While I'm cyncial of all reviewing websites, my victim of choice now is IGN. To me, they're kinda like the Roger Ebert of reviewing videogames, as I sometimes agree with what they laud, but sometimes I disagree like mad with them. They even admit to being biased-as-fuck with the following.
"And yes, sometimes people are eager to play games that turn out to be really bad. No one wants to review just the AAA titles. It gets boring after a while to write high praise for everything."
As you can see by this quote, they don't have any interest in giving games from lesser-known developers much of a chance, as they only seem interested in showering praise to the "blockbusters" from big studios. I didn't pull that quote out of my ass, you can find it here (under the "How do you decide who gets to review what games?" header).
Between them slamming brilliant games like Metro 2033 (brilliant) for the stupidest of reasons while mindlessly fellating underwhelming "blockbuster" games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for "cookie cutter" reasons, I never take their critiques seriously.
I still hate IGN, though I think Gamespot deserves much more venemous hatred for them actually firing their editorial director for publishing a lukewarm review for Kane & Lynch.
Was this helpful?
About the reviewer
David Kozak (RabidChihuahua)
I'm a morbid cynic who thinks very, very differently from most other people. Chances are, if the majority says X is the greatest in its category, I'll disagree with that notion, because I tend … more
Consider the Source
Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.