NeoGAF thinks Matt didn't beat the game.

[famicommander]

From RobbieNick on NeoGAF:

Proof.

"You can beat the primary single-player mode in a few hours and then you'll unlock some extra playable characters. But there's no point in going back unless you like torturing yourself."

Wrong. You do not "beat" the game, then unlock the characters. The game gives off a false ending with credits, then the major plot twist happens and the game continues with the ability to play as the other knights. The story is still going on. Did Matt actually think that little bit was the ending?!

That's pretty hilarious, right there. Not only did Matt contradict himself, use poor grammar and spelling, and use the word "retarded", but he may not have even finished the game?

Can there even be any question now about IGN's lack of professionalism? I don't know for sure if he did or didn't finish the game, but either way it was a poorly written review.

[Ryan Brown]

From RobbieNick on NeoGAF:

Proof.

"You can beat the primary single-player mode in a few hours and then you'll unlock some extra playable characters. But there's no point in going back unless you like torturing yourself."

Wrong. You do not "beat" the game, then unlock the characters. The game gives off a false ending with credits, then the major plot twist happens and the game continues with the ability to play as the other knights. The story is still going on. Did Matt actually think that little bit was the ending?!

That's pretty hilarious, right there. Not only did Matt contradict himself, use poor grammar and spelling, and use the word "retarded", but he may not have even finished the game?

Can there even be any question now about IGN's lack of professionalism? I don't know for sure if he did or didn't finish the game, but either way it was a poorly written review.

All reviews are like this. No one is gonna give their all for a game they don't like, even if they have to review it.

[famicommander]

That's not the point, though. The point is, he shouldn't be reviewing a game he hasn't completed, and he shouldn't be spreading misinformation like that.

I emailed the editor at GoNintendo, and he is investigating right now.

[Tyranno]

Are we really gonna drag this old chestnut out again?

The guy wrote a review some of us find poor. Leave him alone as a person.

[SuperLink]

Since when do you need to have completed a game to review it? He didn't like the gameplay at all, so I really don't think a little bit longer playing it would make any difference, unless the later levels are really that awesome, which I doubt.

I hate the scoring and the almost Sonic fan trolling, but if he was so eager to quit that he didn't finish watching the "credits" then maybe it's best we don't force him through it anyway... IGN has some kind of anti-Sonic brainwashery going on anyway, it can't be helped I'm afraid.

[Patticus]

If he's right, that's even more shoddy work from IGN. "Retarded Wii waggle", indeed. I mean, honestly - is that what games journalism has come to? That and people posting videos of themselves playing the demo of Riddick really badly and then posting eight news stories about it?

[famicommander]

Are we really gonna drag this old chestnut out again?

The guy wrote a review some of us find poor. Leave him alone as a person.

I'm not complaining about the score. It's not about that.

It's about IGN's obligation to its readers. They have an obligation to complete the game they're reviewing, and they have an obligation to maintain a certain level of quality.

Frankly, I don't care if they gave the game a negative six out of ten or an eleven out of ten. It's not about the score.

[Badnik Mechanic]

People are not seriously under the impression that most reviewers actually finsih the game they're reviewing are they?

[famicommander]

If he's right, that's even more shoddy work from IGN. "Retarded Wii waggle", indeed. I mean, honestly - is that what games journalism has come to? That and people posting videos of themselves playing the demo of Riddick really badly and then posting eight news stories about it?

Indeed. This level of professionalism is what you expect from GameFAQs user reviews, not world-famous game journalists.

[Gabz Girl]

Tsk tsk, typico IGN.

I pity them. =F

[Silencer226]

You don't have to complete a game to review it... My God if he hates the game what the hell makes you think he'd want more?

[Phos]

Do you honestly think that him finishing the game would have improved his opinion of it? IGN's review is just fine. if it really bugs you, just round it to 4/10.

[Tyranno]

Do you honestly think that him finishing the game would have improved his opinion of it? IGN's review is just fine. if it really bugs you, just round it to 4/10.

While I have no problem with the guy personally, and nor do I think he has to finish it...

This review is garbage. Sophomoric garbage. It is not worth the HTML it is written in.

I'd be saying that if it were a review for ANYTHING, Sonic or not.

It is not "just fine." His general opinion is just fine, but as a written work it embodies everything WRONG with game journalism.

[PSI Wind]

Im not going to RACE through this game. Im gonna do all missions, look at everything I collected, get all the upgrades I can, and more.

Why can't reviewers do that?

Edited March 5, 2009 by PSI Wind FTW!

[Solid SOAP]

Im not going to RACE through this game. Im gonna do all missions, look at everything I collected, get all the upgrades I can, and more.

Why can't reviewers do that?

Because they have tons more games to review within a limited period of time?

[SuperLink]

Probably because some reviewers just don't enjoy it. Even if they're approached the game expecting to hate it like most reviewers do with Sonic these days, it's gonna be hard to change their mind, since we are "lowly fans", and they're "elite reviewers on a world famous website". So yeah we don't get to walk on the same ground as them and stuff.

[PSI Wind]

What I mean though, is that a game is as fast as someone goes through it.

[SuperLink]

Why should how long it takes them matter if they just don't like the game? Okami takes around 70 hours to finish, and I bet IGN's reviewers played and loved every mini game and sidequest before reviewing that game. If Sonic is put on the same level as Wii shovelware (I bet Matt has to play shitloads of that) then there's no surprise why Matt stopped playing so quickly. Sure he may not have approached the game positively as he should have, or he was too harsh with the scoring, but he obviously didn't enjoy the game. Bad writing, unprofessional, whatever, we can't expect him to love a game he hates, even if he is being IGNorant.

[Badnik Zero]

People are not seriously under the impression that most reviewers actually finish the game they're reviewing are they?

Exactly. I don't think he's required to finish anything.

But it is sloppy to make false statements, which he made because he couldn't finish the game. It's clear he didn't like it enough to consider worth his time. His review got the point across though, he thought the gameplay was weak and had nothing to do with Sonic. He probably needs to realize that classic Sonic was a while ago, and Sonic gameplay takes many forms now.

I think his opinion is valid, but his score doesn't reflect his opinion. The score is dis-inflated for dramatic purposes.

[Patticus]

Im not going to RACE through this game. Im gonna do all missions, look at everything I collected, get all the upgrades I can, and more.

Why can't reviewers do that?

Because they have, on an average week, around three games to get through and review. Time is a luxury for them, one they can ill afford to spend idling looking at pretty things (although that may happen if the game is gorgeous enough, and if it does they will factor that into the review). They'll explore the game as much as they reasonably can, but they can't usually go through everything like we will, and for the better games they review, occasions that result in not getting to finish them do leave them with that guilty feeling of not getting closure.

That said, I think Matt stopped playing Black Knight when he did not simply because of the burden of his workload. I think he just mistook the plot twist for the ending (or willed it to be so...) and based his review on his play experiences up to that point. It seems doubtful that carrying on would've changed his mind though.

[EXshad]

Meh, this was another really unprofessional review from IGN about Sonic. Whether he finished the game or not is a moot point, but making up bullshit, calling the controls retarded, and just general bitching about "it's not classic Sonic, bawww!!!!" and disregarding the fact that it's a spin-off is unprofessional. I'm not involving the score, hell, if he gave legit reasons, used professionalism, lost the senseless bias about what it should have been to satisfy his fanboyish desires, and then gave it such a remarkably low score, I wouldn't be whining like I am now.

And people, that's what we're doing: whining. The sooner we accept that, the better off will be. But by the same token, I can't help but say that the review was whining as well.

Edited March 6, 2009 by EXshad

[Phil]

It doesn't matter if he's played it all or not the review is still going to be just as bad.

Edited March 5, 2009 by Phil

[Aregulardude]

Pfft, what's the point of this, anyways? Bad review is going to be bad, mmmkay? I mean, IGN and its staff are the kinds of people who would rather see Sonic in 2D bashing robots apart freeing animals and sending the doctor packing like he did in the old Genesis/Mega Drive days, than to see Sonic Team try something new. IGN and the majority of gaming sites are going to hate Modern Sonic until they get what they want. This is exactly how we were like when Unleashed came out. We totally thought that Unleashed was going to be like the best thing since sliced bread, but IGN goes and gives the game for the 360 version a 4 out of 10, pretty much because of the Werehog, thus causing us to look for answers as to why this game got the score, and we speculated that the reviewer only made it to the fourth continent before quitting. Same case for this game, we thought (most of us) that since this was a sequel to Secret Rings, which was decent, this was going to be pretty good as well, and then IGN goes and slaps the 3.9 on this game, and we find reasons as to why the game got such a bad score. I can understand that you're angry, but why force someone to play a game if they're not going to like it? If you have a problem with the content, then stop. Stop reading, and form your own opinion on the game, because in the long run, your opinion is what is going to make the game sell, not the opinion of a gaming website, they tell you whether you should buy the game or not. You can choose to listen to that, or you can choose not to listen to it.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Aregulardude

[Dark Sonic]

I think the thing was that the guy probably played the main game in once sitting, had no idea about the unlockable characters and honestly just didn't care. Besides, I hardly think replaying the game as different characters would likely change his opinion very much. It's still going to have, in his mind, the same problems as playing with Sonic, only now you get to play as his friends in costumes.

[ovarloard]

No offense, Aregulardude, but you sound kinda like my gym teacher, with long lectures and the mmkay? added in there for good effect. Just saying.

Anyways, my contribution to this topic is nothing new; I'm just going to say that even if he may have not finished the game, it would have been a crappy review nonetheless. After all they contradict themselves in many places... for example, Unleashed (360 daytime) was too fast and now Black Knight is too slow.