• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is IGN comparison of PC vs consoles for MGS V disingenuous?

5150Joker

5150Joker

Diamond Member
Here's their video review: http://www.ign.com/videos/2015/09/0...dium=PC&utm_content=1&utm_campaign=Coverstory

I don't have the game but all accounts are they were probably using low/medium settings for the PC against the consoles.

This is the true difference that Konami published: http://www.konami.jp/mgs5/tpp/jp/products/compare.php5

So why would IGN intentionally make the PC look bad in a supposed comparison video?


Edit:

Update: Digital Foundry just posted their comparison, this is how it's done right
 
Last edited:
because they got paid to? Honestly vg journalism isnt needed anymore with all of the gamers giving ratings and youtube videos. They are trying to fill the money gap by getting paid for stuff. Look at that one game journo who was sitting with Doritos and mountain dew. What a fucking idiot.

doritos.png



you would trust this guys opinion about anything?
 
They want clicks. IGN always does that. Plus these supposed journalists have no integrity any longer. There have been enough scandals and evidence to suggest the industry is broken to me. Plus some have even attacked their own audience more than once when called out on some of their bias and such.
 
Paid to by who? If Konami are putting their own comparisons on their own website which show differences/PC being better, why would they pay IGN to show PC not being better?
 
Lonyo said:
Paid to by who? If Konami are putting their own comparisons on their own website which show differences/PC being better, why would they pay IGN to show PC not being better?
Click to expand...

Sony. They even got the FPS claims wrong, digital foundry shows that there are times the PS4 slows down at 1080p and does not run 60fps all the time.
 
It's all marketing with smoke and mirrors anyways. Using max resolution as a condition of overall quality wasn't even a thing until the XB1/PS4 wars kicked off. It was and still is quite common for games to use in game textures that are lower resolution than final output in order to help performance. It is one of the most common compromises when we play a PC game at anything less than max quality.

XB1 renders at 900P but scales up to 1080P, therefore final output is 1080P. PC gamers can max out at 4K, but I'm willing to bet that unless you max your settings, it's scaling up also.

Does it matter what final output resolution is? Yes. Are there inherent differences between how one particular platform renders compared to another? Yes. In most cases, do these differences actually detract from the overall quality of the product? No.

Objective comparisons are great and yes they should be used, but the more is better mantra is getting old. I play at 1920x1200 on my PC, so I guess my setup automatically superior to all 1080P users? Of course not. I wish gamers and developers both would stop this cold war. Obviously this is less a PC problem and more a console issue, but their game politics are bleeding into ours now, annoyingly so.
 
or it could just be pure incompetence. In fact the more I think about it the more this is probably the reality.
 
IGN is trash.

It's simple. IGN gets paid to say what they are told, and then they hide their real motivations ($$$) for what they write and say.

What gets sprayed from IGN is deceptive garbage, by now I think most folks get it. The idea that IGN engages in this rancid spew-age in order to make $$$ is what it is, bunch of chums who wake up and drive to work to engage in that for a living....

no shortage of assclowns to fill those ranks.
 
Meh, corporate reviews... "comparisons", etc. They became boring and predictable years ago.

I usually don't like to judge entire sites (but I do, like everyone else, it's our nature). But I just read IGN's Mega Man Legacy Collection review recently, the reviewer removed a point because there's no rewinding feature. What? ... I mean What? That's akin to having a re-release of Super Mario Bros. "classics" (SMB1, 2 and 3 for example) in one package in about 10 years from now in which the bottomless pits weren't covered by something to allow safe passage without the need to jump above said pits in a classic platformer ever again. We're talking about the classic 8-bit era Mega Man games... there were no "rewind" feature back then, there's no need for one now, and there's definitely no need nor reason to actually decrease the game's review score because of such a terrible feature's "absence". The review he gave ended up with a score of 9 /10, but the mere fact that he somehow WANTED or expected such a feature in ANY of the classic 8-bit Mega Man games rendered his entire review completely invalid.

I do definitely prefer reading about "Mr. Joe" everyone's thoughts and impressions about various games from their own posts in discussion forums (such as here) or from their video reviews on YouTube for example. The time I do spend reading the known sites' articles is usually just to follow the latest news in general about gaming, more than for their "reviews". I followed most of E3's coverage from GameSpot for instance, as I did following their previews and interviews prior to The Witcher 3's release. That was alright, when it comes to previewing and interviews with developers I don't mind. But when it comes to actual corporate reviews I tend to ignore either the score or most of what they actually mention in said review until I see things confirmed by watching game-play footage on YouTube or other sites (and sometimes via streams as well).

In regards to what you mentioned OP, about the MGSV comparison possibly being disingenuous... well I mean it's almost a given, probably even necessary. They kinda have to act all innocent and going in sort of pretending that they wouldn't know ahead of time prior to doing said comparison themselves that the results were in fact surprising to them (that's an example). To incentivize curiosity for us to keep on watching or reading comparisons it'd be a good idea on their part to play a bit on the psychological side of things. You act like you want to see what the comparisons will show, but you (the guy doing the comparison) actually fully know what to expect, but you're just doing it in that "disingenuous" manner to excuse your comparison article to start with and to give a reason for having the job you have.

That's how I see it anyway. If you go in and make some article and right at the start to say something like " Ok, before we begin with this upcoming comparison, I want you guys to know what I fully knew what to expect ahead of time and I'm only doing this to pretend I had something to work on here at work, so please bear with me! " then the rest of it will be 1) irrelevant and will 2) look like an actual joke, or 3) an insult to would-be readers expecting something "serious" from such a well-known web site.

I haven't read nor watched the comparison though, I'm just expressing how I feel about corporate journalism in general. If the comparison feels disingenuous, that's because it most likely is and the guy(s) who made the comparison probably weren't good at making it subtle enough for us to not pick up their lack of (or care for) sincerity.
 
Last edited:
From what I heard, medium high, ultra are barely noticeable. I think in the past, games made sure to have at least medium quality to be fairly similar to high- ultra. Only noticeable when you stop. Low settings are definitely he one much more noticeable. So basically, low- medium hughe difference, medium to ultra not as dramatic.
 
I trust Eurogamer's Digital Foundry column with comparisons between PC and console versions of games. It's a regular column and the writers seem to know what they're talking about. IGN...IGN just isn't good for anything, these days.
 
JSt0rm said:
because they got paid to? Honestly vg journalism isnt needed anymore with all of the gamers giving ratings and youtube videos. They are trying to fill the money gap by getting paid for stuff. Look at that one game journo who was sitting with Doritos and mountain dew. What a fucking idiot.

doritos.png



you would trust this guys opinion about anything?
Click to expand...

LOL! That's just too funny and I agree he's a fucking idiot. However, with regards to IGN, they should know that posting up such bs comparisons will just continue to taint their reputation to the point that nobody will take them seriously for any review they do and in the end remove them from their bookmarks. I know that I did so after looking at the controversy behind this MGS V comparison they did.

Red Hawk said:
I trust Eurogamer's Digital Foundry column with comparisons between PC and console versions of games. It's a regular column and the writers seem to know what they're talking about. IGN...IGN just isn't good for anything, these days.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, Digital Foundry does a fantastic job and it's one of the sites I trust for accurate results.
 
as others have said, wait for Eurogamer/Digital Foundry, they are the ones doing these platform comparisons well,

but don't expect a big difference, Ground Zeroes was not a lot better on PC,
 
5150Joker said:
So why would IGN intentionally make the PC look bad in a supposed comparison video?
Click to expand...
As others have said above, it takes a very naive person to take any of these "professional" reviewers any more seriously than audiophile magazine "reviews". JSt0rm's picture above sums up the industry perfectly. One of my personal favorite "IGN moments" : Dragon Age 2 'review' : "The combat is more responsive and bloody, you don't need to fight the inventory system anymore, and conversations are more engaging. Dragon Age II is the best game in BioWare's fantasy role-playing franchise..." - cheerleads pretty much everything everyone hated about DA2 in reality (and why the user score ended up a whopping 40-45% lower than the usual PR shill marketing) - from the comically dumbed down "engaging" conversations to replacing tactical encounters with brainless button-mashing combat against overly spammed trash mobs that literally spawned on top on your head, to the endless series of cut & paste indenti-kit maps required to boot out the half-sized game cheap & fast whilst maintaining full release price. But hey - it's an EA game, so +20-30% for the score regardless...

IGN reviews need taking not so much with a grain of salt, but rather an entire mountain of it... 😀
 
IGN and all cater to the low information crowd. They only look ridiculous to the people who dont need them ever. And those people click on the links anyhow to see how dumb they are.
 
TheVrolok said:
Definitely well done. Do appreciate Konami's own comparison though.
Click to expand...

Konami may be turning into the worst publisher in gaming, but you have to give them credit for funding the development team to create a versatile engine and time to make a proper PC port.
 
IGN's platform comparison articles are always bad. They also have been recently making Playstation 4 version too bright on purpose.
 
BSim500 said:
As others have said above, it takes a very naive person to take any of these "professional" reviewers any more seriously than audiophile magazine "reviews". JSt0rm's picture above sums up the industry perfectly. One of my personal favorite "IGN moments" : Dragon Age 2 'review' : "The combat is more responsive and bloody, you don't need to fight the inventory system anymore, and conversations are more engaging. Dragon Age II is the best game in BioWare's fantasy role-playing franchise..." - cheerleads pretty much everything everyone hated about DA2 in reality (and why the user score ended up a whopping 40-45% lower than the usual PR shill marketing) - from the comically dumbed down "engaging" conversations to replacing tactical encounters with brainless button-mashing combat against overly spammed trash mobs that literally spawned on top on your head, to the endless series of cut & paste indenti-kit maps required to boot out the half-sized game cheap & fast whilst maintaining full release price. But hey - it's an EA game, so +20-30% for the score regardless...

IGN reviews need taking not so much with a grain of salt, but rather an entire mountain of it... 😀
Click to expand...

I think it's naive to so freely disregard the usefulness of professional game reviews. There's value in people who play a lot of games professionally and give objective reviews and critiques of games. I trust critics more than the hordes of haters who tend to review bomb user scores, that's for sure. Just because IGN might not be on the level with their scores, doesn't mean all reviewers are suspect.

About Dragon Age 2. That's a situation where I think the reviewers just might have been biased to go easy on BioWare because of how enjoyable and well made their past games have been. Or the reviewers did honestly enjoy the game, and didn't hold the mechanics of DAO so sacrosanct like part of the fanbase did. I'm skeptical about EA "buying out" critics -- I remember back in 2010, EA was heavily promoting the game "Dante's Inferno". It even got a Superbowl commercial. But it got middling reviews, ended up 73 on Metacritic. If EA was actively buying out reviews, I would have expected them to put effort into Dante's Inferno, at least.

And I think it's unfair to compare the dialogue options of a text-driven game and a voice-acted game. Those aren't even what the character says in Dragon Age 2, it's a summary, the idea behind what you say. Plus, it's supposed to be a jokester dialogue option. Some personality, you know, which the RPG screenshot (Baldur's Gate? Planescape: Torment? Not too familiar with those) sort of lacks. Comparing text driven games and voice acted games is almost like comparing books to movies, you'll get a lot more material out of the books, but it doesn't mean that books are altogether better than movies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top