PS3trophies and isn't a PS Plus subscriber is either rich or dumb because you get so many free games, free trophies, etc I don't understand how 4.20 cents give or take, is too expensive, every month, and if you're a Gold subscriber but not a PS Plus you have no defense.

 

I hate IGN. i could go on and on about how terrible their reviews are, and how they will go to game previews without even having done the most basic research about the game and how this is their JOB and they can't do a somewhat competent job. I don't like Halo. Apparently I'm in the minority. A good review isn't going to make me buy a 360 I'm just not into the series. Reviews are more or less meaningless unless they give you a feel of whether or not you want the game, but to be honest if you're not a PS+ member who cares. You're paying higher prices, you're not getting as many games for free, and you don't get the satisfaction of having your save files uploaded and patches downloaded as you sleep and if you don't own a PS3 that's not an argument in your favor. We shouldn't be talking about the terrible reviews and giving them links we should be playing the freaking game for fun and trophies, and the morons can figure out if they want the game when they get around to paying 1/5 of a PS+ membership for a game they could have had for free.

 

I say free because all the other non additional charge games, trials, discounts, and features are more than worth the cost of subscription so at most you're paying like 50 cents for this at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you know how quotation marks work.

 

I'm very sure that there is nothing you could say that I wouldn't understand, and no concept for which I require your illumination.

 

But to stem the tide of further equally-witty rejoinders, I am aware that quote never appears anywhere. (cue eyeroll)

Edited by starcrunch061
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you know how quotation marks work.

 

Is there some internet standard that no one is aware of or uses that would be both adequate and as space saving as a misused quotation mark?

 

It is much easier to sum up someone's position like this "I am a grammar nazi" despite not actually quoting what they specifically said than any other standardized way that someone would use in a novel.

 

People use quotation marks to quote a caricature of the actual person, rather than insert longer quotations that would take away from what is actually needing to be dealt with. Especially people with the grammar skills of a kindergartner who make 30 run on sentences into a single paragraph.

 

So unless you are willing to demonstrate a more effective way to do the same thing STFU and go back to your dang bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game isn't even that hard. IGN seems to always have dumbasses reviewing games.

 

White Knight Chronicles was reviewed BEFORE THE ONLINE SERVERS CAME UP. I know people who got review copies, the servers weren't up before release and the game got a 5.1 before they even had a chance to play half the game.

 

Disgaea 3 got a 6.7. UNLESS you are playing it on a 5 inch screen. THEN it apparently gets the review score it deserves of an 8.5 which is essentially about what every game in the series has gotten on average every single freaking release and rerelease. All they did was bundle DLC, add a couple story segments, etc. and suddenly it jumps up 1.8 points. Well to be fair it's actually just that the person who reviewed it on PS3 didn't understand or ever play the series before and the guy who played it on Vita enjoyed the series.

 

IGN is just a terrible company. Now that you've linked to it, and other people are reading the review you are giving them exactly what they want. More freaking clicks. Don't give them the satisfaction.

 

Just stop clicking on IGN's darned pages. I only found the review because I typed a question into google and clicked the first link stupidly. Had nothing to do with reviews. It was about the 3 chests at the end of the game.

 

Please don't look up their crappy reviews I mentioned above. Don't give these wankers more traffic. It's funny that they say don't waste your 10 dollars when none of the smarter gamers can waste their money on this game because it's free with Playstation Plus and Playstation Plus is a damn good value. Even though that shouldn't be necessarily part of the review, it's still hard to make a statement that free game is not worth the 10 dollars.

 

Then of course you have the gamers who aren't smart. Anyone who frequents PS3trophies and isn't a PS Plus subscriber is either rich or dumb because you get so many free games, free trophies, etc I don't understand how 4.20 cents give or take, is too expensive, every month, and if you're a Gold subscriber but not a PS Plus you have no defense.

 

I hate IGN. i could go on and on about how terrible their reviews are, and how they will go to game previews without even having done the most basic research about the game and how this is their JOB and they can't do a somewhat competent job. I don't like Halo. Apparently I'm in the minority. A good review isn't going to make me buy a 360 I'm just not into the series. Reviews are more or less meaningless unless they give you a feel of whether or not you want the game, but to be honest if you're not a PS+ member who cares. You're paying higher prices, you're not getting as many games for free, and you don't get the satisfaction of having your save files uploaded and patches downloaded as you sleep and if you don't own a PS3 that's not an argument in your favor. We shouldn't be talking about the terrible reviews and giving them links we should be playing the freaking game for fun and trophies, and the morons can figure out if they want the game when they get around to paying 1/5 of a PS+ membership for a game they could have had for free.

 

I say free because all the other non additional charge games, trials, discounts, and features are more than worth the cost of subscription so at most you're paying like 50 cents for this at the end of the day.

 

Ironically having alot of money is the only reason I can think of to not subscribe to psn+, you can buy what you want when you want so there's no reason to wait for it to be on psn+ or go on sale and if your busy then you don't want to waste time on games that are only okay you want to go for your favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say i agree with IGN's review. However, can't agree with Game Informer and Joystiq too, this is the point of reviews.

 

Although i must say the reasons he points a 3 out of 10 for the game are hilarious, it just seems to me he got pwned by it and coulndt take it. But i did have some freezing issues.

 

If i'd rate this game, id give it a 6. Its ok, but not the best, might finish, but not sure ill hunt trophies on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IGN's review was flat out moronic -- Scott Pilgirm got VERY tedious for me, but I wanted to keep at it because I love old school style beat em up's. Neon is indeed that, but agreed with ^ poster, I don't see myself grinding this for the long haul. The max each song to 50 is just too damn numbing I think and probably one I will earn eventually, just not in one long ass session.

 

Side note gamespot gave it a 7 which is a bit more accurate I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played this yet but got it for free as a PS+ member, so I figured I'd see what the word about it was. When I clicked on this thread I figured it would just be delusional people complaining about a negative review like what frequently happens on the Internet, but wow the IGN review was terrible. He barely even talked about the gameplay.

 

I didn't look at the others, but I also saw the GameSpot review and like the guy before me mentioned, it's a much more well thought out review of the game. He liked the 80's stuff more than the IGN guy didn't, but he also actually bothered to describe the gameplay. Maybe I'm just crazy, but that's usually one of the main things I look to find out from a review... :rolleyes:

 

Like I said, I haven't played the game yet but poor reviews aren't much of a deterrent since I got it for free, so I'm happy to reserve judgment until I play it for myself. Good or bad, though, it's a shame that the guy who gets paid to review games can't put one together that provides a complete analysis of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after reading the ign review again , i think he was right on some points. It clearly shows that he reviewer does not like classic beat him up games like double dragon. but he has a point on some of the problems with this game

 

* its very slow : it shows in the boss battles with skullmaggadon , he moves really quick and you have to run after him but most of the time you are to late to hit him. this really started to irritates me.

 

a other problem with the game is that sometimes you start hitting someone the only thing that you hit is air. while you are standing next to the enemy and he can hit you and its not clear why, some times you hit someone and a other time you only hit air . very strange.

 

that being said. he whines that the game is to hard. i agree with him that in the beginning the game is really hard, i had to play the 3th mission about 15 times before i could complete it on normal but after that the game gets a lot easyer because of all the mix tapes that you can collect. this makes the game a lot easyer then double dragon 3 on the nes for example.

 

oh and super double dragon ( snes ) is still the best of them all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't even hard. The reviewer must just be terrible at video games. Maybe only continued once or twice. After getting mix tapes only actually lost lives once or twice.

 

I wanted the arcade experience/Double Dragon. For me this WayForward game was much better than BloodRayne and that got a 9 on IGN. The only reason I read the review was to see what it was all about before downloading...it didn't help. They should have got someone else to review.

 

Scott Piligrim is just River City Ransom but not as fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have played and beaten this game like three times now. I have to say this is one of the best beat'em ups I have ever played. The only thing I could say about this game is one thing. The lack of online.

 

Other then that the score ign gave it was so beyond dumb. I watched the review and I wanted to kinda just ask the guy how far he got. I have a feeling he did not beat the game. Wayforward put a lot of effort into this game and I am going to buy this and get the soundtrack. not to many games ever move me that much to do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't really get IGN's hate, now that I've (finally) played the game. If I had one complaint about the controls, it's the button configuration (ducking is more important than running, so I wish it was R1, with special moves being L1 and running being R2). That's about it.

 

The game itself is hilarious. The fairy makes me laugh constantly ("This is for you, Billy! I LOVE YOU!"). I chuckled at fighting Bimmy. And Skullmageddon's Skeletor voice is great (as well as the "skeleport" move).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...