Inconsistent Journalism

I have regularly read IGN for a long time now. I enjoy their articles, appreciate their news and trusted their reviews. Note that word, "trusted". For some unknown reason their journalists quality has drastically slumped. It all seemed to start with Halo Reach.

Now this is not a fanboy rant. I think Reach is a decent game. I am irritated when people say 3 was better (it really isn't). But, I don't think it deserves a 10. I'd give it an 8, maybe a 9 at a push. But the 10 confirmed by worst fears that games are no longer rated by the content, but by the title.

I predict that Black Ops will receive a 10. It may well be a decent game. But the fact it is Call of Duty automatically issues it a 10. This is what makes me angry. Many stunning games are overlooked because big names always get good scores. What sort of world is it when FIFA releases FIFA 10 and FIFA World Cup 2010 as separate games and we are fine with it?

I will keep the rant to a minimum and concentrate on IGN. Recently they reviewed Time Crisis: Razing Storm. Sarcastic Gamer gave it a "Buy It" award, stating it had many flaws but was still the enjoyable arcade experience faithfully recreated in your living room. IGN on the other hand awarded it a 4, stating reasons such as linear levels and poor story. It's Time Crisis, I know. I know the story is bad, I know the graphics are poor. All I wanted to know was whether or not it was FUN. But instead they criticised everything thing that makes it Time Crisis in the first place.

Now I feel they have gone way too far. With the launch of Kinect. They claim the price is far too high, yet give the price a 7. Despite a "noticeable delay" in detection, the performance has a 7 to. A 7 is good. Laggy motion controls are bad, ridiculous prices are bad. A 7.5 overall hardly seems justified by over-priced motion controls that have real lag.

There it is. Rant over. Thank you for sticking with it to the end. I feel it is now time to write my next article. I apologise in advance.