...which seems a little low compared to the review, "One of the best, most mature RPGs of recent years." They also note that the game lost very little in its transition to consoles, but score it considerably lower than its higher profile (but arguably lesser) peers. This is nothing unusual for IGN though.
What was really odd is they put the graphics pretty low, somewhat because it didn't look like PC Ultra Nut settings or something... yet the same chick who did the review did the Dark Souls review and she was glowing about that game graphically. ?
Some other reviews...
Game Informer - 9.5 OXM - 8.5 Eurogamer - 9 OXM UK - 9
there reviews make no sense they say its one of the best rpgs and then they give it a score of 8.5 i dont no what happen to ign but i gave up listening to reviewers check it out on youtube the gameplay and listen to the comments of people who played the game and then form your own opinion. Thats the way i buy games these days.
Yeah, Keza's usually a spot-on reviewer, but to dock the Xbox 360 version for not being graphically superior to the PC version is like getting upset at a fish for not being able to climb a tree, or something. She mentions that the 360 build is one of the best-looking games ever released on that console, but her final score basically punishes the game for not having Ultra settings.
While all the reviews for this game are excellent, it's acknowledged that IGN is terrible. With Metacritic I try to read all the reviews and if "wonky mechanics" or "clumsy controls" comes up I'm out no matter what the score turns out to be.
IGN has been getting worse and worse as time goes on. This is one of the reasons why! Typically I only use their scores for games that I don't know much about. Since I know I'm going to love this game regardless of what IGN thinks, I'm looking at their score as just one persons opinion.
Keza loved the game and gave it a "great" score. I don't rely on the numbers, though, i read what they write. And i read what others write. there are plenty of games that get 6s and 7s from IGN, that i love, but know that their "decent" scores make sense.
Good luck getting a 9.0 or better from IGN unless your company pays for it in advertising revenue. These are the same guys who didn't even mention the Mass Effect 3 ending in the review, and didn't mention it later unless it was to poke fun at the fans who were (understandably) upset about it.
Really, there isn't much credibility to be had in gaming journalism because of the massive conflict of interest that is inherent in the industry. Gaming sites are paid for by ad revenue which comes from the companies who make the games they are supposed to be impartially reviewing. It's a laughable system.
"Really, there isn't much credibility to be had in gaming journalism because of the massive conflict of interest that is inherent in the industry. Gaming sites are paid for by ad revenue which comes from the companies who make the games they are supposed to be impartially reviewing. It's a laughable system."
Excellent statement. Very true. I only use gaming sites to learn more about the game. I never let anyone else tell me if I will like something or not. Their opinion on good or bad is irrelevant to me.
Amen Brother......I think 8.5 is a great score (in fact better than great, according to IGN's ratings 8.0 =great). Get off this notion that everything that doesn't get a 9 isn't worth playing. You guys will miss out on a lot of great games with this mentality.
I agree. I'm starting to think gaming critics should do away with numeric scores just to stop this nonsense. There's no way a number could possibly sum up the quality or enjoyment of a video game. But as you say 8.5/10 is pretty damn great (an "Editor's Choice" if I remember correctly).