He didn't say that. Also maybe he played through the B scenario and still genuinely thought not much changed besides the details he does mention?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
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
in my defense i'm sick to my stomach and post-post-posting helps take my mind off it.
Yeah what exactly is the different between a game that's an 8.7 and a game that's an 8.8? 100-point scales are completely useless, as are reviews with half points to some degree. Like, do we really need 20 ways to say if a game is good or bad?
Oh yeah I read it, but thanks for the fact check!
I'm clearly stating my opinion of his thought process there, not quoting him verbatim, nice try though.
Not really, I alluded to his idea well enough, like I said, we will know soon enough if the scenarios are "largely the same". Keep in mind I'm not talking about gameplay, as being the exact same game that is to be expected, just curious how he rationalizes the major story beats being "largely the same" when we know that's literally not possible. Claire never meets Ada, Sherry getting chased by everyone, etc, etc.
Last edited:
Oh, I definitely think it's because this is a big AAA title he did it on this time. I used to listen to the old IGN Nintendo podcast when he was lower on the corporate ladder, he was there for part of the Wii's life but he came off as some sort of heel commentator for wrestling rather than genuine, then he was removed from the Nintendo team at some point, it's been about a decade so I can't remember specifics but I would start with Wii/Nintendo reviews of his.
you think he makes a living reviewing games? If you're not spreading yourself as thin as possible in multiple directions you're not making a living. Writers who write reviews are basically in crunch mode automatically. It's not necessarily an easy mistake to make when you're trying to get a review out on time.
Is this the original review?
I'm a little confused, because there are two complaints in it:
I'm a little confused, because there are two complaints in it:
- There's not much difference between Leon or Claire's run through the first part of the game.
- The second part is "confusingly hidden behind each character's second Game mode", and that beating the first part with one character unlocks the next part for that same character (rather than the other one like in the original game). Also, while there are new areas, it's not entirely new.
So, back in the day there's a guy (as far as I'm aware for each site it's one single guy) who has to curate all the reviews, so it has to be formulaic, they don't want to go back adding and adjusting scores constantly for reviews. So our site had a couple of reviewers that messed up similar to Daemon, would get dunked on in the comments, which resulted in adjustments including a new score, ended up with our reviews no longer being accepted to the listings.
I know that, it's like a different set of rules for the biggest teams, kinda messed up that they're above the rules but I 100% expect no issues with accepting their reviews in the future even though they did something way more egregious than we EVER did with IGN plagiarizing.
newmoneytrash Oh and may I have you take another look at this:
So the first half of what you linked to reads like he started up 2nd Run and ran through what he could, mentioning what he found to be different.
Then the second half is taken straight from his initial mistaken review, so how could he have known that "Resident Evil 2 will be largely the same when you finish and switch to the other person's 2nd Game mode. Leon and Claire take extremely similar paths, meet most of the same people, solve most of the same puzzles, and fight most of the same bosses", by the time he wrote this he hadn't played through any B route so how did he know that?
It says the paragraph is inaccurate and is being revised yet it ended up mostly intact in the update, so he predicted what he would have a problem with in his future previously unknown attempt to rereview the game?
Or did he just quickly pretend to go through what he missed once it was brought to his attention, keeping the same criticisms of something he hadn't played yet?... Or as I said before spreading misinformation about the game to cover up his mistake?
Anyone feel free to jump on this, I'm sure someone can explain this better than I can.
So the first half of what you linked to reads like he started up 2nd Run and ran through what he could, mentioning what he found to be different.
Then the second half is taken straight from his initial mistaken review, so how could he have known that "Resident Evil 2 will be largely the same when you finish and switch to the other person's 2nd Game mode. Leon and Claire take extremely similar paths, meet most of the same people, solve most of the same puzzles, and fight most of the same bosses", by the time he wrote this he hadn't played through any B route so how did he know that?
It says the paragraph is inaccurate and is being revised yet it ended up mostly intact in the update, so he predicted what he would have a problem with in his future previously unknown attempt to rereview the game?
Or did he just quickly pretend to go through what he missed once it was brought to his attention, keeping the same criticisms of something he hadn't played yet?... Or as I said before spreading misinformation about the game to cover up his mistake?
Anyone feel free to jump on this, I'm sure someone can explain this better than I can.
Last edited:
If you're talking about Metacritic that seems super counter-intuitive. I contribute to the Tomatometer and everything is user-submitted which makes it so much easier - they really should adopt a similar system considering how strict their entry requirements are anyway.
Jesus at this thread. Some of you guys need to grow up.
The guy made a mistake at his job. I guarantee EVERYONE on this board has made mistakes at their job and NOT owned up to it. How would you like it if a mistake you made at your job FROM 8 YEARS AGO was brought up over and over again?
I really cant believe this thread has over 1700 replies..Wow just wow.
The guy made a mistake at his job. I guarantee EVERYONE on this board has made mistakes at their job and NOT owned up to it. How would you like it if a mistake you made at your job FROM 8 YEARS AGO was brought up over and over again?
I really cant believe this thread has over 1700 replies..Wow just wow.
Yeah the reviewer found the second B campaign but only after playing through Leon and Claire's A campaign and complaining about it, blaming the game, instead of their own failure to check things.
They clearly didn't check the main menu very well or take notice of the on screen message you get for finishing the first campaign saying the 2nd run is unlocked.
So wait... I thought I read Leon and Claire had defined campaigns. Do they change depending on what order you play them? Is it recommended that you start with one or the other or is the experience the same regardless of what order you go in?
I 100% agree. Take it all with a grain of salt, I've been out of the loop since 2012, 6 years is enough time to copy a much more successful platform, but if it is still their way to curate I'd be satisfied seeing the rules enforced across the board.
Holy Christ, that's been IGN for nearly TWENTY YEARS. This is like bitching that MTV doesn't play music videos.
Forgive my ignorance here but shouldn't we be looking at t
I think it's because of the trend with IGN and publishing reviews without the correct information (borderlands VR, ace combat and the plagiarized stuff)
Idk how games media works but shouldn't there be an editor to like proof all this stuff?
I think it's because of the trend with IGN and publishing reviews without the correct information (borderlands VR, ace combat and the plagiarized stuff)
Idk how games media works but shouldn't there be an editor to like proof all this stuff?
They do have defined "arcs" that they go through regardless of what order you pick. Just pick whoever you want, for all intents and purposes there's only one A and one B scenario now, so don't worry about it.
The guy made a mistake and they at least rectified it.
I get the whole "shit on ign" shtick but this thread has delivered a new low; some of you are acting like he murdered puppies and kittens. The false sense of umbrage is kinda pathetic.
I get the whole "shit on ign" shtick but this thread has delivered a new low; some of you are acting like he murdered puppies and kittens. The false sense of umbrage is kinda pathetic.
That reads like he played Leon A, saw the New Game 2nd Run option and assumed it was Leon B, then decided that for his review he needed to play Claire first, and mistakenly thought that Claire A is Claire B or that the two characters weren't connected in an A/B thing after all.newmoneytrash Oh and may I have you take another look at this:
So the first half of what you linked to reads like he started up 2nd Run and ran through what he could, mentioning what he found to be different.
Then the second half is taken straight from his initial mistaken review, so how could he have known that "Resident Evil 2 will be largely the same when you finish and switch to the other person's 2nd Game mode. Leon and Claire take extremely similar paths, meet most of the same people, solve most of the same puzzles, and fight most of the same bosses", by the time he wrote this he hadn't played through any B route so how did he know that?
It says the paragraph is inaccurate and is being revised yet it ended up mostly intact in the update, so he predicted what he would have a problem with in his future previously unknown attempt to rereview the game?
Or did he just quickly pretend to go through what he missed once it was brought to his attention, keeping the same criticisms of something he hadn't played yet?... Or as I said before spreading misinformation about the game to cover up his mistake?
When he revised it after playing a B path, instead of totally rewriting his complaint, he changed and expanded on it because he still felt the same basic problem was there, even if it wasn't as bad as he thought.
This insistence that he must be faking it is weird.
Except he did see both the menu and the on screen message. He just interpreted the wording to be about the second scenario for the same character.
Because at no point does it say that the second run is for the other character. It says things change... but he assumed that was, y'know, in relation to what he had just played. Not in relation to the character's story he didn't play.
Daemon, is that you?
well you see he also said the "true" ending was "fine" on twitter instead of writing an essay about it like a normal reviewer does days before a game is released
He didn't understand it or how it worked but it wasn't the games faults, just his for assuming and not checking, so it was corrected.
Nothing else to it really, I don't think it's anything major personally, certainly not as bad as some of the other recent mistakes but IGN have been on a roll with review mistakes lately and it's becoming embarrassing.
At this point I think the OP should be updated and a staff post made regarding the situation.
People continue to not understand the mistake that was clear in the original review because the OP neglected to include that part of the review. Then people misunderstood and shared screenshots of the menus as if he missed them - a site admin included. When it should have been clear from the start that he absolutely did not miss them, just misinterpreted unclear wording.
Ah, yes, because anyone exhibiting basic understanding of the industry and an incredibly popular website's history absolutely has to be posting in bad faith.
People continue to not understand the mistake that was clear in the original review because the OP neglected to include that part of the review. Then people misunderstood and shared screenshots of the menus as if he missed them - a site admin included. When it should have been clear from the start that he absolutely did not miss them, just misinterpreted unclear wording.
Ah, yes, because anyone exhibiting basic understanding of the industry and an incredibly popular website's history absolutely has to be posting in bad faith.
So he just randomly guesses what his issue is going to be with something he hasn't played yet? He couldn't possible know that "Leon and Claire take extremely similar paths, meet most of the same people, solve most of the same puzzles, and fight most of the same bosses", by his own admission he hadn't gone through B yet, so how in the world could he know this with so much certainty he kept the exact same words after the update?
Is it weird to try to save face after making a mistake? I think these logic leaps I'm seeing are even "weirder".
I feel a lock coming so anyone else want to explain this precognitive reviewing please do it soon, can't wait.
???????
He played through Leon A then Claire A, his main complaint was that he hoped they would be more different because he didn't understand that they were both A path, then after he discovered his mistake he played one of the B paths, found it to still be similar but not the same extent, and used his existing "the other path is similar" text as a base because he felt the same issue existed to a certain degree. I just explained this.
It's clear that he initially meant the same path (A), just with different protagonists. He then "corrected" his review but still kept the first part the same this time implying it applies to path B. It's hilarious because even after admitting he hadn't played route B initially, he still insists it's largely the same (which to be fair might be true) using the original wording because apparently he is too proud to admit he screwed up completely.newmoneytrash Oh and may I have you take another look at this:
So the first half of what you linked to reads like he started up 2nd Run and ran through what he could, mentioning what he found to be different.
Then the second half is taken straight from his initial mistaken review, so how could he have known that "Resident Evil 2 will be largely the same when you finish and switch to the other person's 2nd Game mode. Leon and Claire take extremely similar paths, meet most of the same people, solve most of the same puzzles, and fight most of the same bosses", by the time he wrote this he hadn't played through any B route so how did he know that?
It says the paragraph is inaccurate and is being revised yet it ended up mostly intact in the update, so he predicted what he would have a problem with in his future previously unknown attempt to rereview the game?
Or did he just quickly pretend to go through what he missed once it was brought to his attention, keeping the same criticisms of something he hadn't played yet?... Or as I said before spreading misinformation about the game to cover up his mistake?
Anyone feel free to jump on this, I'm sure someone can explain this better than I can.
Why are you putting corrected in scare quotes
He literally did correct it, and apologized for it, those are facts.
What the fuck is happening in this thread
To be fair, even the original review seemed to hint at this (though that might not have been the original review I read).
Accurate. This is also why the score changed, albeit very slightly, which is an unfortunate and awkward (but hopefully understandable) outcome.
Oh ok thank you for explaining this to me. When this little story you dreamed up turns out to be wrong please stick around.
Ask someone who's played the game if it's really all just the same. And once again no I'm not talking about just gameplay since it's the exact same game that is to be expected. I mean the actual scenarios and what happens in them. He says they're "largely the same", well no actually they aren't. Claire and Leon go through separate arcs that can't possibly be described as "largely the same".
People on this site always pull that shit. Anytime people are collectively shitting on someone/something, if you don't hop on the bandwagon you must be that person/thing or affiliated with them.
His descriptions of the similarities are mostly gameplay based, and he acknowledges that they have different stories with "they meet mostly the same people." His opinion on what constitutes different is subjective, especially if he's talking about gameplay foremost.
Also you literally made up a story out of whole cloth about a stranger who had a different opinion about a video game you haven't played making up parts of his review out of his bitter anger at being humiliated
Question for you since you assume it was a mistake. What if it was an attempt to rush out the review so he put less effort into the game and missed incredibly obvious things like a big screen telling you how to play the second story?
I would be more apt to agreeing that it was a mistake if the same reviewer wasn't previously caught playing a game on novice mode for his review and being called out on it by the developer. But unfortunately, there are two instances of this same reviewer in a similar situation.
He shouldn't be harassed or called names. But it's also very likely that he's not good at this job and it's worth discussing.
This is what happens when you allow gamers to fester unchecked for almost a full day now.
I love how smug you're being when literally everything you, yourself, have pointed to just says "the start is different". And we have other posts indicating that beyond the first hour or so, nothing else is much different till the end.
Which... depending on the length of that middle section, which certainly seems like several hours... would amount to "largely the same".
You're spouting conspiracy theories because you don't like someone's wording.
Because even though he did technically correct did, the way he did it doesn't show full admission of his wrongdoing.
I also just realized something else. It's not just this paragraph that he altered. He also deleted the next one where he was starting he was aware of the 2nd run and implied he did play it. So in the original version he says that he played the same route twice and that enabled the 2nd run which he found highly similar. That's all fine until he changes his review and adds the following notice "Having now played Leon's 2nd Game, I'm still disappointed that there's only marginally more new things to see and do there" which basically says he hadn't finished the 2nd run originally lik he implied. So not only he scored the game based on playing the same thing twice but he also implied he played the 2nd run which apparently wasn't the case until after the corrections/deletions.
No, I made just an educated guess at a reason for his apparent foretelling of his issues with the game. He made a little mistake and was too proud to change a big issue of contention in his review. Doesn't sound as silly as you want it to be.
I'm sure it was too much to ask that you read the thread before coming in with your wisdom but just so you know why I'm even arguing about it:
But he didn't miss the screen. Read the thread.
He interpreted it as being Leon's second story that unlocked. The text of the original review makes this very clear.
It's a silly but understandable mistake; just think about the screen with that assumption in mind. Nothing about the wording of that screen implies it's for the other character and not in relation to the scenario you just played.
This is an incredibly bad take. Two mistakes years apart and you have random people saying, "we need to discuss Daemon" like some kind of concerned parents is absurd.
It was a mistake. It was corrected. Anything else should be left to internal discussion and not a message board thread.
I read the whole thread, you're just making things up and assuming that his opinion on the differences between the content is "misinformation" (even deliberate and maliciously so) when he's not even the only person to say it.
Sure the review is worth discussing, I have nothing against that. The reviewer fucked up and he and IGN should be called out on it, but the "gamers rise up" attitude of some people here is beyond embarrassing and let's be honest, this thread didn't reach 30+ pages because of worthwhile toughtful discussion.
Reading the review, it's obvious it was a mistake, I have no reason to think this was done in bad blood or because he was lazy.
This thread is a fucking embarrassment, ya'll should be ashamed with this borderline gamergate bullshit.
You don't understand he's likely just bad at his job, and this is a videogame review! It is of great importance we grill this guy publically for his actions. /s