Microsoft all but confirms Xbox 720 in 2013

March 17, 2012

Microsoft has moved to end all speculation about it showing the Xbox 720 at E3 this year. Which all but confirms the next Xbox will be unveiled in 2013.

With the Wii U on the way many people are fascinated to see what Sony and Microsoft have up their sleeves for the next generation of consoles. Or perhaps it’s just me. Either way the rumors have been coming thick and fast in recent months, with speculation that a disc-less Xbox successor will be arriving in 2013 the latest to do the rounds.

Microsoft yesterday issued a statement attempting to end all speculation until at least next year. It read:

While we appreciate all the interest in our long-range plans for the future, we can confirm that there will be no talk of new Xbox hardware at E3 or anytime soon. For us, 2012 is all about Xbox 360 … The console is coming off its biggest year ever — a year in which Xbox outsold all other consoles worldwide. Xbox 360 didn’t just outsell other consoles, it also outsold all other TV-connected devices like DVD players, as well as digital media receivers and home theater systems. And in our seventh year, we sold more consoles than in any other year — defying convention.

This year, we will build on that Xbox 360 momentum. With Halo 4, Forza Horizon, Fable: The Journey, and other great Kinect games on the way, our 2012 Xbox lineup is our strongest ever. This year, we will deliver more TV, music, and movie experiences for Xbox 360 — as we’ll make it even easier to find and control all your entertainment. And this year, Xbox games, music, and video are coming to Windows 8 so people can enjoy their Xbox entertainment wherever they go.

This is an official statement from Microsoft, a company which usually does not comment on rumor or speculation. So either it’s decided to try and kill talk of the Xbox successor for the time being so as not to detract from the Xbox 360′s final year as its primary console, or it’s making us all look the other way so that when the Xbox 720 (or whatever it’s called) does make an appearance front and center at E3 2012 we’ll all be shocked and stunned.

I think it’s the former, and I hope so too. As excited as I am to see what Microsoft has lined up for the next-gen, I would rather only see the new hardware a few months before launch rather than the more-than-a-year-ahead strategy adopted by Nintendo with the Wii U. They showed their hand too early, and by the time it launches any anticipation will have dissipated.

Note the continual references to “this year,” which is Microsoft essentially saying, “Forget about 2013, that’s a long way off. Just focus on 2012 and all the Xbox 360 goodness we have planned for the next nine months.” Will we listen to them or will we continue to speculate about the company’s plans for the next iteration of Xbox hardware?

179 Responses to “Microsoft all but confirms Xbox 720 in 2013”

  1. The Future of Sega:

    Don’t you just hate it when companies lie? GAWD I get so SICK of that “corporation” talk. Just tell the fucking TRUTH already! Geez…

  2. twilight:

    Microsoft are straight shooters. In other words, our main competitor Sony is not releasing a new system anytime soon so we have decided to delay the release of the next generation Xbox a little longer. We are confident that the release of Halo 4, Fable, and Forza will be enough to put us on top this year along with our Kinect titles.

  3. Roca.:

    ^ do you have a link for that quote?

  4. Godless:

    When I joined this site almost a year back I was pretty confident we would see the next xbox on the shelves for Christmas 2012.

    Now with the kinect and the constant additions to the desktop apps, and the continued high sales of the console. along with Sonys long term plans, I really don’t know when we will see it.

    My best guess is sometime in 2013, with the odds being that it is launched to make the best of the Christmas holiday season.

    It’s pretty clear the devs are working on the new machine, so the specifications are probably not going to change much now. That said, if they wait too long to launch, the machine will be out of date when it’s launched, so I think the countdown is on.

    Maybe they are waiting to announce the Nextbox when it will have the biggest possible impact on sales for the new Wii U, after all, MS would just love to piss all over Nintendo’s fire with on this one, as I see MS wanting to capture some of Nintendo’s share of the gamer market.

  5. twilight:

    I don’t think that Microsoft is all that concerned with what Nintendo does. Microsoft is more concerned with what Sony does.

  6. Roca.:

    “I don’t think that Microsoft is all that concerned with what Nintendo does. Microsoft is more concerned with what Sony does”

    when it comes to console war, I wonder why it’s Micorosft vs Sony….or Nintendo vs Sony

    it’s never Nitendo vs Microsoft (which Nintendo would def win)

  7. twilight:

    Roca,
    Sony equals gaming. Sony is the big bad wolf that constantly devours the competition. The competitors all just want to take the wolf down but the wolf is forever strong.

  8. dans303:

    http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2111085.jpg

  9. ncaissie:

    “our main competitor Sony is not releasing a new system anytime soon so we have decided to delay the release of the next generation Xbox a little longer. ”
    You work for MS? That explains a lot!

  10. twilight:

    Ncaissie,
    I wouldn’t work for Microsoft unless they were the only company left in the world and I had no other choice to survive.

  11. Godless:

    You’re a bad man Dans :D

    It’s clear MS has moved in on Nintendo’s casual market, and it’s also clear that it has succeeded to a large degree.
    Kinect games are selling remarkably well all things considered, loads of devs working on implementing kinect, and the workbench UI with kinect getting better all the time

    Roca, you say Nintendo would win Vs MS, but I would say only a retard would choose a Wii over an xbox, but hey, you’re free to do what you think is best.

    I would say next gen, the Wii U will get trashed by the nextbox, with only die hard Nintendo fans really buying one for the few exclusives worth having.
    most parents now know about kinect, and how much better it is at doing motion games (they thought the wii could do)most also know how little the wii gets played, and hoe utterly shite most of the games are. Some are even starting to use the additional features the 360 offers that the Wii can’t even do. it’s a no brainer. I will go on record as saying “The nextbox WILL outsell the Wii U”

  12. ncaissie:

    “http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2111085.jpg”
    LMFAO

  13. ncaissie:

    @godless

    So far my kids have 4 kinect games. The adventures one, a carnival one, spongebob and Disney. Disney is the only one that has any sense of accuracy. The others are unplayable.

  14. Roca.:

    @Godless
    “but I would say only a retard would choose a Wii over an xbox, but hey, you’re free to do what you think is best”

    Only a retard would chose a 360 (or a Wii) over a PS3…and if you already have or chose a PS3, a Wii is the 2nd best option as you won’t miss much by not having a 360 since the PS3 can play most of its game.

    You xbots like to based “success” on sales…Wii wins against the 360 in total hardware/exclusives sales.

    we gamers like to based “success” on games/exclusives…Wii/PS3 wins in number of exclusives and original and unique games.

    @Godless
    “most parents now know about kinect, and how much better it is”

    That’s why Wii keeps outselling Kinect…right!!?

    @ncaissie
    “The others are unplayable”

    like 99% of the Kinect games. Wii is a better motion device for gaming…

  15. twilight:

    Roca,
    By the way, you are a genius. I took the advice you gave to Ncaissie and I’m not looking back.
    Also, is Resident Evil Racoon City going to be any good?

  16. ncaissie:

    Lol what advice?

  17. Roca.:

    Return your 360?

  18. twilight:

    There is really no reason to have multiple systems.

  19. Godless:

    Cassiei’ve not played the games you list other than adventures, which works really well for us, the only game we have got rid of was joyride, it was shite, basically ignored what you were doing and did random shite.

    Kinect sport 1 & more so 2 have very fast response fruit ninja is lag free and is very accurate, gun stringer and Child of Eden are great,.

    I have demos for Kinectimals?, and things like hole in the wall, and a lemmings type game and they all work really well.
    Kinect has been way better than I thought it would be, as I had seen it in the early days when lag was a huge issue for most games. this is no longer the case

    Roca

    anyone considering a casual gaming platform has a choice of Wii Vs 360

    As a parent I can see this, and given the choice between the 2 the 360 destroys the Wii

    yes the PS3 is the best choice overall for gamers, but is has a shit selection for kids when up against the 360 or Wii

    Key word here Roca is “Kids” ie. games that you probably wouldn’t play because there to easy, shallow or childish.

  20. twilight:

    …this late in the game.

  21. ncaissie:

    “I have demos for Kinectimals”
    I’ll download it tonight.

  22. ncaissie:

    “yes the PS3 is the best choice overall for gamers, but is has a shit selection for kids when up against the 360 or Wii”
    That’s odd because we have all three systems and my kids play the ps3 most of the time. They play LBP 1&2 as well as disney universe, toy story 3, the new spyro game as well as many others. They also play a lot of the buzz games from PSN and discs. They have backwards compatible ps3s and a ps2 in the Yukon.
    They only play Disney and Pokemon on the other two.

  23. Roca.:

    how much did you get back for your 360?

  24. twilight:

    The full amount.
    Oh, my gosh Ninja Gaiden 3 just got a score of 3 from Ign.

  25. ncaissie:

    Ign sucks ass. They wouldn’t know a good game if it bit them. They remind me of Adam sesler

  26. The Future of Sega:

    ^^^ LMFAO what are you smoking? IGN is cool dude. :-)

  27. twilight:

    I am going to wait until more scores post to get a better idea of this game. I was looking forward to checking this game out.

  28. CAD:

    I already know what they were going to show at E3 and I already know that it wasn’t going to be the new Xbox. That last statement said it all.

    “this year, Xbox games, music, and video are coming to Windows 8 so people can enjoy their Xbox entertainment wherever they go.”

    Yeah expect to see synergy between Xbox 360, Windows 8 and Windows Phone. They are bringing the whole package together this year and I’m excited to see it more so then a new console. The new sonic game will be able to be played on both the console and the Phone. You can play on the 360 and continue on the phone and vica versa. That’s something promised on the Vita that hasn’t happened yet.

  29. oldschool1987:

    IGN recently gave Silent Hill (A game I was looking forward to) a very, very low score. When I checked other scores I noticed all others were very positive. Don’t know what is with IGN lately.

  30. oldschool1987:

    “You can play on the 360 and continue on the phone and vica versa.”

    So MS copied Sony again?

    “That’s something promised on the Vita that hasn’t happened yet.”

    Yes it has …idiot troll.

  31. Roca.:

    “You can play on the 360 and continue on the phone and vica versa”

    Keep dreaming CAD…you obviously just pulling shit out of your ass to keep yourself excited about the 360 LMAO

  32. ncaissie:

    ““That’s something promised on the Vita that hasn’t happened yet.””
    Why the fuck don’t you research before ou open our big mouth. Of course It has. Nice try troll.

  33. ncaissie:

    @roca. He is talking about mini size games.

  34. phranctoast:

    “IGN recently gave Silent Hill (A game I was looking forward to) a very, very low score. When I checked other scores I noticed all others were very positive. Don’t know what is with IGN lately.”

    IGN just fucked Ninja Gaiden 3 with a worse score.

    3/10.

    I highly doubt the game could be that bad. I just wish IGN would stay somewhat consistent with other publications.

  35. Roca.:

    CAD – “I already know what they were going to show at E3″

    Same as always…More Halo, Fable, Forza and Kinect crap.

  36. Roca.:

    The trends continues…Japanese games keep getting shitty review scores. Just look at the following Metacritic scores:

    63 Silent Hill: Downpour
    60 Ninja Gaiden 3
    73 Asura’s Wrath
    64 Yakuza: Dead Souls
    50 NeverDead
    75 Tales of Graces f
    79 Final Fantasy XIII-2 (lowest reviewed FF game ever)

    I bet these games that are coming out this week keep the trend going:

    -Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City
    -Warriors Orochi 3
    -Armored Core V

  37. phranctoast:

    Here’s hoping that RE doesn’t fare all that bad. IGN’s preview sounded terrible.

    I see it has a 3.5/5-70%, and 4.25/5-85% and a 9/10-90%

  38. CarlB:

    “IGN recently gave Silent Hill (A game I was looking forward to) a very, very low score. When I checked other scores I noticed all others were very positive.”

    Out of 11 reviews so far, only one was very positive.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/silent-hill-downpour/critic-reviews

    “I just wish IGN would stay somewhat consistent with other publications.”

    I’m glad not everyone falls perfectly in line with the status quo and can retain some autonomy.

    “IGN just fucked Ninja Gaiden 3 with a worse score.”

    Again, most other reviewers so far have not given it a positive review. From another reviewer: “A huge misstep for a series that has provided a lot of good times over the years. It’s oversimplified, boring and leaves the player feeling they’re never quite in full control – a Very Bad Thing in the world of Ninja Gaiden.” (Play UK)

    As for the aforementioned scores on Metacritic, especially the 73, 75, and 79, what I believe is happening is that there are more high quality games on the market now than the beginning of this gen, and higher bars have been set.

    Though these scores may seem low, the games themselves can still be fun, regardless of critical review. I found this to be the case with Asura’s Wrath, but I still understand why it received a 73.

    Overall, I think this is good news, as we now have higher standards by which to judge games based upon what has already came out.

  39. Roca.:

    IGN hates games made by Japanese developers…Ninja Gaiden can’t be a 3 rated game, even if it’s not even half as good as the previous games.

  40. phranctoast:

    “I’m glad not everyone falls perfectly in line with the status quo and can retain some autonomy. ”

    It doesn’t have to be perfectly in line with, but when a game is reviewed 30 points lower than average (NG3) it’s safe to say there may be a problem.

    Same thing can be said for Silent Hill. Have your own review but 45% is still 20 points too low as to where the mean is.

    When I see something like this I just think the site is trolling for hits. I’d like to know the truth behind this. I highly doubt the game is a 30% game. The score seems overly critical.

    IGN has been on a strange roll lately. PS3 exclusives getting higher reviews than the average while some multiplats have been getting the shaft.

    I see one consistence pattern with a few of their reviews. IGN seems to be rewarding old school games for sticking to their roots. Twisted Metal was praised as it stuck to it’s roots (it was critiqued by others for this) While Silent Hill, and Ninja Gaiden 3 were thrown to the wolves for trying to do the opposite.
    I guess you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

  41. CarlB:

    It’s safe to say you personally are not comfortable with their negative review period. The only “problem” is the reviewer has criticized the game and scored it as he thought it should be, which is hardly a problem at all, unless you think all people should have the same viewpoint. Same thing can be said for Silent Hill. That the games aren’t receiving generally positive reviews is the main takeaway.

  42. ncaissie:

    They hired Adam and that bimbo from X-play.

  43. ncaissie:

    I liked her before she moved to xplay

  44. CarlB:

    “Enemies here are harmless. More often than not, the soldiers, ninja, or monsters pop out simply to wait to die. Ninja Gaiden compensates for this with a disarming quantity of guys to kill, which is a cheap cop-out that emphasizes its creative vacancy. Repetition sinks in early, hits hard, and doesn’t let up. In addition, the erratic and unreliable targeting means missing marks more often than is acceptable for a franchise revered for precision. In another questionable step backward, Ryu sticks with just one weapon for the entire game.
    The most challenging thing about Ninja Gaiden 3 is dealing with its confused camera.”

    Sounds like a 3 to me, especially compared to previous entries in the series.

  45. oldschool1987:

    Carl, I was going by this:

    Game Informer 7/10[15]
    GameSpot 7.5/10[16]
    GamesRadar 7/10[17]
    IGN 4.5/10[18]
    Official Xbox Magazine 7.5/10[19]
    Official Xbox Magazine (UK) 7/10[20]
    Destructoid 8/10[21]
    Joystiq 3.5/5[22]
    Rely on Horror 9/10[23]

    7 is a positive score …only just but it’s above average.

  46. Roca.:

    Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City

    Joystiq Review = 40/100

    “Ultimately, Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City
    is everything I hoped it wouldn’t be: a mediocre shooter hoping to be bolstered by the Resident Evil name. It takes what is arguably the series’ best setting and wastes it, forcing players to plod through generic underground facilities and the occasional, oddly vacant street from one boring encounter to the next”

    Thanks again Slant Six

  47. dans303:

    http://i.imgur.com/XqmEH.jpg

  48. ncaissie:

    LMFAO @ Dan and his pics.
    You would think a company that made the previous ninja gaiden games wouldn’t let this release if it was that bad. I really wanted to get NG sigma for the vita. I’m saving my pennies for COMICCON.

  49. phranctoast:

    “It’s safe to say you personally are not comfortable with their negative review period. The only “problem” is the reviewer has criticized the game and scored it as he thought it should be, which is hardly a problem at all, unless you think all people should have the same viewpoint. Same thing can be said for Silent Hill. That the games aren’t receiving generally positive reviews is the main takeaway.”

    There’s no defending this practice. He scored it 30 points lower than the norm.

    It’s safe to say that they’re just being overly critical for the sake of. How do you defend this?

    Anything is more believable as an excuse than the quality of the game. Not being paid off is a better excuse. Wanting more hits is better too.

    “Sounds like a 3 to me, especially compared to previous entries in the series.”

    OXM says:

    “If all of this reads like the evisceration of a horrible game, that’s definitely not the case. It’s a matter of context. Compared to its predecessors, Ninja Gaiden 3 is a noticeable step back due largely to all the gameplay decisions that are taken out of your hands. Stacked up against its contemporaries, however, it still stands among the finest fast-action experiences on Xbox (Bayonetta excepted). Ryu is a card-carrying member of the Badass Club, and the time spent both behind and without his mask is riveting. Two-player co-op in the Ninja Trials is a treat, while the eight-player Ninja Battle is refreshingly different from other modern online offerings, even if it’s ultimately not compelling enough to keep you playing for months on end.

    Given the rare and tumultuous circumstances that led to such turnover at Team Ninja, it’s fair to wonder what Itagaki’s Ninja Gaiden 3 would’ve been like. Still, this version of Ninja Gaiden 3 — the one created by Yosuke Hayashi and his crew — is what we get, and it deserves praise for being a great way an Xbox action fan can spend $60. It may not live up to the series’ impossibly high standards, but it’s still a gem in its own right.”

    Hmmmm. That doesn’t sound like a 3 to me……

  50. phranctoast:

    The only reason this score would make sense is if IGN changed their scoring system from a 20 point scale to a 10 points scale. Then it would be consistent.
    3/5 seems fair.

  51. CarlB:

    “There’s no defending this practice. He scored it 30 points lower than the norm.”

    Does this individual reviewer make a “practice” of scoring games 30 points lower than the “norm”?
    Should reviewers change their review because of other reviewer’s “norms”?
    Does he not explain in his review why he gave it such a low score?

    It’s safe to say that most reviewers find this is not a particularly good game, and have scored it as such.

    “OXM says”

    What you like? That they can find pennies in what very well might be a dumpster? If you agree with a particular reviewer or review and not others, then that may be a sign that people will have varying opinions to a strong degree.

    Your own personal sense of whatever is “fair” is hardly relevant if you haven’t even played the game, and even then it is still only your opinion. Expecting every site to fall in line with that is rather silly to say the least.

    What is “fair” is that everyone is entitled to their own opinions of a game, and I hardly expect every single reviewer to agree with my own.

    Expecting “consistency” in reviews of very different games by very different reviewers is a very weird sense of “fairness” indeed.

  52. Roca.:

    Carl – “It’s safe to say that most reviewers find this is not a particularly good game, and have scored it as such”

    not really. a 3-rated game is a garbage with many flaws, terrible gameplay (and NG always excel in gameplay), frames/graphical issues…barely playable.

    without IGN’s score NG3′s review avearge will be close to the 70s <- which is a "okay", above average game.

  53. phranctoast:

    I guess I expect more from IGN. They used to be my go to site for reviews, but when they can’t even be trusted in some instances to come close to the average score there’s no point in even bothering to read them anymore.

    “Does this individual reviewer make a “practice” of scoring games 30 points lower than the “norm”?”

    The site certainly does as of late.

    “Should reviewers change their review because of other reviewer’s “norms”?
    Does he not explain in his review why he gave it such a low score?”

    Nor should they be overly critical to be overly critical.

    “Your own personal sense of whatever is “fair” is hardly relevant if you haven’t even played the game, and even then it is still only your opinion. Expecting every site to fall in line with that is rather silly to say the least.”

    Neither have you, but simply from reading other opinions I can understand that the 3/10 is not a normal review. It’s the review of a butt hurt fanboy who got a little overzealous when reviewing this game. It’s neither professional nor logical.

  54. twilight:

    There are fair reviewers and there are reviewers that are biased reviewers. The bottom line is that Ninja Gaiden 3 did not deserve the low score it received from Ign.

  55. CarlB:

    “without IGN’s score NG3?s review avearge will be close to the 70s <- which is a 'okay', above average game."

    not really. Without IGN's score NG3's review average would still be 65 at this time (it's average is currently 63.4 and there are still plenty more reviews to come). In other words, it would still hold about the same average. Anything below 75 is considered to be in the "mixed review" window, anything above 75 would be considered "generally favorable reviews", so it still wouldn't have come close to even the bottom of what is considered generally good, at least by MC standards.

    "they can’t even be trusted in some instances to come close to the average score"

    They came close in that they also believe this generally is not a good game.
    If you believe any review site should consistently come in line with your own opinion or that of others there is probably a Minister of Propaganda opening for you somewhere.

    "The site certainly does as of late."

    Not with Vita or PS3 reviews. If you see some trend with the majority of games reviewed please point it out, otherwise these are just examples of individual reviewers with individual viewpoints. Your own individual opinion of what is "overly critical" is your own, don't pretend it should be everyone else's.

    "Normal" is whatever you accept it to be, and if you think it should somehow be enforced in something like video game reviews, then you may have some warped sense of the idea of "freedom" we enjoy. Either that or you're just "a butt hurt fanboy who got a little overzealous when" reading a review, that is if you even bothered to read the review. That's neither professional, logical, or reasonable.

  56. CarlB:

    “The bottom line is that Ninja Gaiden 3 did not deserve the low score it received from Ign.”

    And what do you base this statement upon? Your own experience with the game? Other reviewers mixed reviews on the game? “The bottom line is that Ninja Gaiden 3″ has not received generally favorable reviews from the majority of reviewers.

    Until you or I play the game personally, we have no say in what it “deserves” or does not, and even then it is only our individual opinion, which cannot be expected to be universal.

  57. Roca.:

    and the end of the day, IGN can’t be trusted anymore. Their site technically run by their ad supporters.

  58. jojo29:

    Carlb
    ” “Normal” is whatever you accept it to be, and if you think it should somehow be enforced in something like video game reviews, then you may have some warped sense of the idea of “freedom” we enjoy. Either that or you’re just “a butt hurt fanboy who got a little overzealous when” reading a review, that is if you even bothered to read the review. That’s neither professional, logical, or reasonable.”

    Rephrase this immediately…else theres no point to what you or anyone posts……ALL media needs some type of “measurement” enforced, else how the fuck does one determine what is a good normal movie, game, media and which are crap….

    Fact is, someone out there, decides and enforces what makes a video game great and what makes it shit….why can it not be phranc…or me….why only ign….

    Fact is everything is open to opinion and review…..but there is some type if standardized normal expected review….and when they stray from this…its natural to question it….

  59. ncaissie:

    Ok stop throwing my name around! Lol jk

  60. CarlB:

    Roca, at the end of the day, neither Ninja Gaiden 3 or Silent Hill Downpour are generally praised by critics, regardless of ad supporters.

    @jojo29,

    MC is a type of “measurement”. You are your own judge if you decide to get the game regardless of what the majority of critics say. Do what you want.

  61. phranctoast:

    I’m sorry. There’s absolutely no justification for a 3/10 review in this instance. When others are giving the game 8′s and mostly 7′s, a 3 makes you look like you’re out of touch with reality.

    Suck it up Carlb. Sometimes IGN just fucks up.

    “They came close in that they also believe this generally is not a good game.”

    So fucking what. That’s not my point. If they said 1/10 that would still be too low yet consistent with it having a low score.

    “If you believe any review site should consistently come in line with your own opinion or that of others there is probably a Minister of Propaganda opening for you somewhere. ”

    Yeah.. That’s what I need to do. I like it when you get put in your place and have nothing but asinine shit like this to vomit back.

    “If you see some trend with the majority of games reviewed please point it out,”

    Putting words in my mouth. Yes. As of late, IGN has been seen being overly harsh in some reviews, and not coming close to the mean reviews. That should be a factor in determined whether they are successful or not as a company. Umpires that can’t call a game don’t work long or go to the minors. I’d like to not consider IGN the minors but lately………

    “”Normal” is whatever you accept it to be, and if you think it should somehow be enforced in something like video game reviews, then you may have some warped sense of the idea of “freedom” we enjoy. Either that or you’re just “a butt hurt fanboy who got a little overzealous when” reading a review, that is if you even bothered to read the review. That’s neither professional, logical, or reasonable.”

    No ones taken freedom from people. Stop exaggerating. I’m calling a shit review a shit review. If you weren’t so attached to IGN’s cock, maybe you’d be able to simply see that IGN gave this game it’s lowest score. Maybe they’re/you’re the ones out of the loop.

    Congrats IGN. You now have the consistency of Jim Sterling.

  62. phranctoast:

    “MC is a type of “measurement”.

    Yep, and IGN didn’t even come close in this instance.

  63. CarlB:

    “I’m sorry. There’s absolutely no justification for a 3/10 review in this instance. When others are giving the game 8?s and mostly 7?s, a 3 makes you look like you’re out of touch with reality.”

    Apology accepted. Now go attack the site that is reviewing the game 20 points higher than the average, or better yet, play the game before you decide what is “justified”.

    Suck it up phranc, sometimes reality doesn’t fall in line with what you want it to be. If it makes you feel better to argue how many points a game deserves that you haven’t even played, which does not receive generally favorable reviews, then have at it.

    If all you can do is complain about a review for a game you have not even played then you have no ground to stand on and deserve to be put in your place for being so asinine.

  64. phranctoast:

    30 points lower than the average. Nuff said.

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=467099

  65. twilight:

    What do I base this on? Ign’s own idiotic scores. Ign has basically stated that Duke Nukem Forever is a better game then Ninja Gaiden 3.
    The issue that I have with the score is that it is a biased score. For example, I hate Modern Warfare 3. Let’s assume I review the game and give the game a 3. Is this a deserving score for this game? No, it is not. This is a biased score. Even though I may dislike MW3, it does not deserve this score.
    As far as me commenting on a game I haven’t played, I see it hasn’t stopped you from defending Ign’s score of this game.

  66. phranctoast:

    Why do I need to play a game to have a problem with the inconsistencies a website has with the rest of the publications in it’s field?

    Quite frankly, whether I play the game or not in 100% irrelevant to the point.

  67. phranctoast:

    “Apology accepted. Now go attack the site that is reviewing the game 20 points higher than the average, or better yet, play the game before you decide what is “justified”.

    Which one should I attack? Apparently there’s more than 1 that think it’s an 8/10 or higher than 30 points lower than the average.

  68. Roca.:

    “Ign has basically stated that Duke Nukem Forever is a better game then Ninja Gaiden 3″

    DNF had a huge ad campaign, a big one on IGN…

  69. Roca.:

    “Until you or I play the game personally, we have no say in what it “deserves” or does not, and even then it is only our individual opinion, which cannot be expected to be universal”

    only a handful of shitty games get low review scores of 3s…There are many games, that based on what they already have going for it and what they bring to the “genre”, you can tell they won’t be a 3-rated game. NG is one of them. I’m pretty sure the next Uncharted, COD, Halo, Bioshock and even the next Mario Party game won’t get a review close to a “3″.

  70. oldschool1987:

    “What do I base this on? Ign’s own idiotic scores. Ign has basically stated that Duke Nukem Forever is a better game then Ninja Gaiden 3.”

    Lol! I enjoyed every second of DNF! I know I’m the minority. Sure the game had shitty visuals and no depth but it was a brilliant shooter, hilarious (speaks to my sense of humour lol) and very old school gameplay. Didn’t even trade it in :p

  71. Roca.:

    “Lol! I enjoyed every second of DNF”

    that’s because you like shitty & dated humors from the 80s ;)

  72. Roca.:

    “I’m pretty sure the next Uncharted, COD, Halo, Bioshock and even the next Mario Party game won’t get a review close to a “3″

    I should add…

    …Unless they want to get more hits ;)

  73. oldschool1987:

    Nah Roca, I just don’t pretend I don’t like toilet humour because I love it lol. Why people like to seem they have “sophisticated” humour confuses me. Throwing shit around in DNF was hilarious haha

  74. CarlB:

    “This is a biased score.”

    Every review score is “biased” in some manner. As long as their are individuals who review games there will be biased review scores. We are human, not robots. I’m not defending IGN’s score, I’m defending the individual reviewer’s right to assign it. It’s his job, not yours. You just read it and cherry pick whatever you want to criticize. Criticisms of criticisms are actually quite amusing, especially when the critic of the critic has zero experience with what is being criticized.

    Just as one person on here “enjoyed every second of DNF” on this thread, so can one reviewer hate almost every aspect of NG3 that they consider to be a severe step backwards from what has already gone before in the series.

  75. phranctoast:

    The guy clearly had an agenda which straight up destroyed his professionalism.

    It sucks when this happens. While I applaud the reviewer for being a fan of the series and even being turned off by the changes to the difficulty, he clearly let it get out of hand with a review so low.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see IGN let him go.

  76. CarlB:

    I try to make it a habit not to care that much about other people’s individual opinions, nor think they should fall in line with my own, high or low.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if any site’s individual reviewer didn’t fall in line with the “norm” more than a few times.

  77. ncaissie:

    “Just as one person on here “enjoyed every second of DNF” on this thread, so can one reviewer hate almost every aspect of NG3 that they consider to be a severe step backwards from what has already gone before in the series.”
    But oldschool isn’t being paid to review games objectively and with little bias.

  78. CarlB:

    And neither are we.

  79. ncaissie:

    Nope, but the morons at IGN are.

  80. twilight:

    …and a biased review is still a biased review especially if the person is being paid to review games. Reviewers are allowed to put up any score they want to give a game but it still doesn’t make it right. It’s called professionalism. Reviewers are expected to put aside prejudices and review the game properly as it should be reviewed. This is what is supposed to separate professional reviews from random thoughtless reviews. This is why many people rely on professional reviews.

  81. CarlB:

    …and everyone loves a critic of a critic. People who have never reviewed games pretending that they know what is “professional” or not. Keep your prejudice to yourself. The reviewer played the game and gave his reasons, so it might be prudent to at least do the same before you pretend you know what you are talking about.

  82. twilight:

    It’s not like you don’t comment on stuff you haven’t played. I am actually playing this game now. This game is not a 3 game.

  83. ncaissie:

    Im going to download a demo to try it. If I like it I will buy it cheap or rent it for a week. Is it on the vita? I didn’t see it mentioned and that is what I am buying for now. I’m going to through my games and get rit of a bunch.

  84. CarlB:

    Yes, I comment on stuff I haven’t played, but nothing so far as to say it “deserves” this or that particular score if I haven’t played it, and even if I did, I wouldn’t think all reviewers should fall in line with my own individual opinion.

    So you have an opinion twilight, off of some limited play and experience, congrats (yet another “0%” game for you?). Let other people have theirs. They said this game was extremely easy, so maybe you can actually finish it, unlike the last 110 games you have played on PS3 (most of which only show 0%-5% completion).

  85. Reace:

    Twilight has too many games to play.
    I’ve started falling into the same trap, I’ve bought around 30 games in the last 2 months 360 & PS3, and I’ve butterflied between some of them so I now have around 10% maybe less in the last 10 maybe 20 games I’ve played.

    I’ve made a promise to myself, that I will not buy any more games, till I complete the games I have started, well those worth playing, which is most of them.

    I still have a load (15 or so)I haven’t even put in the drives yet, and I’ll try not too till I finish those I’ve started.

    Twilight, you should try to play more of the games you buy, for a start they often get much better the further in you get. (Fnarr Fnarr)

    I’ll confess that on a couple of my last games I lowered the difficulty so as to make it more fun, less frustration. DNF was just too tricky at certain bits (one of which I’m stuck at. (Dammed octopus thing).

    And space marines was just too hard on normal. so lowered to easy, and it’s great, maybe a little too easy, but I’m enjoying it now instead of cursing at it.

    Get those gaming fingers warmed up, get in there & go deeper twilight , you’ll enjoy it :D

    Sorry. .I’m British I can’t help myself ;)

  86. phranctoast:

    You don’t need to play the game to see the problem. What’s so difficult to understand about that?

    Here. I’ll make it simple for you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

  87. twilight:

    CarlB,
    Is this supposed to make me feel bad? It’s quite amusing actually. Everyone knows that my gaming skills suck. I play for fun. I have said this a million times before my gaming score is not all that accurate and could care less about trophies but whatever makes you feel better about trying to justify Ign’s idiotic score of this game. It doesn’t change the fact that this is an idiotic score for this game.

  88. Roca.:

    “It’s not like you don’t comment on stuff you haven’t played. I am actually playing this game now. This game is not a 3 game”

    LMAO…good one Twilight.

    LMFreakinAO @ Phranc :D

  89. CarlB:

    Wow, transforming a sesame street skit into thinking everything should be like everything else… why don’t you get your blankie and go back to sleep.

    Twilight,

    Does it make you feel bad? I know you are easily amused, however it was simply a frame of reference to show how your viewpoint is limited. So is mine, which is why I don’t pretend to know what is “deserved” or not in a game I haven’t even put through it’s paces.

    Can you even say what exactly from your own personal experience makes this game deserve more than the score it received from IGN? And then can you admit that some people may think simply being able to play a game is for the most part a given nowadays, or perhaps even that not everyone shares your particular infatuation with this particular game?

  90. CarlB:

    “my gaming score is not all that accurate”

    Why is that? Is there something wrong with your PS3? It shows the trophy you last synced on the 17th of this month when I checked.

  91. CarlB:

    “Ninja Gaiden 3 has a barrier to entry that not even Ryu Hayabusa can wall-jump over: busted Online Pass codes. Reports from all over are coming in that the codes included with retail copies of the game don’t work, effectively locking out the online multiplayer and generally being very inconvenient for reviewers.”

    http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/20/ninja-gaiden-3-users-report-trouble-redeeming-online-passes/

  92. Roca.:

    poor Carl…trying so hard to defend IGN when we all know IGN is no longer a trusted source when it comes to reviews.

  93. twilight:

    CarlB,
    A game that receives a score of a 3 represents an unplayable, completely unbroken game. This game simply doesn’t fall into this this category.

  94. CarlB:

    Poor Roca… doesn’t even know the point applies to any site, not just IGN… then ever having “trust” in a website’s reviews and thinking all reviewers should be in accordance with each other. How heartbreaking it must be to realize for the first time that the world doesn’t conform to his opinions.

    @twilight,

    Really? Then what does a 1 represent, let alone a 2?
    lol

  95. phranctoast:

    I had to make it extremely simple for you since you’re so incredibly thick headed. Sesame street may be given you too much credit apparently since you still don’t understand. Maybe it’s the sour milk from that IGN teat you’re so obviously attached to.

    -This has nothing to do with constricting peoples individual freedoms. Score a game however you want. A poorly written review is still a poorly written review. I can call that simply by looking at all the other reviews. Someone review falls into the category of poor review. Is it the guy that scores a game 30 points lower than the average or is it everyone else?

    One doesn’t need to even play the game to comment on a discrepancy between a review with a 30% and other reviews much much higher.

    “I’m not defending IGN’s score, I’m defending the individual reviewer’s right to assign it.”

    You’re defending IGN like you always do. I swear, if IGN supported killing kittens you’d have page long posts arguing ad-nauseum as to why this is a great idea.

    At one point IGN was a respectable site that we could go to that would be consistent with industry wide standards and a location where all other reviews could be judged by. No longer. When you can’t even come close to the aggregate score, you simply failed at your job.

    I’ve showed time after time with your own data that IGN is very poor at times with the rest of the industry. This is yet another one of those examples. Only this time instead of averaging 5 points lower than the the rest they really went overboard and went 30. There’s no defending this.

  96. CarlB:

    “A poorly written review is still a poorly written review.”

    The only thing you have criticized thus far is the score, not the actual writing in the review itself. Go fetch.

    Your problem seems to be no one else has scored that low yet, so tell me genius, which site has never scored significantly lower than the majority for every single game reviewed? And do you really think no more very low scores will come in for the game? That you even place so much importance on a single reviewer’s score is telling.

    But very well, here you go, now you can feel better because more than one other site gave the very same low score in a game as they did:

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/resident-evil-operation-raccoon-city/critic-reviews

    Your “discrepancy” is a reviewers viewpoint. I swear, if things don’t align just the way you think they should in even insignificant matters, you make it out to be the end of the world. Thank god everything doesn’t conform to what you think it should be.

    When you think every reviewer should conform to an aggregate, you are simply being stupid, and ignoring the purpose of an aggregate in the first place.

    You haven’t shown any real data that reflects a trend. I have shown you for the last year that they have consistently scored exclusive PS3 games higher than the industry average.

    It’s obvious every reviewer has their own opinion for any individual game. Attacking it is simply childish.

  97. Roca.:

    “I have shown you for the last year that they have consistently scored exclusive PS3 games higher than the industry average”

    Still not a reliable source for reviews.
    and what does that proves? exclusives attracts trolls and fanboy, which means more hits and more arguments about “X” PS3 exclusive is better “Y” 360 exclusive. Also exclusives have bigger budget for ads and IGN we all know loves those ads;)

    high score or not…we can all disregard IGN’s reviews from now on…no matter how low or how hight they may be.

  98. CarlB:

    IGN:

    “For 11,325 reviews, this publication has graded:
    60%higher than the average critic
    7%same as the average critic
    33%lower than the average critic

    On average, this publication grades 4.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)”

    Is Gamespot now considered to be somehow less “respectable” simply because they happen to grade 5.4 points lower than other critics on average?

    Nonsense.

  99. twilight:

    This is the industry standard of a game scoring a 3. As far as my gaming score goes, my gaming score has nothing to do with this game scoring an undeserved score of a 3 from Ign. It’s obvious that you are only now concerned with my gaming score because you are grasping at straws trying to defend this atrocious score by Ign.

  100. CarlB:

    Twilight,

    The reviewer’s score translates into a 30 on Metacritic, not a 3. You are talking about “industry standards” as if even a quarter of reviewers have weighed in on the game so far. They haven’t.

    If you want to see what a “broken” (btw you said “completely unbroken” lol) game gets for a score, check out Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. It received an aggregate of 8 out of 100, not 30, and that was about 8 years ago. Games on average have improved since then.

  101. Roca.:

    IGN’s average is based on a decade worth of reviews…If you look at the average during the last year or two things will be different.

  102. CarlB:

    Roca, I’ve already illustrated before where the last year of their reviews for PS3 exclusives are actually higher than the industry average. Their reviews for Vita games are as well. Just because they fall outside the average at times doesn’t mean they are wrong.

  103. phranctoast:

    “The only thing you have criticized thus far is the score, not the actual writing in the review itself. Go fetch.”

    Oh yeah.. This is what it looks like when CB no longer has anything. Lets attack a specific word in a sentence. btw twilight, once you used the word biased it was only an amount of time before he jumped all over that as if it’s the outlining point. Fail.

    “Your problem seems to be no one else has scored that low yet, so tell me genius, which site has never scored significantly lower than the majority for every single game reviewed? ”

    I have higher expectations from IGN. I thought you did to. Who cares about other sites.

    “And do you really think no more very low scores will come in for the game? ”

    Maybe. Oh.. If IGN scored this game a 10 we’d be having the same conversation.

    “That you even place so much importance on a single reviewer’s score is telling. ”

    Again. IGN is an older respectable site where all others are…or at least used to be judged.

    “But very well, here you go, now you can feel better because more than one other site gave the very same low score in a game as they did:”

    Good. finally. At least there’s a bit of consistency in the actual review scores for this game.

    “When you think every reviewer should conform to an aggregate, you are simply being stupid, and ignoring the purpose of an aggregate in the first place.”

    I’d like to see IGN not turn into Destructoid. Destructoid is considered a joke in the industry. Bashing games for the sake of bashing games. My bad for expecting better. I thought you did to.

  104. CarlB:

    “and what does that proves?”

    About as much as a few low review scores prove.
    Nothing.

  105. Roca.:

    if you don’t care about “just” IGN, you care about the MC score (aggregate review scores). Then why you care so much what we think about IGN.

    All of us think IGN is a shit gaming site that we can no longer trust…why are you so concern about our opinion of IGN. Just as you’re defending IGN’s review for NG3 because the reviewer has the right to express his opinion about the game, we also have the right to express our opinion (which seems to be unanimous) about IGN.

    wonder why you’re not respecting and defending our opinions the same way you’ve done it for IGN and its reviewers.

  106. Roca.:

    “About as much as a few low review scores prove.
    Nothing”

    LMAO then why you brought it up…seems like your attempt to defend IGN backfired on you.

  107. CarlB:

    “Who cares about other sites.”

    Wow, you sound like you’re a fan.
    lol

    “At least there’s a bit of consistency in the actual review scores for this game.”

    Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. No need to get butt hurt when all people can’t be “consistent” with the way you think things should be.

    Frankly phranc, I don’t “expect” anything of IGN. I don’t give them my money, and I occasionally go there for some video game news. For reviews I always look at the aggregate on Metacritic, because every reviewer has their own opinions of a game, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, sometimes the same. That’s life.

  108. CarlB:

    “Then why you care so much what we think about IGN.”

    I don’t. I’m simply having a discussion on a forum.

    “All of us think IGN is a shit gaming site that we can no longer trust…”

    That’s nice. So what do you think is a wonderful gaming site that we can all trust?

    “we also have the right to express our opinion (which seems to be unanimous) about IGN”

    I have no problem with your opinion about IGN. You seem very passionate and emotional about them. I would never attempt to change how much energy you put into talking about IGN, or how much importance you place in them by giving them so much recognition on a near daily basis.

    “LMAO then why you brought it up”

    lol. I didn’t bring it up. 8)

  109. phranctoast:

    “Wow, you sound like you’re a fan.
    lol”

    Now you can understand how disappointed I am as to how far they’ve truly fallen. :(

  110. CarlB:

    No worries phranc, I’m sure they’ll do just fine regardless of your extreme disappointment, and if they don’t the world will still turn.

  111. Roca.:

    “That’s nice. So what do you think is a wonderful gaming site that we can all trust?”

    definitely not IGN…or Destructoid.

    I personally like Kotaku’s reviews.

  112. CarlB:

    And since you place such importance on scores and not what is actually written in the review, what do you think of Kotaku’s score of Ninja Gaiden 3 roca?

  113. twilight:

    Anyways, I walked by an end cap in the store when I was getting Ninja Gaiden 3 and saw the original American Pie trilogy out on blu ray for $11.99 each. I didn’t know these movies were out on blu ray. Of course, I got the trilogy. My ultimate blu ray collection is now complete with the exception of only one movie that I am now missing.

  114. Roca.:

    “And since you place such importance on scores and not what is actually written in the review, what do you think of Kotaku’s score of Ninja Gaiden 3 roca?”

    when it comes to the actual score I only care about the game’s MC score. When I want to read reviews about a game (the actual review and not the score) I normally visit Kotaku, Ars Technica and some times Eurogamer.

    Kotaku and Ars don’t have a score system for their reviews.

  115. CarlB:

    Yes. Taking the only site you could mention that scores reviews, Eurogamer scores games 7.3 points lower than average, even more than IGN. So basically, by other’s logic here, they are just as bad, or good, whichever you prefer.

  116. ncaissie:

    ” if IGN supported killing kittens”
    Hmmm that is a great idea.

  117. ncaissie:

    “Just because they fall outside the average at times doesn’t mean they are wrong.”
    Lol no everyone else is wrong. Not this one dude.

  118. phranctoast:

    “Yes. Taking the only site you could mention that scores reviews, Eurogamer scores games 7.3 points lower than average, even more than IGN. So basically, by other’s logic here, they are just as bad, or good, whichever you prefer.”

    I consider Eurogamer worse. Although I never put much thought into their reviews anyway. They also seem allergic to giving games a score over 80%.

    Now. If one is to grade publications reviews, how would you go about doing that. I’m thinking the best way would be to see how they line up with the MC score.

  119. Roca.:

    “Taking the only site you could mention that scores reviews, Eurogamer scores games 7.3 points lower than average, even more than IGN. So basically, by other’s logic here, they are just as bad, or good, whichever you prefer”

    @Carl
    Eurogamer is known for giving games lower review scores than most sites (they’re like EDGE in a sense)…but unlike IGN they’re know for that and they are consistent with their scores.

    But as I stated before, I go to those sites to read the text/written reviews, not to look at the scores. I find Eurogamer’s text reviews on point, very accurate and honest..Some times all they have to say is good things about a game and still give it a 8 (like they did with U3).

    Eurogamer’s review of Unit 13 was one of the reasons I bought Unit 13 for the Vita…and their review of Motorstorm RC was also one of the reason I got excited about it, even thought I was disappointed when they originally announced it.

    Kotaku’s and Ars reviews are also very good (IMO).

  120. Roca.:

    @Phranc
    “I consider Eurogamer worse. Although I never put much thought into their reviews anyway. They also seem allergic to giving games a score over 80%.”

    That’s why I don’t look that their scores. The only score I care about is the MC score.

  121. CarlB:

    “Lol no everyone else is wrong. Not this one dude.”

    Not “everyone” has reviewed the game yet, only 11 critics have appeared on MC, and Games Radar has already matched IGN’s score of 30.

  122. ncaissie:

    The only review that maters is my own. Lol

  123. Roca.:

    “only 11 critics have appeared on MC”

    85 IntheGame.nl
    80 JustPushStart
    80 GameZone
    80 CVG
    80 MSXB
    80 Metro
    80 Planet Xbox360
    80 OXM UK
    80 OXM
    77 Game Trailers
    75 3D Juegos
    70 OPM UK
    70 Games Reactor
    70 GameReactor Sweden
    65 Vandal Online
    63 Play UK
    60 GameInformer
    60 Golden4Games
    60 accelerated Ideas
    60 Gamers Limit
    50 Gamastura
    50 Destructoid
    50 Video Gamer
    50 4Players.de
    30 IGN
    30 Game Radar

  124. ncaissie:

    30 to 80? Wtf is going on?

  125. CarlB:

    People have different viewpoints…
    Conspiracy!

    lol

  126. CarlB:

    Either that or “IntheGame.nl” needed Tecmo’s money more than IGN/GameInformer did. It’s just as believable as IGN and GI fighting for hits by seeing who can put out the lowest score for the game. Either way or a combination thereof, none of us will ever know.

  127. CarlB:

    “Kotaku’s and Ars reviews are also very good (IMO)”

    http://kotaku.com/5894896/heres-everything-i-cant-stand-about-ninja-gaiden-iii

  128. CarlB:

    “The only score I care about is the MC score.”

    Your list says otherwise.

  129. Roca.:

    GI’s NG3 review is 60..which is close to its MC score.

  130. CarlB:

    By the aforementioned rules GI can’t be “trusted” roca, because they have scored way too many games 25 or more points below the “industry average”, including White Knight Chronicles II and Monster Hunter Freedom.

  131. ncaissie:

    I really don’t get this argument. Lol there are plenty of retards reviewing games “professionally”.

  132. ncaissie:

    If the majority of people complain about the same things then the score means nothing. If the guy is out in left field and making shit up then I could see the argument. If the game is easy that is great for me. Just like RDR. I like my games easy and time wastin.

  133. phranctoast:

    “I really don’t get this argument.”

    Really? I though it was only Carlb who couldn’t understand how strange it looks when a game gets reviewed so low by one site compared to the reviews of its peers. It would be less of a factor if the same thing didn’t happen twice in two weeks, and the scores weren’t at least 25 points away from the average. It would also be less of a factor if the site doing this wasn’t pretty much a standard in the industry.

  134. CarlB:

    “Lol there are plenty of retards reviewing games ‘professionally’”.

    Apparently a retard majority is a valuable measure to some here. It is considered “strange” if someone has an opinion that the majority doesn’t concur with. This is why phranc loves Brokeback Mountain, Tootsie, and The Crying Game.

  135. jojo29:

    Carlb
    Just stop….all your posts here were pretty much way iff base….reviews can be wrong or considered way off….gametrailers just went through this when their “professional reviewser” was way off the Twisted Metal review and.when called out on it he attacked the commentates…..same shit is going on here…
    Everyone i talk to that knows games, NEVER go to ign for reviews ir scores…they are just that awful….sadly, since they’ve been around the longest they happen to be the biggest site…doesnt makw them good tho…
    think with the gt example ive pretty much rendered your entire defense moot ;) dont ever try and defend bad.journalism aka ign…its a lose lose case;)

  136. phranctoast:

    Is that the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” Carlb collection?

  137. phranctoast:

    It was G4 not Gametrailers, but the point still stands on professionalism.

  138. Roca.:

    when it comes to reviews

    Most gaming sites > sarcastic gamer > EDGE > attack of the fanboy > destructoid > Ivan’s review > the Madden guy reviewing a RPG > IGN

  139. CarlB:

    “reviews can be wrong or considered way off…”

    Yes. Even if there is more with one score for a game than another. Amazing.

  140. phranctoast:

    “Most gaming sites > sarcastic gamer > EDGE > attack of the fanboy > destructoid > Ivan’s review > the Madden guy reviewing a RPG > IGN”

    I hold IGN to a higher standard. It’s definitely due to their age, and the fact that they were a trusted site for me for some time. This generation seemed to really go downhill as far as my trust is concerned with their reviews.
    Why have the madden guy review Ratchet and Clank TOD? It’s an established series were I would much rather have a point of view from someone in the know with that particular series to point out where they think why it was good or bad. I don’t want some newbie telling me whether he thinks it’s a good game to him. I’d like to know if it’s a good R+C game.

  141. CarlB:

    Sorry, I never really thought reviews were anything more than the reviewers own opinion of the game, not mine or any other (let alone most) reviewer’s opinion.

    TEH BIAS!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E

  142. CarlB:

    “I personally like Kotaku’s reviews.”

    Kotaku review of Ninja Gaiden 3:

    “Should you play this game?

    NO.

    Why: Because it’s a tedious, uninspiring mess that neither pleases the franchise’s old fans nor appeals to a new audience.”

    http://kotaku.com/5895492/ninja-gaiden-3-the-kotaku-review

  143. CarlB:

    As I was playing Jak II from Jak and Daxter HD collection, I got curious and looked up the original game’s MC. It rated fairly high at 87, but I couldn’t help but think the game was just… not that fun to play, especially after just having playing the Precursor Legacy and enjoying it.

    I looked up the lowest review score… GameSpy’s, and sure enough found myself agreeing with what the reviewer was saying, even though he rated it 27 points lower than the average (and apparently had taken much flak for that score considering his Jak 3 review).

    I am skipping the game after having put a couple hours into it, because even though I can play it, I would rather not go through the motions with something so tedious and repetitive to play. Perhaps this is where certain reviewers find themselves with Ninja Gaiden 3.

  144. jojo29:

    Carlb
    The problem with what you are saying is your a putting together opinions like ours with “professional” reviewers, where it is EXPECTED of them to 1.remain as objective as possible and 2. Know what the fuck they are reviewing and talking about….PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY GET PAID TO DO SO…

    Also, and ive went over this with you before, “opinions, aka reviewers aka journalists CAN BE WRONG….
    Example 1:
    In my opinion the earth is flat….<<— guess what….your wrong…
    Example 2
    Twistes Metal controls are too arcadey….<— guess what dumbshit….its supposed to be….

    Example 1 is an example of opinions being wrong and Example 2 is an example of a badly written and wcored review….

    Is NG3 score and reviewed warranted? I have no clue, but based on IGNs past lack of credibility…it IS POSSIBLE the reviewer is way off base….your failure to acknowledge this simple point carlb…..i dont even know what to think bit just leaves me …smh…

  145. CarlB:

    jojo, just play the game yourself and decide whether the score and review was “warranted” if you feel that strongly about it.

    That a major videogame site with more than one reviewer and several thousand reviews has a few which fall outside the average by more than 20 points by MC standards means nothing to me.

    The reviewer’s job is to explain his own viewpoint, his observations (both objective and personal), and his score in writing, and apparently he is not the only one that has the opinion of the game that it isn’t even worth playing. But knock yourself out Deputy Dawg of video game reviews (must be an election year). Have fun enforcing the “fun” law.

  146. jojo29:

    Carlb
    ” The reviewer’s job is to explain his own viewpoint, his observations (both objective and personal), and his score in writing, and apparently he is not the only one that has the opinion of the game that it isn’t even worth playing. But knock yourself out Deputy Dawg of video game reviews (must be an election year). Have fun enforcing the “fun” law.”

    Okay….i guess having some type of standardized method of reviewing games is just crazy….and calling out those instances where the standard is not met is just insane…..

    Im just calling out the bad writing as compared to the standard….theres also good writing that goes above the standard…which is met with praise….seems you like to be one sided….

  147. phranctoast:

    “Perhaps this is where certain reviewers find themselves with Ninja Gaiden 3.”

    Actually, that’s exactly why Ninja Gaiden Sigma Vita got worse reviews than it’s PS3 cousin. NG3 on the other hand got ripped up for the complete opposite reason.

    “Okay….i guess having some type of standardized method of reviewing games is just crazy….and calling out those instances where the standard is not met is just insane…..”

    A standard exists for what is considered good and bad. It’s a pretty safe bet that when someone reviews a game so much lower than the rest of their peers something got fucked up in the review process.

    It simply be that his, objective point of view shot out the window due to emotion.

  148. CarlB:

    No standard exists for exactly how much fun each individual will experience with any game, except that own individual’s standard. Because each individual has had different experiences, their judgment of what is fun or not shouldn’t be expected to be the same as others.

    The majority of reviewers graded Jak 2&3 with high reviews. I personally agree with the few reviewers who did not fall in line with the majority on these games and think that they are very little fun, especially in comparison to Jak 1.

    No one reviewer, professional or otherwise has played all games, and even if they had, how much fun they had with those games would still be slightly or even vastly different from the majority’s average, and they would still be expected to explain that in the review. I personally understand and can relate to what the reviewers are saying when they give this game a very low score, as I’ve come across it before.

    A game can be technically okay in most areas and still be awful because it is repetitive and dull, in other words, no fun to play, and not even worth your time.

    “Could Itagaki’s departure from Team Ninja be part of the reason Ninja Gaiden 3 has failed to live up to expectations? Possibly, but in the end it doesn’t change the fact that NG3 is an utter disappointment, delivering an incredibly unsatisfying experience that feels far too shallow and redundant…

    Ninja Gaiden 3 is the epitome of disappointment. Just a few years ago, the series was heralded as one of gaming’s best action franchises, but the latest installment has me wishing that they had stopped when Itagaki parted ways with the studio.

    If you absolutely love the series and have been dying to jump back in the shoes of Ryu Hayabusa, you’re better off popping in one of the prior entries, as NG3 is nothing more than a major step backwards for the franchise. With a poor camera, tacked on QTEs and a laughable story that takes itself far too seriously, Ninja Gaiden 3 is far and away the worst game I’ve played this year. Believe me, it’s not worth your money or time.”

    Playstation Lifestyle 2.5/10

    http://playstationlifestyle.net/2012/03/22/ps3-review-ninja-gaiden-3/

  149. CarlB:

    “NG3 on the other hand got ripped up for the complete opposite reason.”

    “an incredibly unsatisfying experience that feels far too shallow and redundant…”

    apparently not.

  150. Roca.:

    “Playstation Lifestyle 2.5/10″

    so, to you IGN is just as credible as PSLS? seems like you hold IGN to a much lower standard than I do.

    Thanks for reminding us IGN is in the same league as PSLS…

  151. phranctoast:

    “Ninja Gaiden 3 is the epitome of disappointment. Just a few years ago, the series was heralded as one of gaming’s best action franchises, but the latest installment has me wishing that they had stopped when Itagaki parted ways with the studio.”
    “If you absolutely love the series and have been dying to jump back in the shoes of Ryu Hayabusa, you’re better off popping in one of the prior entries, as NG3 is nothing more than a major step backwards for the franchise.”

    Apparently so.

  152. phranctoast:

    “No standard exists for exactly how much fun each individual will experience with any game, except that own individual’s standard. Because each individual has had different experiences, their judgment of what is fun or not shouldn’t be expected to be the same as others. ”

    Isn’t “fun factor” just one of the many ways games are reviewed.

    If a reviewer simply reviewed a game on just how much fun he had he would have failed at his job.

    Based off of what you are saying, it would be completely OK with you for a reviewer to just rate the game based off a single category and come up with a numerical value and be done with it. Maybe the graphics are great but everything else suck. Game gets a 10/10!!!!

    I’m glad I’m on the opposite end of that poor argument.

  153. CarlB:

    roca,

    To me, any individual reviewer’s review is just that, a single review and their own opinion of a single game. Not the site, and not necessarily in line with what every other individual reviewer thinks.

    Besides, you are conveniently ignoring Kotaku’s review:

    “Should you play this game?
    NO.
    Why: Because it’s a tedious, uninspiring mess that neither pleases the franchise’s old fans nor appeals to a new audience.”

    http://kotaku.com/5895492/ninja-gaiden-3-the-kotaku-review

    phranc, it’s a combination, in other words, not the “complete opposite”.

    Besides, weren’t you just saying of another game:

    “It’s an established series were I would much rather have a point of view from someone in the know with that particular series to point out where they think why it was good or bad. I don’t want some newbie telling me whether he thinks it’s a good game to him. I’d like to know if it’s a good R+C game.”

  154. CarlB:

    “Isn’t ‘fun factor’ just one of the many ways games are reviewed.”

    Actually, I would say “fun factor” is the sum of a game that is greater than it’s technical elements taken separately. The reviewers described it as being repetitive, shallow, tedious, having a poor camera, tacked on QTEs, and a laughable story. If this sounds like “fun” to you, then have at it.

  155. phranctoast:

    “phranc, it’s a combination, in other words, not the “complete opposite”.”

    Apparently I completely misinterpreted what you were saying.

    I thought that point you were making was a person that really enjoyed that game at one time no longer enjoyed the game now when it came out for the HD collection (hence him getting flak). That’s why I pointed out NG:S for the Vita as that same thing happened.

  156. phranctoast:

    “Besides, weren’t you just saying of another game:”

    I think it’s great that he loves the series which is why I said:

    http://gamer.blorge.com/2012/03/17/microsoft-all-but-confirms-xbox-720-in-2013/comment-page-4/#comment-185333

    “The guy clearly had an agenda which straight up destroyed his professionalism.

    It sucks when this happens. While I applaud the reviewer for being a fan of the series and even being turned off by the changes to the difficulty, he clearly let it get out of hand with a review so low.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see IGN let him go.”

  157. CarlB:

    “Apparently I completely misinterpreted what you were saying.”

    Yes. For the Jak allusions I was using the old reviews for the original games on MC, not the HD collection.

    The guy’s review for NG3 wasn’t simply based on what had come before in the series, which is why he stated, it “repels newcomers”, and why Kotaku stated it wouldn’t appeal to “a new audience”.

  158. phranctoast:

    “Actually, I would say “fun factor” is the sum of a game that is greater than it’s technical elements taken separately. The reviewers described it as being repetitive, shallow, tedious, having a poor camera, tacked on QTEs, and a laughable story. If this sounds like “fun” to you, then have at it.”

    If fun matters exclusively twisted metal would be sitting on a 90+MC.

    Some of the reviews confuse the hell out of me after reading how fun the game is.

  159. CarlB:

    76 on MC is not a bad score. In fact it is a “generally favorable” score.

    That said, the reason it may not have scored as high as you personally think it should have is that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
    What you consider “fun” may not be as fun for everyone, especially people that play games for a living. Storytelling and a stubborn lock-on system may detract more from the fun for some than for others.
    One critic (GameReactor) thinks TM is “boring and ugly”, another (IGN) thinks it is “enjoyable, challenging”.

    The key difference here is TM’s average is 76, which is “generally favorable”, and it has 0 negative reviews with more than twice as many positive reviews as mixed reviews; whereas NG3′s is 56, which is “mixed or average”, and it has 3 negative reviews (PS3 version) with six times as many mixed reviews as positive reviews.

    Going beyond just the average, I would say it’s more likely a game will be fun if there hasn’t been a single negative review (TM), and even more likely if there hasn’t been a single mixed review (ME3).

  160. phranctoast:

    Pick a new adjective. You’re own response is agreeing with me.

    How does “storytelling” deter from fun? The game can have no story and still be a blast to play.

    Looking at the first few ME3 reviews of 100% they don’t even mention the game even being fun while Twisted Metal it starts even at some 60% reviews.

    My point being. Find a new adjective.

  161. CarlB:

    Great storytelling can make a game more engaging, and hence more fun.

    The very first sentence of the first review excerpt on MC (100, Gaming Nexus) for ME3 specifically mentions story. It also mentions uses the word “fun” when speaking of specific weapons.

    I’m not sure how you have gotten to the point where you disagree that any game being “fun” overall or not is basically dependent upon the sum total of a game’s elements and how they sync, or how the end goal of games shouldn’t be that they are “fun” to play, but I don’t want to get there.

    I’m sorry you can’t see how sentences like, “Mass Effect 3 is what it feels like to be your own biggest fan,” can mean “fun”.

    Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto

  162. phranctoast:

    again. Find a new adjective. You’re simply wrong.

  163. CarlB:

    Keep on telling yourself that.
    I’m sure you’ll get far selling the idea that video games are not meant to be fun.
    Next you are going to tell me playing great video games isn’t “fun”, but playing bad ones are.
    Have fun with games like AMY, I’ll still prefer to have fun with games like ME3.

  164. phranctoast:

    “I’m sure you’ll get far selling the idea that video games are not meant to be fun.”

    Some are not. That doesn’t mean they are bad games. They can be great but not be a lot of “fun”. Heavy Rain for instance.

    “Great storytelling can make a game more engaging, and hence more fun.”

    How fun was MGS4 for you then?

    Your grabbing at one aspect of a game and trying to tie everything around on that which is simply not the case.

    One can have more fun with a game like calling all cars, where it lacks any semblance of a story, the graphics aren’t all that great than some game that MC in the 90′s like ME3 or U3. Still doesn’t make CAC a better game. In fact. I’ll go on record to say that CAC is more fun than U3 and the ME3 demo combined.

    Fun does not equate to great.

    You know you pulled the same shit with making Epic equate to great.

    So by the associative property does that mean Fun=Epic? :)

  165. Roca.:

    some games offer a great experience without being “fun” to play.

    Journey, Flower, Heavy Rain, Demon’s Souls, Dark Souls, Limbo etc

    and then there are games that are very fun to play but still get low scores – Twisted Metal, Fat Princess, ModNation, Escape Plan, Just Dance, etc

    Phranc – “So by the associative property does that mean Fun=Epic?”

    LOL

  166. CarlB:

    Some video games are not completely fun all the time. That doesn’t mean they are not fun at all. They can still have fun moments, but not as much fun as other games, which is why they tend to get a lower MC score overall. Heavy Rain, which scored an 87, had 5 mixed reviews, and 3 negative reviews, compared to Mass Effect 3, which scored a 92 and had 0 mixed or negative reviews, for example.

    I personally didn’t like a lot of things about MGS4. Just because a game received a high score on MC doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to be fun for everyone.

    I haven’t met a fan of MGS4 yet who stated they did not have fun playing it, or it wasn’t fun at all for them. I think it’s fairly obvious if you like a videogame you had fun with it.

    Fun equates to great for me in videogames.
    Apparently it doesn’t for you, and that’s fine with me.

    Ever hear of epic fun? ;)

  167. Roca.:

    “I haven’t met a fan of MGS4 yet who stated they did not have fun playing it”

    You have to be a fan to have fun with MGS4…or else you’ll be bored to death. any non-fan of the series will have more fun with Portal, Fat Princess, Twisted Metal, the new Resident Eveil and even with NG3 than with MGS4.

    “Fun equates to great for me in videogames”

    for you, maybe…but for reviewers, not so much and that’s why Phranc said “Looking at the first few ME3 reviews of 100% they don’t even mention the game even being fun while Twisted Metal it starts even at some 60% reviews”

  168. phranctoast:

    “Ever hear of epic fun?”

    Yeah. That’s what happens when Kratos goes out with the female Shepard ;)

  169. CarlB:

    roca, name one game you personally liked playing a lot and is one of your favorites that you didn’t think was fun. Do you really think reviewers tend to give high scores to games they personally think are no fun? Nonsense.

    “the first few ME3 reviews of 100% they don’t even mention the game even being fun”

    A favorable review doesn’t have to contain the word “fun” to imply that a game is fun. Just look at the antonyms of fun in the thesaurus: bad, sad, unfun. Please. Tell me what game that has received universal acclaim had the reviewers saying this about the game as a whole?

    Now look at the synonyms: entertaining, enjoyable. The more enjoyment you derive from playing a game, the more entertaining it is, the more “fun” it is. You’ll see these words and others such as fun more often in 100% reviews. For one simple reason: elements of the game come together in order to make the experience as a whole “fun”.

    The elements could be perfect, and even some elements could be considered fun for a time, but the overall experience still not fun because a game is boring or repetitive, like what is described by reviewers for Ninja Gaiden 3.

  170. phranctoast:

    “A favorable review doesn’t have to contain the word “fun” to imply that a game is fun.”

    It seems these writers know when to and not to use certain words.

    Fun is still a poor adjective, hence why it’s not used to describe ME3 and many other games.

    Synonyms also don’t mean the same in most instances but nearly the same.

    Why cherry pick just entertaining and enjoyable when amusing, boisterous, convivial, diverting, lively, merry, pleasant, and witty also exist?

    “roca, name one game you personally liked playing a lot and is one of your favorites that you didn’t think was fun. Do you really think reviewers tend to give high scores to games they personally think are no fun? Nonsense.”

    What happens when a game that’s so frustrating in difficulty such as Bayonetta or hell even…GOW on higher difficulties stop delivering the “fun” because of that. Does that mean the game is no longer good or in your instance….great?

  171. CarlB:

    Great videogames are fun. Challenge in videogames can also be fun. Get over it.

  172. phranctoast:

    So MGS4 is fun.. I agree. Just needed to clarify that. How fun was it trying to plat Vanquish :)

  173. Roca.:

    “roca, name one game you personally liked playing a lot and is one of your favorites that you didn’t think was fun”

    Heavy Rain had its fun momements but it was a fun game…in fact, you’ll get bored as shit during a 3rd playthrough…The game did offered a unique and interesting gaming experience and overall it was very “entertaining and enjoyable” but not “fun to play”

    if fun = great then Fat Pricess, Mario Party, Twisted Metal and ModNation would’ve been 90+ rated game.

    There’s not much fun to have while playing Mass Effect but the story, characters, universe and its decision making functionality are all very ntertaining…same goes for MGS4

  174. CarlB:

    Not everyone’s idea of fun is the same, which is why I never thought MGS4 was fun, even though I thought MGS1 was when it came out. It wasn’t fun trying to plat Vanquish, which is why I quit trying a long time ago :D

    “it was a fun game”

    I disagree. Again, for some it was, others, not so much. To avoid further confusion, I’m going to paste the definition I am using for the term:

    Fun – “1. a source of enjoyment, amusement, diversion, etc.”

    and as an adjective (Oxford) – “amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable”

    In other words, you are still having “fun” if you think the game was “entertaining and enjoyable”.

  175. phranctoast:

    Damn. By Oxfords definition Shawshank Redemption is “Fun” Yikes! ;)

    I think the problem that exists is that in almost every situation I’ve noticed with reviews the overall experience of a game has never been called…’fun’ to highlight the entertainment value of said game. Fun in these instances appears to be used in the joyful sense. ect.. Such and such aspect is really fun. When the overall experience is noted as being Fun, it also never seems to mean great, but a vast amount of joyful entertainment derived from it.

    If you want to use fun to represent “great” then that’s fine with me.

    Fun for me is like the old colloquialism, “you know it when you see it.”

  176. CarlB:

    I’ve been playing video games for over thirty years.
    I play them to have fun, to be amused, entertained, or to enjoy the experience. Not the opposite.

    Ever heard of going to the movies for fun?

    It doesn’t matter the movie, it could be Saw for some people, the bottom line is it is fun to be entertained, whether that entertainment is happy, sad, scary, or thrilling, it’s still fun.

    I think the problem here is you have a limited definition of the word.

    I knew God of War was fun when I played it. In Chains of Olympus, even though hacking up hundreds of Persians and monsters, or experiencing Kratos’ personal family tragedy first hand in real life probably wouldn’t be fun, it sure as hell was to experience it in a video game.

    “Just play. Have fun. Enjoy the game.”
    ~Michael Jordan

  177. phranctoast:

    “I think the problem here is you have a limited definition of the word.”

    I think you have to vast of a definition of the word. The writers reviewing the games don’t use it the way you do.

  178. CarlB:

    They don’t have to. Fun in good to great video games is a given.

    “The most basic principle of a video game design is the fun factor. Gamers won’t purchase a game if it doesn’t entertain them, even if it has a great story line and memorable characters.”

    http://www.mania.com/principles-video-game-design_article_116425.html

    “I never did a day’s work in my life. It was all fun.”
    ~Thomas A. Edison

    “It’s as much fun to scare as to be scared.”
    ~Vincent Price

  179. CarlB:

    Any video game’s end score today is, in general, it’s “fun factor” score.

    “for those who don’t know, for many years GamePro reviewed games in 0.5 increments, 5.0 being their maximum score. Games were scored in four categories: Graphics, Sound, Control, and Fun Factor. By today’s standards, this all seems superfluous, because Fun Factor was the only score to really care about.”

    http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/apathylad/gamepro-memories/30-88718/

Leave a Reply:

You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!




Recent stories

Latest game reviews

RSS Technology news

  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.

RSS Windows news

RSS Mac news

RSS Iphone & Touch

RSS Mobile technology news

RSS Green tech

RSS Buying guides

RSS Photography news

Login

About GAMER.BLORGE

Archives

Copyright © 2014 Blorge.com NS