One if not the biggest gaming board on the internet ridiculing this person doesn't have the potential to negatively impact his career as a gaming journalist?
Come on now.
IGN retracts large portion of RE2 review and updates score after it becomes clear their reviewer missed a large chunk of the game.
- Thread starter Datajoy
- Start date
Come on now.
Nobody I saw is trying to ruin his career. The real issue I take with this , is that the review score itself should really be called into question. I honestly don't think review scores should carry as much weight as they do, but they sure as hell matter. For metacritic scores effecting pay checks, for certain companies to continue franchises, for consumers, ect. They aren't the most important thing in the world, but they do carry a certain weight. The odd arbitrary .2 adjustment is weird and it doesn't even seem like it was integrated correctly into the review. It was like an apology .2 which is a really poor way to fix a problem. Ign has had a long string of issues over the years and it's culminated in the people's perception of the company. Their reviews carry a ton of weight due to the sheer amount of viewership as well. It's a bad look for gaming reviewers and ign should really try to do better.
But it says second run not new game plus which is a different thing, it's like playing only through one ending of nier:automata, you don't do that. Just makes me wonder if devs will bother making different endings since players don't want to find it on their own.
You specifically included it in the OP as if it was notable information. Don't include it if you don't want it to be seen as such.
OP
OP
So he fucked up in a big public way, and a bunch of people online laughed at him. And your analysis would be that the people laughing ruined his career and not the fuckup?
It is a moot point anyway, since obviously nothing will happen to his career. He is a longtime senior member of IGN and one of their public faces. And he copped to the mistake and fixed it. I don't know why you are making this out to be such a big deal.
Actually here's an excuse: maybe you didn't play RE2 when it came out.
Another excuse: Capcom named the shit poorly. If you didn't already know, it sounds like NG+ to many. To me, to others in tbis thread, and to this reviewer, apparently.
Whoa, there are two "excuses" right there! Turns out there are more than zero after all. Micking quotes because needing an "excuse" to not know something about a video game is one of the more embarrassing ideas I've come across.
You can play as Claire first and Leon as second. The result will be almost the same. In my case, I chose to play Leon and then Claire.
But, yes, I suggest that you play first the character that you want then play the 2nd run with the other one. And not just play the 1st run again with the other one.
Weird omission. Some things are not right with IGN reviewing... And Daemon from all people ? That's a letdown.
I will tell my boss about mobing and growing up the next time I fuck up at my job.
Like seriously people where do you come from? This is a payed job, not a goodwill garage sale.
Not to mention he's very much getting shit on Twitter too.
With the exact same logic behind it.
Which should maybe make some people here think harder about their stances.
Are you kidding me? It's literally his job to know about the game and write about it. It's pure incompetence.
I absolutely would've done that in Automata if not for podcasts.
...and I'm not sure why "second run" is supposed to make it seem like a critical story path? To me that just makes it sound like a NH+ mode, because it implies that you're just playing the same thing again.
Well, If you work in the game industry you should know about those things, right? Capcom did name it poorly, i agree, but if i'm going to review a game i'd try to learn everything i could about it to give the best review possible, just saying..
People on Era can call me whatever they'd like, I don't mind that. What I mind is being told I'm wrong by someone who asserts they are right and provides no evidence to support their claims and discredits someone who has worked in this field for 5 years as "childish" among other things.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a "dumb fuck" journalist.
If the thing you fuck up is easily corrected like this was it really shouldn't be a big deal for your boss.
A review is just someone's opinion. This guy played the game and shared his opinion. Capcom's intent wasn't clear to him, so he missed something. That's Capcom's failure.
Claire A (1st run) and Leon A (1st run) are pretty much the same thing at the start, until the middle where they meet Ada or Sherry (which are different of course) and then the endings will be the same / similar. Same with Leon B (2nd run) and Claire B (2nd run) are similar.
So the idea is to play Claire A / Leon B or Leon A / Claire B for the complete story and the B play through gets the real final ending.
OP
OP
I think people are right to expect a bit of research from a professional game reviewer from a high-profile gaming site.
No, it's his job to play the game and share his opinions on it. That's it.
You sound like one of those "objective reviews" proponents. Don't do that.
You guys are definitively overreacting to this. It's a factual mistake and those happen all the time and in every type of media. The way it looks to me, it's just internet outrage because internet outrage. He played enough of the game to score it (no, you don't need to finish a game in order to score it, even though it is desirable) and it's not really fair to ask for someone to be fired over stupid nonsense like this. It's not plagiarism. And that whole "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" is really just mean and stupid.
Absolutely disgusting.
There's a difference between ONE PERSON aka your boss shitting on you because you made a mistake and an INTERNET MOB shitting on you.
What am I going to read next holy fck
Nah.
That's one of the biggest reasons game reviews are a joke compared to film and TV. In those mediums, people understand that a review is just that person's opinion. It's just an individual explaining how a piece of media affected them. There's no right or wrong to it. No "research" required.
This isn't the first time this reviewer fucked up. He should be fired. Mistakes like that cannot be tolerated imo, since reviews have a wide spread and can actually influence people's decission on buying said game. Not everyone will re-read or re-watch the review now.
You really need think people "laughing" at this kind of thing is purely harmless?
Mistakes can be made, it is only human. And they corrected it pretty fast. Question is, does nobody double check the review and the facts before posting it online.
Well that's why we have the internet, so people won't miss stuff like that.
It's very telling you're saying that. Maybe dig a little deeper into movie and book criticism. Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, Sean Burns. Hell, even AV Club people know they can't just write about their opinions on shows and try analyzing stuff.
And just try saying something like that to a literary critic. You'll get laughed out of the room, I can guarantee that.
He obviously didn't play enough to score it if the correction changed the score.
just out of curiosity did you read the actual review because it was positively glowing and i can't imagine someone reading it, seeing the "the only real downside is there's not much difference in the campaigns" and peacing out on it. (or that this hypothetical person only reads one review on one website once to make purchasing decisions)
Fire for making two minor mistakes. That's ResetEra for you!
Hahaha, I could understand this sentiment perhaps if the score pre-retraction was a 5 or something. It was an 8.8, hardly a score that would make someone seeing it say 'I don't want to buy it!'
This is shameful yes but I really do think some of you need to tone down a bit regarding the gravity of the situation. Unlike the situation with Miucin, It really is not a big deal.
Read the review. Scores are bullshit. The 0.2 points added to that is probably an editor giving it a bigger score in order for places like this to not go completely apeshit. Basically damage control.
Why it's a big deal you ask?
You don't find it utterly disgusting that an internet mob is sh*tting on a person because he made a mistake?
How will you try to defend this disgusting behavior next?
I think it's more the fact that IGN seem to be making a lot of mistakes lately, mistakes which really shouldn't be happening, as they are failing to deliver actual facts about the games they are reviewing. Boarderlands 2 VR, Ace Combat 7 and now RE2.....
People don't have to agree with the options of the reviewer but they should at least be presenting the real facts and info about the game they are supposed to be reviewing.
So path A is 8.8/10 and bath B is 0.2/10?
I might just skip path B then since it's so bad
It's a mistake but it's not just one guys mistake, it's the writers mistake, and then it's the editor who approved its mistake
It obviously makes them look utterly incompetent because last year they had a serial plagiarist on the books
I might just skip path B then since it's so bad
It's a mistake but it's not just one guys mistake, it's the writers mistake, and then it's the editor who approved its mistake
It obviously makes them look utterly incompetent because last year they had a serial plagiarist on the books
I'll do exactly what the fuck I like, thanks. The review from possibly the largest gaming review site in the world should know what it's on about. End of.
Two minor mistakes in like eight fucking years, even.
I don't know if people are just conditioned to think this is normal from their own experiences or what, but holy shit.
In Nier Automata they had to add this warning at the end of ending A because they knew so many people stopped playing the first Nier after the first ending.
At a quick glance that menu for Resident Evil isn't super clear and I could see how someone could mistake that for a new game run if they weren't paying attention.
How can a second campaign that doubles the size of the game only add 0.2 to the score? Another question also is how can they give an 8.8 firstly with that huge complaint about the second campaign and later edit with a couple of lines... they're not serious. I'm pretty sure they'll talk about nostalgia also in the review when I'm mostly sure they didn't even play the original...
I agree IGN as a whole has shown incompetence.
Shitting on IGN is ok, but not on individuals.
