IGN and Gamespot collaboration for exciting content!
IGN and Gamespot collaboration for exciting content!
Critics such as IGN and Gamespot avoid harsh critiques of major game studios like EA and Ubisoft since doing so could lead to being excluded from their platforms (and missing free reviews, which is part of their strategy). This allows them to share their opinions first before others, potentially gaining more visibility.
I believe reviewers often attempt various tactics to shape opinions, but it seems unlikely they’re engaging in straightforward "reward for favorable feedback and payment for unfavorable" deals. That approach would be too obvious, easily revealed, and potentially damaging if discovered. Both parties would likely avoid it, regardless of any underhanded schemes. The FTC mandates clear disclosures for paid promotions, so such behavior could violate regulations. Instead, companies might send staff to events, provide hospitality, and let PR representatives guide the process. They may also control embargo timelines or relationships with outlets to influence perceptions. Sometimes they form close ties with review platforms, creating a subtle sense of familiarity that affects scoring. While exclusive reviews exist—like IGN’s past practice—they can still sway opinions. Ultimately, reviews reflect personal perspectives rather than direct attempts to match individual views. Titanfall initially received strong praise, but problems emerged only after its lifespan. Alien Isolation generated polar reactions, yet many found it highly enjoyable. Arkham Knight faced PC port issues, though IGN and Gamespot likely reviewed it on consoles where interpretations varied. The audience often prioritizes the review itself, but for major publishers, paying for access is a routine part of the process. The real impact lies in how quickly reviews are granted and published.
From the amount of lies and nonsense I see, it seems there are just two possibilities: 1. They completely lack understanding and are mentally impaired. 2. They receive payment.
Until we find solid evidence, it remains just a guess, not a confirmed truth. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if it were proven otherwise. Regarding GS... it wouldn't surprise me either. Both have mixed feedback, with plenty of positive and negative reviews over time, making it hard to judge without more context.
IGN rated those games really poorly but still gave them high marks, like 9 or 8 out of 10. Just when IGN gives low scores, it usually means the game is cheap and underfunded, or it’s so terrible they can’t come up with anything positive without exaggerating.
The trend of certain titles being popular shows us that it's reasonable to appreciate games that most people don’t value highly. A low score from one site doesn’t confirm your personal view, since you can’t know the reviewer’s true feelings. It’s wise to consider several opinions and see them as individual perspectives. The goal of a review isn’t to confirm your own stance. The bigger issues with IGN are their dependence on early hype coverage without playing games, joining review camps for titles they haven’t seen, and their past access to exclusive content. There’s clear evidence they’re too connected to the companies they criticize to rely solely on simple ratings like “9/10.”
I’m not expressing a personal dislike, but rather pointing out that this was the sole positive comment out of many negative ones. Their words clashed with those of other reviewers. It just happened to be the only thing I noticed while others were criticizing the game.
It hinges on the specifics of the review (not just the rating). In this case, it seems they overlooked or downplayed certain issues and emphasized only the positives. This might result in a poorly crafted assessment, yet it still suggests a lack of strong evidence for malicious or self-serving actions. As I mentioned earlier, IGN handles many other things that are even more questionable.
It's true, though I'm not sure about the details. I think someone from their team appeared as an NPC in another title. I'll check further. EDIT: Jessica Chobot was mentioned in Mass Effect 3.
IGN and Gamespot do not get paid to do their reviews. It would have been stopped a long time ago since it's very illegal in most countries. They do however, give high scores out of fear of being blacklisted by a publisher. This is another issue. Also, IGN is far more incompetent than Gamespot. I would say Gamespot's reviews are much much better and more reliable. Basically for IGN, anything below 8 or 9 is bad. For Gamespot, anything below 7 is bad. 8 for IGN and 7 for Gamespot being an average game.