#1 Posted on 1.10.04 0213.31 Reposted on: 1.10.11 0219.02
I will be the first to admit that I depend on reviews from IGN and Gamespot for my video game purchasing decisions. I, however, have found a problem with IGN's reviewing style:
They tend to contrast and compare way too much.
Case in point: Max Payne 2 for the PS2.
I picked it up today, and I love it. I can't find any problems with it, but aparently, the guys at IGN do, because they've played both the PC and X-Box version.
I guess, I'm just wondering why these guys can't review games as stand alone games, instead of telling us virtually point blank that the port I bought may be technologically inferior to the others out there? SO what, if my PC isn't good enough for that edition. WHo cares that I don't have an X-Box? I don't care that this or that version is better...just give me an unbiased view of what I'm playing.
Sorry for the rant, guys...just something I had to get off my chest.
Since last post: 2303 days Last activity: 772 days
#2 Posted on 1.10.04 1234.25 Reposted on: 1.10.11 1234.26
See. that's why I like some of the IGN reviews. I have all the systems, and a PC, so when a game like Max Payne 2 comes out, I'd like to know which version is best (PC).
For the newer games, I've noticed that they've cut back on the comparisons, because they have an Insiders only exclusive "head to head" review. Of course, I'm not an insider.
Also, because they don't have a ton of reviewers, they also cut and paste reviews a lot, and then add in a new "PS2 version" section at the end. I haven't decided if I like that feature or not. It seems kind of lazy to me.