IGN review

2r5szkk.jpg
 
We're mad because he used bogus reasons when criticizing the game, like giving the presentation a 6 because you can't skip cut scenes. He is NOT a good reviewer, he contradicts himself throughout the whole thing. And of course we wouldn't have attacked him if he gave it a ten, what would we have to be upset about? Don't get what you were trying to say with that last question.

What I'm trying to say is you think MK is beyond criticism. Well im here today to tell you that it isn't and 8.0-8.5 sounds about right to me.

9.4 from gametrailers is WAY to high
 
Post from Greatgohan on GameFAQS sums this up nicely:

Greatgohan said:
It's not about the score that I'm upset with his review, it's the fact the review is a bad review. Let me show you some parts of it.

"The game is too hard" - Haven't you played the original trilogy? MK games are hard, they're supposed to be hard. That's the whole point. It's a throwback. It wouldn't be MK without a hard boss.

"When the original MK came out-" - He said he was too young so he didn't get the whole nostalgia factor that comes with the game. It's a throwback towards the original, easter eggs of course. IGN rates other games higher for nostalgia but MK cannot do that because it's reviewer doesn't get it.

"The story is weak" - What other fighting game has a good story in general? Other fighters this gen don't really piece toward great stories outside of Blazblue, also MK's story is classic MK. It's style, humor, basically everything, if you'd play the original MKs you'd understand this. Besides saying "I don't know the lore well" wouldn't really help in those regards. Since the beginning of this game's announcement they've stated it was a throwback, get someone who's actually played the originals to determine how the game truly is.

"The meter is divided into four segments" - Alright, we know for a fact you didn't truly get into the game but this is ridiculous....

"I was bewildered by the imbalances found in the single-player modes. You're very often thrown into two-on-one matches and confronted with bosses that actually break the game's rules" - Play MK1.....this is a common part of MK......you shouldn't have been surprised....even happened in the more recent Deception...

"Whenever I voiced my frustrations to other IGN editors, the response was always the same: "Sounds like typical Mortal Kombat." Sticking to tradition isn't a good excuse" - *sigh*

"Furthermore, there's some odd presentation issues that I wouldn't have expected from Mortal Kombat. Chief among them is your inability to pause or skip cutscenes in the story mode. There isn't even a chapter select of any kind. It's a terrible setup." - False, you can pause the cutscenes in story mode.

Then you factor in more of his comments such as graphics. Even though he said the characters look amazing and environments look bad he gives it a 7.5 when previous for his Tekken 6 review he gave the game the same score in graphics with a worst comment? Presentation is horrible for the amount of modes and extras it has adding to it, I've only see this praised everywhere else. It's crazy. The guy isn't the kind of person who'd even like MK so really it's like throwing a strategy gamer in a review for the latest NASCAR game.

Honestly he's the only person I've seen do this and that's why I can't accept a 8/10. If he knew what he was talking about it would have been different but the fact is that he doesn't.
 
^ This is so true.

He based 90% of his review on the story mode.

Totally, this guy must've been reading a script because I couldn't believe the false statements about the game he was making.
 
clearly the monkey they had to do that review, still has issues from when he was a kid and played the first MK...still gets the nightmares, graphics are amazing sounds are amazing...just all round a better gaming experience and lots of great kontent, so it should have been at least a 9- 9.2
 
I hope his boss reads this thread and he get's into trouble I mean had he been out drinking and wrote this review on a hangover?

As if there is'nt enough info in this thread to discredit his review... Poor compared to other reviews on other sites and I have read quite a few today and overall it's been recieved really well generally speaking... I knew somthing was up when all the other pre-release titles were showing BOOM! and MK dropped down to just HOT! then went back up to BOOM! the next day....

Ryan should definatly correct his errors regardless of his opinion
 
I understand what you're saying but these reviews matter ALOT to WB and NRS. They help drive sales. Just like a car getting a 5 star from Car and Driver, these AAA titles need glowing reviews from the high traffic websites. You may personally do your own research, but a lot of casual people base their purchase decisions on these reviews. I know for one, if there is a game that flew under my radar but then starts dropping amazing reviews all over I might just give it a shot. Portal 2 comes to mind. This guys opinion is important because of the influence he has on so many gamers. The very large audience. He obviously gave a VERY critical review with little depth or insight into what he didn't like.

Reviews, written favorably or disparagingly of a product, are inherently biased/subjective. I do play games casually for the most part, but I also think for myself rather take what someone says as the gospel. What I like or dislike may not be shared with the author of reviewers, let alone the majority of video game consumers. I am tempted to go on about why they shouldn't be taken seriously, but I'll leave that for another time.

The MK series had lower scores in the past, but that didn't stop people from buying the games. The Neverhood, Ico, and Klonoa were critically-acclaimed, but commercially unsuccessful. From a business perspective, what good is favorable review when the sales don't reflect it? Ed Boon stated during an EGM interview, "There are guys who are very celebrated in our industry who don't make profitable games."

As badly written as IGN's review may be, it was still positive overall. IGN doesn't represent the "video game journalism" as a whole. This one review is not going to reflect scores across the board. It's not worth making a big stink over one review.
 
Last edited:
I'm embarrassed to work for that company sometimes.

I apologize, Zoop, but I haven't been a member here long enough to know everyone's background. I knew that you work for them, but do you write reviews, or have another position there? If you do write reviews, I'm surprised that they didn't approach you to cover MK.
 
It's a like a car reporter who's only ever driven a 120hp Hyundai getting handed a Ferrari and goes on to say "the car was too fast and I got scared, or I couldn't handle it well at top speeds because I've never done it before"...Blaming the car for it's attributes he's never been exposed to before...
 
Last edited:
This is why IGN shouldn't EVER review MK games.
8.0 for MK 9 is pure SHIT.

I said it a day ago and I'll say it again; "IGN Casuals should NEVER review an MK game."
 
Last edited:
I knew it was garbage when I saw 6 for story? Really? This is the best story for any fighting game there is thus far.

Fail review from a fail site. Next.
 
Imbalanced boss battle? Thats the biggest contradiction oxymoron thingy i have ever heard! Its a boss battle DUHH!
 
Obviously if IGN or anybody else criticizes your precious MK game you'll attack the person like theres no tomrrow

8.0/10 is a good score you guys and Ryan Clements is a decent reviewer the only part I disagree is with the costume thing (it's a reboot so of course they're going to have the same costumes)

Be honest with me would you of attacked Ryan if he gave the game a 10/10?

Is there anyone that seriously agrees with the 6.0 for presentation?! lol...
People must have no idea what presentation in a game is then. The presentation couldn't be any better than this. It's a fact for anyone that understands something about videogames.
 
What I'm trying to say is you think MK is beyond criticism. Well im here today to tell you that it isn't and 8.0-8.5 sounds about right to me.

IGN gave Streetfighter IV 9.5/10 and they give this 8/10. Going on a percentile scale, thats a 15 point difference and there is NO WAY theres that big of a gap between the two games. SFIV may have (arguably) a deeper fighting system, but MK easily competes presentation wise and has a whole hell of a lot more content then SFIV ever did. Theres quite frankly no way to justify that huge score gap between the two games.

Also, with the *****ing about unbalanced or cheap boss battles, do these reviewers not remember Seth when SFIV came out? He made me rage and want to throw my controller through the tv more than any MK boss ever has.
 
Top