7.1

>7.1

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAAHaHaHA|hahHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It wasn't that hyped, so who cares?

>misses more than it hits
just like the reviewer

LEL

>sp good
>mp bad
that makes 7 / 10
9/10 sp
2/10 mp
stop shitposting faggot

>Multiplayer loadouts

what kind of negative is that

Reminder that CoD Ghosts got an 8.8

>Tacked on MP for no reason is le shit.

Go figure.

this
completely shit review

Daily reminder.

The multiplayer was fantastic though.
Unlike DOOM.

Sup Forums btfo yet again lmao

>caring about critics
You need to be 18 to post here bud.

Reminder that Metro 2033 got a 6.0

holy shit what a joke ign is.

why are you so happy about this? are you retarded?

this is a different reviewer

>it wasn't that hyped
>been the only game Sup Forums's been posting about for a week

...

Shame that the single player score gets mixed in with the multiplayer.

>Reviewer defends DayZ and other early access survival shit
>Reviewer liked Battlefield Hardline

you guys will listen to anyone as long as they hate the same things as you

Motherfucking loads of loot, man.

So you're saying it's a good game since I don't give a shit about the MP and won't touch it?

The fuck? How?

That game was fucking shit.

>Critics don't matter until I say they do
>Sales don't matter until I say they do
It's not like he's wrong.
The entire game is a jumping segment leading to an arena and the multiplayer wasn't made by the same devs as the singleplayer.

>7.1
>says good right there

Repetitive arenas :^)

holy fuck how much did they pay them

I've played about 30-40 hours of Stellaris so far and a 6-7 for the game sounds about right to me.

Has IGN ever NOT been a joke? I remember people making fun of them at least 10 years ago

Whats funny about that? Its a very fair score. Great game but not amazing

Quoting Wikipedia
>A review is an evaluation of a publication. In addition to a critical evaluation, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relative merit.
>critical evaluation
Again, from wikipedia.
>Critical thinking, also called critical analysis, is clear, rational thinking involving critique. Its details vary amongst those who define it. According to Barry K. Beyer (1995), critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments. During the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned, well thought out, and judged
>critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgments.
My point is, I might aswell apply for IGN and say every fucking game is shit without analyze fucking anything. All IGN are fucking retarded, they don't analyze anything.

>keep clicking it keeps the site free for us

...

> Game journalists

Who cares? Especially about IGN? Why do you faggots pretend like their reviewers matter? They are becoming more and more irrelevant among gaming community more and more.

>Angry Joe is the most trustworthy reviewer in the business
"professionals"

It literally hurts the fucking industry.
Why the fuck do you think these sites exist in the first place? For the motherfucking corporates and people to know if a game is good.

Loadouts in Doom is an aberration.

The review is completely right tho.

Didn't he say he only started playing video games like 5 years ago?

I hate IGN as well, but all those bullet points are spot on.

Diplomacy is beyond useless, the AI is garbage, and the mid game slog of nothing is awful.

The game starts out great, goes to shit, and gets great again after the invasion.

his first videos are 7 years old so its that at least
does it really matter? 7 years is enough time to become the best at something with hard work and a bit of luck

>been the only game Sup Forums's been posting about for a week

Seven Dollar Sanchez is actually a really solid reviewer.

I just wish his comedy wasn't unfiltered cringe

Ignoring the 2,000 overwatch threads

Also to add.
>IGN has like 20,000,000 visitors per month
It's not the exact number, but you can get the idea how many people see this cancerous site.

Have you been on Sup Forums more than once in recent months, user?

IGN is great for triggering Sup Forums t.bh

>bra71l

This is an IGN thread, right?

Good IGN score:
>Fucking shill.

Bad IGN score:
>FUCKING BLUNDER OF THE CENTURY JUST LIKE TORTANIC RIGHT GUYS

never change, Sup Forums

Yes, it is.
>Frustrating
>Inconsistent
I really want to burn this man alive.

Just finished the first four levels---I am enjoying the SP greatly but i disliked the MP beta greatly. I'll try some Snapmap after the SP ends.

Thank god I pirated it.

good or bad isnt the question moron
its accuracy

Wow guys, you just need to stop whining, you only hate it cause of your stupid nostalgia glasses, pic very related.

Have you played this "masterpiece"?

Did you watch this review? It was fucking pathetic, he is constantly contradicting himself or droning on about complete nonsense because he sucks cock at the game.

Joab Gilroy should be dragged and fucking shot for simply getting paid for shit like this.

>10 "lasting appeal"
>deserves multiple plays
literal artificial game length

>double dragon neon review is 3/10
>reviewed by a man who outright says in the first paragraph that he doesn't like beatem ups

Honestly why is IGN still alive.

...

For real though why are review scores still a thing? They're utterly useless and mean nothing.

To be fair Steam's review system is even more retarded.

I agree with that score since multiplayer is part of the package.
The single player is good though it ends on a cliffhanger.
The multiplayer is just horrible

Christ IGN is awful

It has denuvo you fag.

Sounds like somebody is salty they threw away $60

>Greg Miller
>Not ever being biased

yeah
i still think that simply removing the 1-10 or what ever would solve ALOT of problems

>Doom
>bad
console kiddies.... they just mad ut hasa cool ass (headbang) metal soundtrack and not justin bieber lady gaga shit and no ironsides or regenerating health

casuals...

>somebody does not know that Denuvo is hacked by 3DM and I happen to have the bypass.

I don't understand why everyone is exaggerating so hard about the multiplayer. I mean it's not absolutely incredible that's for damn sure, but it gets the job done.

Could be different for me, however, I have basically a full team to play with most of the time and don't enjoy it by myself.

Haven't played it have you?

>Cod ghosts mp
>Fantastic
ELLLLLL
OOOOHH
ELLLLLL

>hectic action
with like, 5 ennemies to fight at once, and killing most of them but just shooting it and doing your prompt

>boss battles
honestly? they feel like weak ratchet & clank bosses

...

>Ratchet and Clank

How did they manage to make a great game but then the movie ended up being so bland?

I went to see it in theaters the Sunday of the weekend it came out and I was literally the only person in the theater, I felt like I should have been eating popcorn while going insane

Please keep in mind that basically every single major review site like IGN plays FPS games on console even if they're available on PC.

>Good story, characters
>huge variety
>outstanding world

Those don't apply to Fallout 4.

>5 enemies to fight at once

Maybe if you played on easy

>faceless marine
>his face is right in the middle of the screen

when there's more ennemies, they run around not doing anything
try it, they're just for show, you'll never have 10 ennemies jumping on you at once

Totally reliable source of information

Not user, but I'm playing it currently, even though I have fun with it, I find it that it's fucking simplistic, the majority of the quest are just fucking "go here, talk to this piece of shit, pick yes or no (it doesn't fucking matter), go there, kill that shit, pick that shitty gun for reward". It's just fucking Simplistic-Fallout 3 edition the game, yes (even though 3 has its fucking issues, fucking Bethesda), you know it's the truth.

Didn't they give Spore 10/10 or something? I remember people making fun of them back in 2006 for something like that

everyone I have spoken to (even some gaming casuals) have admitted that fallout 4 wasn't very good, the game feels hollow even compared to F3

it's actually TOO streamlined in terms of it's RPG mechanics, and they focused way too hard on crafting
weapon crafting is ok, but there was a huge amount of work that went into settlement crafting, and in the end of the day it's completely pointless to actually use this feature as it adds more work for you with no payoff
and you have to constantly defend them, no matter how many RPG turrets you put at the only entrance, apparently if you don't turn up when some feral ghouls are invading, then everyone dies, turrets or no
all the work that was put into the crafting could have been time spent on ANYTHING ELSE to improve the game

it's buggy as fuck to boot

>Pissed Pedro and TotalCancer are the only well-known ones that try to be the less biased possible

even if Furious Jose put some candyass ratings for Fallout 3 and Skyrim, he does manage to actually spend time playing the game and having fun

I suppose it depends on what enemy types you're talking about. I've had moments much later on in the game where I was completely swarmed by a combination of imps, hell knights and pinkies, to the point where I had to use the BFG to create some breathing room.

Doesn't happen very often, but it's satisfying watching them all explode into giblets and just witnessing a pool of blood surrounding you.

...

>start gaming during the downfall of the industry
>thinks his reviews are worth a shit

without having touched the MP (because why the fuck would I?), I give the game an 8.5

my main gripe is that some weapons sharing ammo was a bit painful, and meant some weapons became redundant in the late game (why would I use the plasma rifle when the gauss cannon shits all over it?)

>CoD
>anywhere near as good as Zelda
And that's how you know IGN is shit.

I never remember the name of that game. I wanted to play it recently with the translation. what is its name again?

I wish I could see how many of the people shitting on the review in this thread actually used reviews of stuff they don't like as a shitposting argument.

Rondo Duo

That image hurts me and I don't even like God Hand all that much.

Like I said, I'm having fun right now, the game does have good things (like pic related, armors and clothing looks hnnng, specially on females) but overall feels like Bethesda drained up what 3 did good. It's just feels, plain, I had this feeling in Skyrim but not that much because that game in my opinion is pretty OK.
>Bethesda announced that they're currently working, IIRC, 3 mayor projects.
I have the feeling that 2 projects will be braindead, and the other one will be remotely OK.

Doesn't sound too bad. Remember as good as the single player may be the game still has the shitty multiplayer tacked onto it.

so is wolfenstein the new order still the only good reboot of an old fps game?

That's a fair score though. Lazy cash grab by Nintendo.

did anyone really expect to deliver something big?

the first doom was big because it revolutionized 3d

the genre has stagnated years ago
what is there to expect from the current or upcoming shooters anyway?
aside from more overwatch porn

Revengeance also got a metric shit ton of 7/10 and 8/10 reviews and its one of Sup Forumss favourites

>giving a single flying fuck about hype either way

18+

It's funny, because it's true!

youtube.com/watch?v=d3pQ0oO_cDE