This is a direct response to the hundreds of comments that IGN received recently due to their Prototype review. After giving it a 7.5, which is a respectable score by their own standards, IGN received a myriad of these types of choice words:
“kongii29: go review something else pussy u dnt deserve to review a great game like Prototype…go fuk urself..hahahahaha…”
Really? Run for the hills, reviewers! If you give any popular game less than an 8, prepare to be assaulted over the internet (and physically, when the fanboys track you down…and they will). So what exactly goes into scoring a game below an 8? Is a 7.5 really that bad?
The first place that a reader should go before verbally bashing the reviewer is the Review Policy. IGN’s official stance, when applied to this particular review, states:
“Rating: 7.5 to 7.9 – Good – A good game has some obvious flaws, but these blemishes are overshadowed by one or several first-rate elements. While these games may not be for everyone, they’re still entertaining enough to provide genuine entertainment while they last.”
In fact, Gamer Limit.com’s own official scoring policy is as follows:
“Rating: 7.0-8.9 – Purchase for some, Rental for others – The B range:games like Devil May Cry 4. These titles have few problems, and are extremely fun to play, but don’t really pass the line of an ‘A’ title.”
From reading the hundreds of mind-bending comments on various IGN reviews, I can surmise this is the common fanboy’s review scale:
“Rating: 1-7.9 – Sux. Worst game ever since Superman 64. You would be ashamed for playing this game and sell your system.”
“Rating: 8.0 – 11 – Every major AAA title should get this, because after all the hype and excitement, why not justify my purchase? LOL. Also, 11s are reserved for Halo and COD games”
It’s understandable that you might disagree with a particular review, but a 7.5 is actually quite good according to either of above website’s guidelines. Let’s see exactly why Prototype was scored this way, drawing from IGN’s review:
- Some cutscenes are a confused joke (lack of direction).
- You can do just about everything in well under 20 hours. I didn’t find myself compelled to play for a second time at all (no replay value).
- It lacks many of the finishing touches that make for a great and memorable game (unpolished).
- You can’t do something as simple as run through the city while leaping off of buildings without alerting the Strike Teams, at which point you’re forced into some shape shifting or combat (a detriment to fun factor).
Is it reasonable that the game scored a 7.5 based on the above criteria, based on the reviewer’s opinion? Logic would dictate so, but then again, that doesn’t apply to the gamers who can’t afford both inFamous and Prototype. Here’s another drop of wisdom from an educated IGN user:
The-Good-Bloke: “I think this game would’ve been much better as a PS3 exclusive, the higher processing and extra power of the PS3 could’ve done wonders for this and other open world games. The 360 is just holding this generation back really.”
Little did Sucker Punch and Radical Entertainment know, that when they released inFamous and Prototype around the same time, respectively, that they would start a full on console war! To add a “cherry on top” to this story, many PS3 fanboys at IGN thought that Prototype was a 360 exclusive, and joined in on the bashing. This is absolute gold. I can see the 13 year old that received inFamous for his birthday and can’t afford Prototype just typing away, taking out all his angst on Prototype lovers and 360 owners.
I urge everyone out there in internet land to take a gander at a site’s score policy before going bonkers over a review. Many internet blogs are discussing their concern with readers regarding how they look at review scores, and how they should educate themselves, so they don’t misunderstand the site’s policy.
I leave you with this question: What will happen when the first website or print publication doesn’t give Halo ODST a 10/10? Judgment day, I tell you!