The Games So Bad, Even IGN Gave Them Less Than A 6 

Thanks so much to my Patrons for suggesting this video, and to you for watching it! You can help promote this video by retweeting this tweet twitter.com/MRIXRT/status/1602818671457476613

I'm literally shocked that Myst has such a low rating. We love Myst in Bulgaria. Back in the days, there was a gaming show on TV called "Mist" which started around 9 pm and went till 4 am. They had everything - video game discussions, consoles, mobile games, anime, movies even a DJ was playing sick house and techno beats in the background. And after midnight, the host started playing adventure puzzle games like Myst 4 or Siberia or Schizm etc, and you get to phone in and tell him what to do in game. It was absolutely legendary. Sadly, the host passed away a few years ago... RIP Roro.

Review objectivity and the nonsensical review score shenanigans is something I've been struggling with since the 90s. I remember Diablo got a 5/10 one time, Xbox Magazine gave Dead Space a 6/10, and the infamous 9.6 Fortnite review inspired a whole Twitter account to document all the games that were lower rated than "Flosscraft". Great video. Kudos to you and your collaborators!

The way he spoke the words "The guy that hates Myst" sounded like a boss introduction that warranted a boss track with a choir speaking latin.

We need a reviewer matchmaking service, where you input your own ratings for a bunch of things and it matches you with the reviewer whose tastes match yours best. That way, you get the next best thing to trying all the things yourself : the opinion of someone who thinks like you.

33:28 the day we learned that IGN editors work for Team Magma

I will never forget that the reviewer for Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky rated the game a 4.9 after getting stuck on arguably one of the easiest dungeons given the point in the game, getting frustrated and dropping the game right there

I'm telling you all the school grading system messed us all up. A C (70%) was "average" while an F (50%) was "failing" so a 5 out of 10 isn't "average" in our minds it's "failing"

Daily reminder that God hand got a 3/10 from. Ign

I give this video a 11/10, it has the perfect amount of water

I am still angry about the Alien Isolation review by IGN. Complete tools.

21:40 there are actually three versions of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter that are wildely different games. The PC version is a highly tactical FPS. PS3 & Xbox 360 is a third-person arcade. PS2 & Xbox is a first-person arcade.

OH MY GOD THAT HOCKY GAME SEGMENT HAD MY JAW GLUED TO THE FLOOR. its even funnier when you realize that the first treyarch game is the lowested rated ign game yet for a long time they would give every cod game both good and bad a glowing review.

There's a lot to be said as well about reviews used essentialy as advertisement for new games I don't know if this is still a thing, but back in the day there was the threat of the "blacklist", where certain reviewers or entire websites just wouldn't receive early review codes because they were negative towards some high-profile title (Jeff Gerstmann and Jim Sterling come to mind)

That point about games getting better reviews once the franchise is popular is so true. Dark Souls got OK scores from most outlets when it launched, and it got lower scores from reviewers who didn't get it. Overall it landed in the 80s for most outlets and averages (brought up by the likes of Gamespot and Edge giving it glowing reviews because the individual reviewers connected with the game and recognized how special it was), the game was seen as a niche difficult Japanese game that not many outlets gave a ton of attention to, especially with Skyrim just on the horizon. Then it blew up over the next two years, especially RU-vid reviewers who couldn't stop raving about it as the word of mouth spread. Later, Dark Souls 2 came out amidst the peak of excitement and every single big outlet gave it very high scores, which got it into the 90s and into "universal acclaim", suggesting it's an improvement over the original. Cue DS2 being the most divisive, mixed game in the franchise with those same RU-vid reviewers mostly either tearing it apart or giving it mixed reviews. Journalists 100% review games based on hype and how high the expectations for a game are, they really can't be trusted.

As someone who considers Myst one of the games that shaped my childhood and outlook on life, those reviews made me legitimately angry.

The fact that the just dance review calls it "not a game" as though dance pad style games hadn't already been around doing the exact same thing for a while-

I'ved landed on IGN a few times looking for walkthroughs for stuff like collectibles, and I honestly would have thought that the atrocious web design would be enough to deter anyone from actually reading the reviews on that site.

Used to just browse ign scores to see all the worst ones, because that's just the sort of thing that stimulated me back in the day. Seeing Explorers of sky get a 4.9 was one of the main reasons it took me so damn long to get around to playing it, and I'm a little sour over that ngl

In the 1990s in Germany, video game magazines lived from their personalities. Take the magazine GameStar as an example, back then the most sold magazine. You had for example Mick Schnelle, who sadly died in the 2020s. When you saw him testing a simulation, you knew that he was qualified. He lived simulation games. Not a typo. Probably he had more technical expertise about planes than even plane engineers just by how much he knew about those games. And similar examples go for the other genres, although not to that extreme. When someone reviewed a game, the redaction would discuss it afterwards and then come to the conclusion of what score to give, in order to keep it in line with other scores, but the reviewers almost always knew what they played, were experts on the genres. And they didn't shy away from controversy. Once they published a multiple pages article about a developer complaining about their supposedly low score (which was in the 80s, meaning it was a top game for genre fans). That is how video games journalism was back then in Germany: Independent. Investigative. Fair. With not only reviews, but background stories also (one was on how the id software developer with the nickname "Levelord" designed the Quake III levels so they are fun and balanced, another was on violence in games, then one on legality of circumventing DRM, etc.).

knowing the person behind the review is definitely extremely important if you're going to take anything valuable away from the review

I started digging into reviewer's Twitter profiles, seeing that a lot of gaming website game reviewers have credits on news websites that don't have gaming on them. I then realized that game reviews are just another writing gig to them. That Cuphead review that couldn't make it past the tutorial was from a website on investing, and not a gaming website.

we shall never forget the Sonic Unleashed and Doom 2016 reviews showing that the ones who reviewed those games have clearly never touched a controller in their lives 😂

The Myst reviewer just doesn't get it. Puzzle games, visual novels, slower paced atmospheric games, aren't necessarily "fun". They're enjoyable. It's like a quiet walk in the park or reading a book, where they want something akin to playing a sport. But a lot of people don't like sports.

How I score things; (10 = Perfection. Even with context impossible to achieve.) Don't bother looking for this score. 9 = This is what AAAA+ games with time and resources invested into it should be. 8 = Fantastic. Very hard to fault, unless I'm nitpicking. 7 = Good. Not great and may have some flaws, but still recommend. 6 = Decent. It is fun but not enough to remember for the right reasons. 5 = Average. Take it or leave it. 4 = Mediocre. It works, but not something I'd go back to. 3 = Bad. It's functional .... just about. At best I'd run with a concept, but incompetent execution. 2 = Poor. Will remember this for the wrong reasons; might even be so bad it's good. Probably an asset flip. 1 = Shit. IT'S. JUST. BAD. Barely playable dumpster fire. So bad it's burned into your memory. 0 = Irredeemable. Game does not work and its existence feels like (or even is) a criminal offense.

Excellent video, really hit the nail on the head with this one, especially the points about review culture, and alienation from the person behind the review. I've thought giving art a numbered score is really dumb for a while now. Different kinds of art serve different purposes, strive to do different things. So when trying to score something, do I score it based on my overall enjoyment, ignoring how well designed the game actually is, or do I score it based on how well the game fulfilled what it set out to do, regardless of my feelings? Or is it both, or something else entirely? Enjoyment can be experienced in many different ways, so do I need to specify if a game was primarily "fun", or "gripping" etc? In the end, what does a score even really do, other than boil down complex pieces of art into a digestible number that leaves zero room for nuance? This is only exacerbated when comparing games of the same score, like you bring up in the video. So as a RU-vid reviewer myself, I can't bring myself to give scores to things, it's ultimately pointless. But I found that I can't even do it in a non serious context, as I stopped scoring everything I watched/read on My Anime List, cuz I just couldn't quantify wtf a 7 meant. It's ridiculous lmao. Excellent video mate, looking forward to the next one!

So in summary. Even game review scores are effected by inflation 24:51

That Myst DS port was truly awful. It had multiple game-crashing bugs. It also included an in-game notepad, which had only one page, no word wrap, and no ability to insert characters (if you want to add something on top, you have to "backspace" the whole thing). In fact, I think it might not have been possible to complete it without using a strategy guide to skip Selenetic because of the crashing. And, yes, all the surreal visuals and audio got crunched to fit on the DS. If that IGN author had actually played it he would have been able to say "it crashes" and give it a deserved 1 out of 10. It's a moot point now since Myst is easy to buy in like three different versions on Steam, but back then it compelled me to install the original disc on PC and mess with installing an ancient version of Quicktime to make it run. Just sharing this because I don't think I've ever seen another person talk about it.

Really excellent video. I'm reminded of my frustration during the PS2 era. I was (and am) a big fan of Dynasty Warriors and its ilk, and I found myself profoundly disconnected with the perception of them at the time. Review outlets, even as they still might call them "good," also routinely panned them as repetitious button mashers that recycled too many assets, ideas, and saturated the market with too many releases. And while there was (and is) some truth to those thoughts, they routinely ignored the fact these games were immensely popular with the base that played them. If they acknowledged them at all, it was usually with at least a bit of scorn, casting them usually as mindless knuckle-draggers. The fact was they generally performed quite consistently and smoothly. They were satisfying and cathartic to play for people looking for a sort of spiritual successor to classic brawlers and beat em ups. They were also mechanically iterative in ways that anyone other than a seasoned player might not ever notice: Character movesets were tweaked, AI improved, that sort of thing. The changes brought with each new release were generally worth the time and money to take a look at. All that's to say, they didn't Get It™. All the more galling that today reviewers like Musou now since they paint Zelda on top of it while ignoring (or blithely downplaying) the game running like absolute garbage. But I digress.

This was super interesting! IGN is a meme level company but it was great to explore why. Maybe I'm misremembering but I believe the whole seven being so low came from the original release of Destiny, since it was the first proper hype delayed game that came from a dev that was too big to fail.

I hate 10 points score systems. It's not just IGN, it's working wrong almost everywhere. People usually using only 7-10 and forget about the rest of the score. 5/10 supposed to be middle of the road average, but I believe that people would suppose it as a bad score if they see 5/10. Kudos to Steam for getting people only 3 options: positive, negative or keeping your opinion to yourself c:

I swear it used to be possible to sort by review scores. Having said that the issue that have with deciphering which platforms the reviews were for…. It used to be A LOT clearer. The old ign ui would have which platform you were viewing. Actually what was really cool is that for platform “portal” the UI would change to reflect how to video game console looked. So it was REALLY clear what platform you were viewing. Also I appreciate they had different people review the games on different platforms. Ign was a really good website that entertained me to no end. I loved looking up old reviews and videos and see all the old games I would see on store shelves as a little boy and what they thought of them. Unfortunately IGN wanted to unify the entire platform, so legacy article ui was updated. It’s a shame because they erased the “score breakdown” that was at the end of every article.

I love that you're starting this conversation, although I do think the problems run much deeper than can be solved with revising the scores and content of these reviews. I really think you're a bit too hasty in saying that RU-vidrs are essentially a solution to the problem. RU-vidrs present what I guess I'd call a cult of personality problem. People are so willing to just go along with any notion that is popular or at least justified in some way in video game discussions. So many people just parrot some other popular opinion, especially if it's one from some RU-vidr, even if they don't necessarily agree with it. It's like they're scared of their own opinion being "wrong" or something, and because the RU-vidr has some false sense of authority on the subject (despite the fact that you can't be a better "enjoyer" of something), they feel more comfortable just parroting whatever they said. Of course, the experiences of a video game and its value are a personal thing, and really what something means can only be decided by the one who experiences it. The problem then is, within video game discussion, the question is never "what is the value of this video game?" It is "how good is this game?" and within that I think we find part of why video games are considered an immature hobby. I think there's a lot of artistic value in video games, but I would never call myself a "gamer" (there are also other philosophical reasons I wouldn't as well, but I definitely wouldn't call myself a gamer specifically). When discussion and journalism about games is mostly centered around those ideas, which fundamentally are just circlejerks about somebody's opinions, RU-vidrs don't help the issue really. The only real reason this all exists is because of how video games are so expensive, at least triple A ones, and how people can get recommendations about what to buy and all. To fix that, and therefore reviews there needs to be an examination of the ethics of video game distribution. The answer there, at least I think, comes from the fact that video games are software, and the solution would have to come from the same place that open-source and fsf stuff are looking into. Cheers.

Superb video. The obsession with review scores drives me crazy. Scores remove all the context of a review, and I dread giving games I review a score, even if I love the game. Games and other media have objective qualities for sure, but how much those objective qualities can affect someone's experience with a piece of media can differ greatly. Unless you're strictly talking about a product's functionality and technical aspects as accurately as possible, almost every review will be subjective. Thinking that anyone can mathematically equate a score from an individual's opinion on a game is a ridiculous notion. IGN is one of the worst examples of this, as they give silly scores such as "5.9" to games. How do you calculate an individual's opinion to a decimal point? Steam reviews have their own problems (such as basically encouraging "meme" reviews that contain little substance and rarely actually say anything about the game), but I think the "thumbs up/thumbs down" system is better for aggregating reviews, at least for a marketplace. Rotten Tomatoes sort of does this, but in a significantly worse way, as it relies on review scores that are above or below a 6/10. Steam requires people to own the game, meaning that people have to be interested in the title they're reviewing. This is why a game such as Sonic Frontiers can receive an overwhelmingly positive score on Steam. It may be confusing as to why it's rated that high to some, but if you're interested in Sonic games, you're very likely to enjoy Sonic Frontiers. The 95% score isn't to say that the game is actually a 9.5/10, but to say that 95 percent of users recommend the game. While browsing games on Steam, I've often found myself scrolling down to the review section to find out why a game got the reception it did. It's a "score" system that makes me want to look for more context behind the reviews. That being said, when I do scroll down, there will be a number of reviews that will just be a joke and nothing more, but some of the more informative reviews are actually better "simple" reviews than the ones you see at IGN. I can often discover a lot about the functionality of a game in a short amount of time. If I'm interested in a game, but it has a "mixed" reception on Steam, that actually means something to me. I'll look into the review section and will come out with a list of bullet points of the most common postive/negative aspects of a game. It's not a perfect system by any means, but I find it far more reliable for gauging whether or not I should purcahse a game than something like metacritic. For the analytical reviews you can find on RU-vid (and the type of review I like to write the most), there probably just shouldn't be any kind of scoring system at all. It actually kind of peeves me a bit when RU-vidrs like SkillUp put things like "I recommend/I don't recommend" in their title because of the analytical nature of their reviews. It often leads to people taking their word as gospel without even considering how the RU-vidr got to that conclusion and how their preferences might differ from others. I'm not entirely innocent when it comes to this, and it isn't completely the reviewers fault. The structure of the internet and making money off this sort of business encourages this kind of behavior. Anyways, the only issue I have with this video is the point that RU-vidrs inherently make for better critics. RU-vid game discourse has its own issues (one of which I talked about in the previous paragraph). It really depends on the individual writing, and not all websites are structured like IGN. There are plenty of lackluster game critics on RU-vid. Maybe even more so than a website. The problem with writing for a website is that you have to accept that your work is going to be of a more inconsistent quality because you have to constantly be writing about things you may care less about. I think it's fair to say that RU-vidrs are more consistent in their quality thanks to the creative freedom and schedule they get, but it isn't as simple as RU-vidrs being better.

5:30 On the topic of games that can no longer be played, it is VERY important that digital copies, documentation, and information about old "lost" videogames are not deleted from the internet. Similar to real life history, there is value in keeping records of things that have passed - even small things.

Tbf initial reactions to Alien Isolation WERE much more mixed; until only horror-game fans (the more appropriate target audience) remained focused on it. It was seen as not very approachable for people not used to stealth horror.

They also gave The Day Before a 1 today lol.

Some old gamezines could be super harsh, if you go all the way back to the commodore 64 and other 8 bits systems... boy games could get a 20/100... Hell getting over 70 was HARD in that time! The scale was very different indeed!

Hey M Really great video! The problems you mention in regards to out of date reviews are certaintly annoying, especially in this age of early access, open betas and constant content rollout and updates. Steam’s “recent reviews” Can certainly help someone, but it’s without scores and the reviews Can be as useless as any IGN review. I’m at the point of watching gameplay first, or singing some seadog tunes before buying any game. Anyway, sorry for the phoneposting. Cheers.

7:51 what platform did they review alien isolation on? Remember that alien isolation released on the original Xbox one with the obligatory kinect camera and the xenomorph will be attracted to sounds through the Kinect camera so playing the game in a noisy environment is terrible. The game is sometimes challenging but it is by no means hard

I was letting this video play while I was working on a game I am developing. It hurts me on a personal level to see games like "Action Girlz Racing." For one, it hurts because I can see that there is a degree of quality that could be met with just a couple hours worth of development time. But more than that, it hurts to think they shoveled out in six weeks, but yet, they still have a game. No matter how crappy and horrendous that title may be, the developers have that very much over me, having achieved in six weeks what I still haven't after several years. That hurts me on a very personal level. But perhaps even worse than that is to realize that this game just scored more attention, more reviews on RU-vid, and more sales than my game ever will if-and-when it ever gets finished. Also it has a more consistent art style than what I'm making.

One thing that I think needs to be said too is that time frame matters. Your thoughts on something will change over time, so ultimately, what you considered a great game right after finishing may eventually seem better or worse later down the road. I have many games that I absolutely loved, that now when I think about going back to them, I don't really have a desire to. Which only goes to show how meaningless that Metacritic rule about not allowing changes in score, since I imagine there are plenty of people who might change their opinion on say, Bioshock Infinite or some other heavily-lauded game now that the dust has cleared and people have had more time to consider their overall feelings on them.

Holy shit Billy the Wizard is a real game, I really thought that had to be a joke. I can't imagine why they decided against the original title, "Barry Hatter: The Sorcerer's Broomstick" (again, not a joke).

I think most people consider Vader Immortal a game. That's how I always heard it described. Interactive movies generally have very basic interactivity and this is especially true in VR. Also, if Telltale games count as games then surely so does Vader Immortal. Those games are nothing but cutscenes and quick time events followed by running around for a bit and then repeat.

This is the first video of yours I've watched. About half way through I paused the video because I respected how open you were in giving honest feedback on the subject. Its refreshing to be talked to like a person and not a customer.

More awesome work. Hope to see you on EFAP again soon.

First time stumbling across your channel, your videos are fyre keep it up

I agree the single universal scoring scheme doesn't cut it. And this isn't how games were originally reviewed back in the 90s so I am curious about your take on categorized scoring scheme. Say: "Music: 0 (no in game music). Plot: 7. Difficulty: 3.". These categories don't need to be fixed, though some should be common. The sad part is that back in the day reviews would "average" scores which produced the result. A game with no music but excellent story could match a game with no story but some music and high difficulty, which was silly, but at least you knew where the average score came from. I miss this old scoring style..

At points in this, your voice-over sounds like the guy from LGR lol. Not a bad thing just cool.

As someone who just finished Cyberpunk and Phantom Liberty I liked the changes since release it's still got some stupid bugs but it's much more playable now

And because of these reasons you said, the hungarian IGN actually removed the scoring system from both movies and games about 2 years ago. They said that most people won't read/watch critics and just look at the score in the end, without listening the actual review.

Perhaps the most startling point here is that IGN reviewed Cooking Mama, a game nobody could play because it was pulled from sale, for search volume. The outlet literally last year did the same thing for The Day Before - when other sites were producing other types of content keeping players up to date with the controversy surrounding its launch - and even slapped a 1/10 on it. Of all the points in this vid, that's the one that rings the most true.

My personal "WTF IGN" moment that kick-started it all for me was the "7.8, too much water" review for the Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire remakes in 2014. I simply couldn't imagine how you could bother to bring up something that mundane in a Pokémon game with so much else to actually criticize or even mention in the first place. How naive I once was. How disgusting they've always been. Edit: Omg, you actually mention one, lol. Excellent.

I have such huge trust for review scores on Steam. I don't like how it's simplified into adjectives and thumbs up or down, but it actually helps in so many situations.

Can you post a link for the spreadsheet you used in the video? I think its quite informational

"IGN sucks" - 10/10 IGN

My personal pet peeve IGN review is the 3/10 they gave God Hand.

Never seen your videos, idk why this one was shown to me now, but this was a fantastic video. Definitely gonna watch more, nice job and thanks for the content

Could it be that people are using the 5 to 10 scale like the US grading system where it goes from A to F and F is just failed? It seems that 1 through 5 = F while 10 is A, 9 is B, 8 is B-, C and D equal to 6 and 7 respectively, making the users consider anything outside the "positive/passing" side of the scale a negative.

Dude wth. It's 730am I have had insomnia for 5 hours and I just found my login to leave this comment. Your videos are some of the best production quality and excellently narrated videos out there. I am gobsmacked as to how you're not on 1M+. What the actual he'll.

TotalBiscuit energy is strong with this one. Subbed!

Hey great video M! I think there is a interesting conversation to be had about number scores in general for movies as well, not just games. Keep up the great work though, I actually made it to one of your video on time instead of watching it a year late.

IGN has become as bad as buzzfeed

Your video's are so high quality man, you and your team (anyone helping you), deserve way more views!

It's perfectly fine for a reviewer to dislike Myst in their reivew. Hell, a lot of my favorite reviews to write and read focus on the writer's distaste for something. The problem is that Myst review is poorly written, edited and phrased. If you disliked Myst, you should be able to articulate why you dislike it in a way that a disinterested party could understand. That review says "game sux don't buy" and leaves all the potential on the table.

Sometimes it's weird how IGN complained about blurry textures in an base N64 game. Like that's just par for the course for the N64.

I honestly have never felt good about reviewing things on a 10 point scale because I don't feel a connection between arbitrary numbers and my feelings, so I try to avoid numbers when I can. Tier lists I feel similarly about, where letters on a tier list can be rather meaningless when different people view tier scores differently. I usually just rank things on a word scale, say it like it is, on a scale of this sucks to this is fantastic and everything in between. It just feels more comprehensible in this landscape of numbers and letters getting overblown in their meanings, seen differently all over by each different person

I did in fact use the opera browser on DS more than anyone should. It did suck but not worse than you could expect on the DS? It met expectations. I probably would score it, how do you score that.

Some of these "reviews" sound like reddit posts 😭😭😭

This ia not how ign reviews, its based on a list, in order. 1. Money. How much are we being paid? 2. Is it TripleA? If yes do not go below 5/10 without good reason then give a flat 2/10 unless they pissed us off then give 1/10 3. Do i personally like the series? 4. Do i personally like the developer? 5. Does the publisher like us? 6. Did we manage to finish the slice we got to play? 7. Did we get the full game? 8. Is the series well established? Does that upset me? 9. Is it a graphical powerhouse? 10. Is the game good... I guess? There's also a caveat to all this. *If you cannot be bothered to play the game, use a pre release video to make up any old thing about it. But make it vague so we can deny this when you inevitably say something to give this fact away.

I feel like we're all brainwashed to view the percentage based system with a bias. This is just a problem with our combined psychology, but we are conditioned in school to view anything below 70% bad, which artificially heightens a lot of scores, making it feel like a 1 to 4 scale (scores 60 to 100,) instead of a 1 to 10. It's a pet peeve of mine because we lose a lot of neauce when a score of 70 can mean anything from "I dislike this, but I don't exactly hate it," to "this is really good, but I've been ratings things too high lately, so I'm going to go a bit lower so my opinions don't become meaningless."

After finishing the whole video, many thought's have went through my head for each segment, and topic in discussion. But by the end I'm left with few words, you covered this issue tremendously well. From the editing, to the thought out topics/discussion, the fact you don't hold back in exposing how IGN really work & how damaging they actually are to Videogames as a form of Art, not just Soulless consumption. I agree with so many thing's you've said in this video, but unfortunately I don't think the algorithm will ever let it flourish. Nonetheless, you've done the gaming community a solid. I have seen so many great game's the last 4 year's release, only to be hit with such divisive reviews. People blindly following each other without having experienced said game, themselves. Which to be fair, is part of what makes game reviewing, and is what comes of game review's. But the problem to me is, many reviewers just can't seem to have fun & enjoy the game for what it is. Unrealistic expectations and the idea that a game must be built around the specific individuals exact wants and needs from a game, can lead that consumer to be disappointed, instead of finding Joy in the unique aspects and quality's, that the game may offer. To me, I've finally seen a resurgence in some of my favourite IP's, Games that were stagnating or had sup par releases, finally stepped it up with their latest releases, yet to the average consumer, they fell short... Maybe people have been burnt by so many poor releases over the year's, that they're unable to see when something is genuinely fun and worthwhile. From PS2 to PS3 had so many great games (Before than to, but I'm just keeping this timeline for now), but for me the industry started going downhill after The Witcher 3, around 2015-2016. 2007 to 2011 really had some great open world games that experimented with physics etc, then it just started to fade out. The sequels we started getting were falling short, and tiresome (be it a few Gems in-between). But from 2018 to the current year (2023), I have had smash hit after smash hit, this has been some of the best gaming in my life.. yet for many other people, it has been their worst, or at least that's how it seems by the constant whinging in the gaming community. The words definitely started flowing once I started typing, but with such an in-depth video, you left me with a lot to say. Cheers again for putting the effort into addressing such a unique topic that generally goes unnoticed, especially by the average gamer, even though they tend to be influenced by review scores the most.

never trust IGN for anything, avoid them at all costs.

Myst DS guy gave Sonic Free Riders a 7.5 out of 10 A game that is completely unplayable and lacking in every aspect that defined the Riders spin-offs, it's just completely baffling to me How does IGN select their staff for reviews? It's insane

16:36 this music played when I was playing a game which seemed to include a horror aspect, I almost had a panic attack

A key example of how things are consistently gotten wrong by a reviewer is the early entries of Monster Hunter on Gamespot. Wow. The reviewer, who may have been on board as the designated reviewer for the franchise all the way to the 2nd or 3rd portable Monster Hunter, really laid into the game and complained about the things we actually look for in MH - the flimsy excuse for boss fights, the game loop of killing then crafting then killing again, and even the part where the monsters have a tell when they're about to attack.

Still salty about that God Hand review 20 years later, I'm over relationships and shit from that long ago but I still can't believe they gave one of the best games a 3/10.

I love all your Long-form videos hope you start getting the views u deserve dawg

I find that sometimes it's helpful when someone is super biased towards a review. Example: Reviewer reviewed a game console and said it was bad all the way around, and mentioned that the device was a fingerprint magnet (not a dealbreaker to me). They then mentioned very briefly in the video that it drained 4% of the battery life after playing an intense game for 7 hours straight... back up for a second, a system with an average span of 175 hours on high settings isn't considered a tool of the gods? Yep no, the dude was just hating on the system because he didn't like the design. Although it sucks that bad reviews can ruin a good game.

Was nodding along with all the stuff on reviews and review scores. (Though to be fair that 7 Days to Die review of only the port does clearly say it's reviewing only the port, even on the very top line.) Especially good point about professional journalists, especially since recently we've had those Ubisoft and Activision/Blizzard scandals that wouldn't have been broken without actual, real investigative journalism. I think there's a liiiiiiittle bit of a slant towards "go to RU-vid for detailed reviews" though. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can name three gaming RU-vidrs off the top of their head who deliberately go for games they don't like in genres they don't like. I agree it's still a better option though (and tbh I do think that the opinion of even someone who is predisposed to dislike the game is worth reading, as long as they're being intellectually honest, which the IGN guy plainly isn't)

Today I learned that in the midst of it all, the "too much water" guy got shafted by the editor.

Cyberpunk 2077 is up from 4 to a 9 on IGN now. I wonder if that's the biggest change they've ever made on one of their rolling reviews.

the myst thing is why i tend to avoid jrpg reviewers that don't focus primary on them. as if i do other wise it's clear the reviewer does not like them and has a bias so the review is worthless.

I much prefer the metric of Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down, or Neutral (neither good nor bad).

Found you via EFAP. 17:39 I really like this being raised. Beyond RU-vid: user review systems from Steam, gog etc are way more helpful these days, despite their own issues (namely, real instances of review bombing)

Got two seperate copies of Cooking Mama Cookstar.... Not sure why people say you cant buy it anymore....

I knew it was Mauler when you said film critic.

24:20 The Day Before has been released and also shut down at this time. So the clip is very comparable to how ign operates. Despicte knowing the game no longer exists for purchase. They'll still give it their first 1/10 in like decade to get clicks.

Oh hey, a Mauler cameo. I have to say I don't agree that review scores are entirely useless. There's a reason people adopted them at all in the first place and that's because it's a very quick and easy way to give an approximate evaluation of a game without getting into the minutia. Obviously a game like Rogue Warrior and a game where you do nothing but click on heads are not comparable, but I don't think the point has ever been to compare different games in the first place. In the same way, an RTS and a racing game are not comparable, but both can be given a review score on a scale depending on how well they satisfy the quality criteria for their given genre. It is a system devoid of the often necessary nuance, but that is by design - it's meant to give you a quick and vague idea of what to expect. THAT SAID obviously IGN doesn't do a very good job at doing that. But one profit-driven website shouldn't be the reason to ditch a useful tool.

There’s one sure fire way to find low IGN ratings, find Microsoft Exclusives. If a game is multi-platform, guaranteed the Xbox version will be the lowest rated 😅

Honestly wish we could just download a stress test before actually buying a title

this video makes me understand why gamergate was so popular

I think to some degree the writers and editors deserve some credit for showing their bias. Image the Myst reviews, but they literally just say "While the voice acting was good, I found the game boring. 2/10" Maybe even more words but no more context. While I agree with your overall assessment I think your dunking on IGN is a tiny bit unfair. They are a product of what their position and the landscape has become. Do their reviews have value, yes, but you have to be careful about what that value actually is, and always check multiple sources, ideally ones you trust and have affinity to. IGN is the McDonalds of review sources. Is it a more or less serviceable review source: yes. Is it actually a good review source: Meh. IGN: 5/10

The older I get and the more games I play, the more use I find the 4-6 rankings get for me personally. A 5 out of 10 game is worth playing for a bit, but not something I'd spend a lot of time on or probably come back to. A 6 is pretty much the same but enjoyable for a longer period of time, 7 is when replayability and a stronger desire to play the game comes into the equation, instead of the meh "it'll do" that 5's and 6's come with. A 4 is also worth playing, but the kind of game I'd play for a week and never touch again. 3's and under are where we reach the not worth playing ranks. I find myself rating a lot more games 5's and 6's out of 10 these days than I ever would have before. And the kinds of games most people would consider 8/10 minimum's too. >__>

I rate this video 7.5/10, too much water

the idea that when ign gives games low scores people get very mad at them for "undervaluing" a game, but that the same time are mad that ign doesnt give games low scores is so insane to me. Even you do this, do you people not realize how ironic this is?

The fact they gave Alien: Isolation 5.9 will *never* not be hilarious or embarrassing The Myst review is an all time classic, though. A full 3d rebuild of a *fkn slideshow?!* - 4 out of 10 because I'm outside

That Myst DS review was both frustrating and hilarious

I think a score system in theory is fine. The issue is that the numbers themselves have been rendered worthless. As you pointed out, anything below a 7 is generally viewed as trash, there's no room for nuance. A fun-but-janky game will often get the same score as a fundamentally broken game. This problem stems laziness, as well as the industry's reliance on Metacritic for some ungodly reason. Also, the console ports of 7 Days to Die were completely busted, and they're only now getting around to fixing it (or so they say). As for the PC version, it's complete trash and has been for years. It's been in "early access" for _TEN YEARS_ and it's worse now than it was a decade ago. The game was really fun for the first few years, but the devs are constantly altering core mechanics and making changes that absolutely nobody likes. The game is also bloated and _horribly_ optimized. So in this one instance, IGN is right to leave that 4.9 score up.

It's funny how IGN got a lot of hate for giving Starfield only a 7 (and you know a 7 for ign doesn't mean the game is good) instead of 9 or 10 like other reviewers....and then people played the game and said IGN were right and maybe even a bit generous lol