Well obviously we have IGN, but I want to add Rolling Stone Magazine to the list. The way they have reviewed albums in the past negatively but then praise them years later gets on my nerves. For example, Kiss' Destroyer album, when it was originally released, Rolling Stone referred to "bloated ballads," "pedestrian drumming" and "lackluster performances" in its review, years later, it's one of their 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Nirvana's "Nevermind", originally given 3 stars when it was released, was placed 17th on their 500 Greatest Albums. Same could be said for The Beatles "Let it Be," originally considered a poor album placed 86th on that list. Led Zeppelin was completely ignored by the magazine when they started out, but now are consistently praised by them, they even called the band, "the Heaviest Band of All Time." Rolling Stone completely writes off whatever is up and coming (back in the 80's, they completely ignored hip hop and heavy metal), but then years later, after they see how popular it has become, gives it unending praise. Even now a days they just latch onto whatever is popular but ignore everything else. Top 100 singers list, barely anyone from metal, people like Ronnie James Dio (rip) Bruce Dickinson, Rob Halford, Ozzy Osbourne, James Hetfield, and much more are ignored.
IGN all day everyday. When they make reviews I always wonder what they're on when they do. It's like they pull a score out of a hat and write their reviews based on that. Other than IGN I haven't heard of many other review sites since none of them are as trash and infamous as IGN is.
Any Mainstream reviewer honestly, most are paid to give a game a high score. Gameinformer is the only mainstream review site I respect and actually listen too.
IGN and Metacritic assholes who give games 0/10 for stupid reasons and with out even playing them first.
"0/10 boo, the game has little framerate issues and FPS is 30. Also, that one small part looked really boring, the whole game is just a big fucking joke."
I mean, C'mon how dumb is that? They watch a small video of some one else playing the game and then go give it the worst rating possible... fucking idiots.
Mitch Dyer: "Ninga Gaiden 3 is too easy. 3 out of 10" "Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor's Edge is hard and you have to buy upgrades before you can do cool things. It's even worse!"
Pretty much this, I don't trust reviews other than metacritic user reviews, i don't trust steam reviews at all. I think they definitely mislead people to thinking a game is better than it truly is.
Because of this thread I ended up reading some of the funniest shit ever! Seriously has anyone seen the Amazon reviews for veet for men hair removing cream? You have to check it out!
I love how IGN is getting the most flack here yet they've always consistently giving the Telltale episodes high scores.
They're ridiculously overhated. I can name ten (or more) reviewers worse than them. You need to remember there's separate people there, they all have different opinions on things. It's a company for a reason. GameTrailers is the same. And Gamespot? Their reviewers are: "WhateverIGNgaveit-1/10
The last review I read from IGN was for Advanced Warfare and there was absolutely no passion for a game they gave a 9 to. How do you give a score that high to a game you don't seem the slightest bit excited by?
So they're pretty much on my worst list.
I'm amused by Polygon although I don't take them seriously. They at least have a view point outside of ticking boxes and the industry could use more of that even if I don't care for their particular point of view. As I keep telling people, not every review is for you. If you don't like a site's reviews, move on and find some reviewers who are closer to your opinions.
My trinity is Angry Joe, Jim Sterling, and Yahtzee. All are quite willing to slam a game they didn't like no matter how much other people love it, which is something I expect to see from critics. They should not move in lock-step with everyone else. They should have spiky opinions that pop up every so often, even if I don't share them. No critic can possibly speak for me, but all three give me passionate views I can't entirely dismiss.
Comments
IGN
Just IGN
Oh...and every big name reviewer that everyone looks at, pretty much.
IGN - Too much water.
Well obviously we have IGN, but I want to add Rolling Stone Magazine to the list. The way they have reviewed albums in the past negatively but then praise them years later gets on my nerves. For example, Kiss' Destroyer album, when it was originally released, Rolling Stone referred to "bloated ballads," "pedestrian drumming" and "lackluster performances" in its review, years later, it's one of their 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Nirvana's "Nevermind", originally given 3 stars when it was released, was placed 17th on their 500 Greatest Albums. Same could be said for The Beatles "Let it Be," originally considered a poor album placed 86th on that list. Led Zeppelin was completely ignored by the magazine when they started out, but now are consistently praised by them, they even called the band, "the Heaviest Band of All Time." Rolling Stone completely writes off whatever is up and coming (back in the 80's, they completely ignored hip hop and heavy metal), but then years later, after they see how popular it has become, gives it unending praise. Even now a days they just latch onto whatever is popular but ignore everything else. Top 100 singers list, barely anyone from metal, people like Ronnie James Dio (rip) Bruce Dickinson, Rob Halford, Ozzy Osbourne, James Hetfield, and much more are ignored.
Rolling Stone sucks more than IGN.
Confused Matthew.
Not a very good reviewer of films. Guy really doesn't have most of his facts sometimes. Can't stand him.
Every big name reviewer.
IGN all day everyday. When they make reviews I always wonder what they're on when they do. It's like they pull a score out of a hat and write their reviews based on that. Other than IGN I haven't heard of many other review sites since none of them are as trash and infamous as IGN is.
Greg Miller, anyone from IGN and Angry Joe.
Any Mainstream reviewer honestly, most are paid to give a game a high score. Gameinformer is the only mainstream review site I respect and actually listen too.
I don't think Angry Joe is that bad, but he's very cringe worthy.
Edit: I was wrong.
IGN, for sure. (No surprise there)
IGN and Metacritic assholes who give games 0/10 for stupid reasons and with out even playing them first.
"0/10 boo, the game has little framerate issues and FPS is 30. Also, that one small part looked really boring, the whole game is just a big fucking joke."
I mean, C'mon how dumb is that? They watch a small video of some one else playing the game and then go give it the worst rating possible... fucking idiots.
Mitch Dyer: "Ninga Gaiden 3 is too easy. 3 out of 10" "Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor's Edge is hard and you have to buy upgrades before you can do cool things. It's even worse!"
Pretty much this, I don't trust reviews other than metacritic user reviews, i don't trust steam reviews at all. I think they definitely mislead people to thinking a game is better than it truly is.
he is a sell out.
Ignorant Gaming News
IGN- 0/10 They didn't pay us enough.
IGN They're the worst bunch of bull shit fuck them
I used to trust IGN, foolish me. Then I saw the WWE reviews and thought "Sellout dickheads."
Never trusting them again. Honestly I could just ask people on here and have more confidence.
You were wrong? Why?
IGN - In Game Nuts
He is a sell-out? How did he become one?
Because of this thread I ended up reading some of the funniest shit ever! Seriously has anyone seen the Amazon reviews for veet for men hair removing cream? You have to check it out!
Edit: heres a link to one but there are so many other gems
http://rats-funnybone.com/veet-hair-removal-gel-for-men-funniest-review-ever/
kotaku, fucking sjws am i right guys
MetroGameCentral.
I love how IGN is getting the most flack here yet they've always consistently giving the Telltale episodes high scores.
They're ridiculously overhated. I can name ten (or more) reviewers worse than them. You need to remember there's separate people there, they all have different opinions on things. It's a company for a reason. GameTrailers is the same. And Gamespot? Their reviewers are: "WhateverIGNgaveit-1/10
DIS medieval GAEM IS TOO WHITE
oh but this other medieval game is historically accurate and has no white people 10/10
Kotaku, Polygon, let's count IGN because why not. Internet reviewers I don't like are Jim Sterling, Moviebob, probably some others I'm forgetting.
Maybe we should list reviewers we do like just to balance out the negativity.
The last review I read from IGN was for Advanced Warfare and there was absolutely no passion for a game they gave a 9 to. How do you give a score that high to a game you don't seem the slightest bit excited by?
So they're pretty much on my worst list.
I'm amused by Polygon although I don't take them seriously. They at least have a view point outside of ticking boxes and the industry could use more of that even if I don't care for their particular point of view. As I keep telling people, not every review is for you. If you don't like a site's reviews, move on and find some reviewers who are closer to your opinions.
My trinity is Angry Joe, Jim Sterling, and Yahtzee. All are quite willing to slam a game they didn't like no matter how much other people love it, which is something I expect to see from critics. They should not move in lock-step with everyone else. They should have spiky opinions that pop up every so often, even if I don't share them. No critic can possibly speak for me, but all three give me passionate views I can't entirely dismiss.
Kotaku is horrible.