Biased Game sites

[PeteJ]

I think our review process helps - although I wrote the Halo2 review, around ten other people helped and made it as balanced as possible. I realise not everyone agreed with it - that was never the point - but I hope they understand where it was coming from.

I feel it is important for a reviewer to make their points well, so even if people disagree with the review, they can at least see the reasoning.

[Strider]

I feel it is important for a reviewer to make their points well, so even if people disagree with the review, they can at least see the reasoning.

Is that why you guys always except feedback so well in the feedback forum?

[Concept]

That's an entirely unrelated point to the one PeteJ made. A point which you continually raise and has already been addressed, with everyone's knowledge I am aware.

Individual writers themselves are allowed to respond specifically to the feedback so long as they engage in dialect and discourse, whereas the rest of the writing team, i.e. the site, aren't to get involved.

Is this not good enough, or shall we just not let sleeping dogs finally lie?

{edit by charlesr - actually, on reviews, even the writer is encouraged to stay out, unless a specific question on the game is asked - now we just let anyone post what they want, as long as it's backed up by reasoned prose, rather than just "that was pants cos it didnt get 10/10"}

[Leon Retro]

The Megadrive is ****, especially the Pal version. Ntsc Super Famicom rulez!!!

[JibberX]

For me specifically, IGN uses and loses its bias whenever it suits it. Back in the day, I use to read IGN, for a laugh, catch up on all those americanisms et al. Now it just represents a really immature sector of the Game Industry. They obviously have interoffice rivalries, and obviously are clueless about what real journalism is. Its these kind of problems that irritate me, first of all it should ethically just be about the games, not about what you play it on. Secondly the average age demographic of the consumer in the industry is obviously going up, but the press and whatnot isn't changing.

As for GameSpot, I dunno, they are just wierd I can't even read there site its such a steaming mess.

[Ady]

This site is refreshing in its overall partialty, imo.

As for IGN, I really can't understand why anyone would take that deplorable sideshow of a game site seriously, let alone read it. It reminds me of all the things I used to despise about gaming newsgroups from my USENET days (ie obnoxious, juvenile American fanboyish drivel).

Gamespot OTOH has you wading through pages and pages of garbage just to find a tiny scrap of useful information that generally turns out to be something you know anyway.

[Kotatsu Neko]

I always thought IGN was extremely pro Nintendo. They get very, very excited at the Ninty pre-E3 press conferences, but seem much less thrilled to be at Microsoft or Sony's events.

And when you see them frothing over the prospect of a new Zelda game...

But Nintendo do need some support, if they continue to slip they may go the way of Sega. And I know I am certainly much worse off after Sega's decline into minor player.

[RLench]

Maybe they just think Nintendo's press conferences have better things to report? That doesn't make them biased...

[mid]

IGN seems to be very broken down along platform lines. Like the 'official' mags (and many many unofficial single-platform ones), the writers seem to assume that their readers want to be congratulated on their platform by random attacking of all others. xbox.ign.com is rampantly biased towards XBox, and similarly for the other sites, really.

[nightz]

IGN does seem a bit anti-Nintendo though, but I think that is just because the editors of the Nintendo channels are just bleedin lazy.

They spend more time commenting on how they think Nintendo should be be run, than actually writing up on games.

They're journalists not business consultants.

[nightz]

For me specifically, IGN uses and loses its bias whenever it suits it. Back in the day, I use to read IGN, for a laugh, catch up on all those americanisms et al. Now it just represents a really immature sector of the Game Industry. They obviously have interoffice rivalries, and obviously are clueless about what real journalism is.

Yea every year there's competition between the sites to see who will give the highest score. This this the competition was "who will get a higher score" between halo 2 and GTA: san andreas.

Unfortunately this led to GTA getting a 99% score, a brilliant game, but because of its scope it doesn't excel in every area.

[evert]

[. Its these kind of problems that irritate me, first of all it should ethically just be about the games, not about what you play it on. Secondly the average age demographic of the consumer in the industry is obviously going up, but the press and whatnot isn't changing.



I agree with the above. I could care less about which of the 3 consoles are more powerful or have better graphics or sound, I just want to know about the games themselves, are they fun etc. Which is why I wish this site would put up a whole lot more reviews than they do, I never get the sense that a game is being criticised or praised simple because of the console it is on.

[chopemon]

gamespy has a bias towards everything

i love the way they hype everything no matter what it is

i'd be concerned if they continued that in to their reviews but i often find that they are truthful and honest with their reviews

doom 3 is a notable exception as they were so caught up in their own hype

[graham hill]

way of life

it's the way it is, i'm afraid.

[NeilMcRae]

Teh PC is teh SuXXoR!!!1

This site is well biased against M$ and the xbox, you got rid of that happy xbox chap BungiePeterRareandHalo i think that's his name?!

because he was a twat and kept posting stuff he was told not too.