IGN's Review

[JuicieJ]

Okay, so IGN is typically a website I agree with in reviews, right down to the scores. That's not always the case, as it can sometimes depend on the specific reviewer, but we quite often share the exact same opinions. IGN has given Darksiders II a 7.5/10, and the reviewer made it clear from the start that she thought it fell into the same trap its predecessor did: not being creative enough with the amount of ideas it borrows. This is also a lower score than the first Darksiders received, which was a 7.8/10. Different reviewers reviewed the games, though, so altering opinions can definitely come into play.

This concerns me. From what I've seen, Darksiders II looks like an incredible step up from the first Darksiders. I haven't played the game yet, mind you (although I will be soon), but I generally have pretty accurate expectations for a game prior to release. It's been that way with nearly every Zelda game over the past 8 years, and the same results have happened with about 80% of the other games I've played in that time period, including Darksiders. That said, I'm hoping this is one of those rare times where I don't agree with IGN. From what I've observed, my expectations are for Darksiders II to be anywhere from an 8.5/10 to a 9/10, which is obviously a significant difference from a 7.5/10. I don't doubt that Darksiders II is still borrowing a little too much from its influences, but it doesn't look like it's a carbon copy this time around, so a 7.5/10? I'm having a hard time believing this is the score I would give the game. Who knows, that may wind up being the case, but I'm seriously hoping it isn't, because I want nothing but the best for this series. It has loads of potential and can easily become a shining beacon in the gaming industry if it could just break apart from its influences and do its own thing with the ideas it borrows. Let's hope my initial impressions on the game are correct and that I don't agree with IGN this time around.

[video=youtube;Pn7EbxsjVCA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn7EbxsjVCA[/video]

 

[masterSword2]

Although I've never played a darksiders game, I find this somewhat surprising that it only got 7.5. It seemed to me like it would score in the 8.5-9 range like you said. Hopefully other reviews are better. I truly hope this game is a big success!

 

[JuicieJ]

Although I've never played a darksiders game, I find this somewhat surprising that it only got 7.5. It seemed to me like it would score in the 8.5-9 range like you said. Hopefully other reviews are better. I truly hope this game is a big success!

Game Informer gave it a 9/10, and I find that they're generally pretty accurate, although I don't always agree with them.

 

[Mases]

IGN is on the lower end of the spectrum with reviews. I've been steadily adding them to the Darksiders II Wiki page.
Darksiders II - Darksiders Wiki

Of all the reviews I've added thus far, they all range from 80%-95%. There was a perfect score out there and a few in the 70's (including IGN's).

I'm cautious to take this video review as worthy as IGN didn't even talk about all the game modes in the actual game. In fact, the majority of reviews haven't. I get the sense that these reviewers just drilled through the main quest of the game, barely touched any of the optional or additional content. Since it's hardly mentioned in most reviews.

 

[JuicieJ]

IGN is on the lower end of the spectrum with reviews. I've been steadily adding them to the Darksiders II Wiki page.
Darksiders II - Darksiders Wiki

Of all the reviews I've added thus far, they all range from 80%-95%. There was a perfect score out there and a few in the 70's (including IGN's).

I'm cautious to take this video review as worthy as IGN didn't even talk about all the game modes in the actual game. In fact, the majority of reviews haven't. I get the sense that these reviewers just drilled through the main quest of the game, barely touched any of the optional or additional content. Since it's hardly mentioned in most reviews.

In written or just video reviews? Because companies don't go into as much detail in a video review as they do in a text review.

 

[Kuddlesnot]

While I disagree with the final score, they make some great points, as well as highlight many of the issues that I have encountered during my time with the game. It seems like what myself and other reviews liked about it, and pushed it into the higher scores, wasn't enough for IGN. Which is understandable, and more than reasonable position.

 

[JuicieJ]

While I disagree with the final score, they make some great points, as well as highlight many of the issues that I have encountered during my time with the game. It seems like what myself and other reviews liked about it, and pushed it into the higher scores, wasn't enough for IGN. Which is understandable, and more than reasonable position.

What would your final score be?

 

[Majora's Cat]

I hardly ever agree with IGN, and I've always felt like they pick on problems like framerate drops and glitches far too often. Giving the game a 7.5/10 is definitely on the low side, as you can clearly see in Darksiders II's GameRankings aggregate review score. It has nearly an 87% average so far for the Xbox 360 and that's pretty damn good. Seeing the responses in the thread thus far, it seems as if the reviewer brought up valid points, but perhaps for that person in particular it was able to overshadow what others enjoy in the game.

I don't doubt that Darksiders II is still borrowing a little too much from its influences, but it doesn't look like it's a carbon copy this time around, so a 7.5/10?

The reviewer praises the RPG elements and the action gameplay, the former of the two not being prominent in God of War or Zelda. The game actually looks quite good from what I can tell from the gameplay footage (especially the bosses). I'm not going to let IGN's review set my perception of the game, so I'll probably do a little more research. It seems like 7.5 is a bit too low, though.

 

[JuicieJ]

The reviewer praises the RPG elements and the action gameplay, the former of the two not being prominent in God of War or Zelda. The game actually looks quite good from what I can tell from the gameplay footage (especially the bosses). I'm not going to let IGN's review set my perception of the game, so I'll probably do a little more research. It seems like 7.5 is a bit too low, though.

I thought the RPG elements looked great before seeing this review, so I never thought they would feel copy/paste.

 

[Kuddlesnot]

What would your final score be?

A higher one. I really don't want to give it a arbitrary x/10 score, because I think the whole system is hurting the development of the industry, aka my issue with Metacritic.

 

[A Link In Time]

I believe there are some valid points raised in this thread and I personally was surprised to see IGN score the game lower than most accredited general gaming sites. In this case I'd dismiss the score as an outlier much like Gamepost's 7.5/10 with respect to Skyward Sword.

I've never been a fan of quantitative subjective scores. Alone they do no harm however when compiled for an aggregate average on Metacritic or Game Rankings they're the difference between keeping your job for another year or being laid off. I don't believe it's right to judge creative whims on such a scale. I'll purchase Darksiders II sometime down the line because its blend of darker aesthetic and fantasy appeals to me and no matter how Standard Definition or glitchy Audrey Drake claims the game to be I'll stay firm to my conviction.

 

[LegendofLex]

I'm cautious to take this video review as worthy as IGN didn't even talk about all the game modes in the actual game. In fact, the majority of reviews haven't. I get the sense that these reviewers just drilled through the main quest of the game, barely touched any of the optional or additional content. Since it's hardly mentioned in most reviews.

This is standard industry practice. They typically beat games in as much of a time crunch as possible and give a review of the bare bones.

As for "subjective numeric scores"; I don't see any problem with them personally. Basically any review is going to be subjective - attaching a number to it is just a way to say "this is how much I think this game is worth on a rating scale" since simple words can't convey how much you weigh a title compared to others. I do think that the industry scales reviews too high - i.e. anything below an 8 is somehow unacceptable when in reality the "average" should be about 5-6, with anything above that being varying degrees of "good" and "great".

As an example, I think Twilight Princess deserves 8/10 at most; I gave Kingdom Hearts 3D a 7/10; most of my favorite games would rank in the 8-9 range, and anything that's good but not in my "favorites" probably falls in the 6-7 range.

 

[Ganondork]

Watched the video multiple times to make sure I heard her points correctly. I did, and they still seem entirely contradictory. "I love how expansive Darksiders II's overworld is, but there's next to nothing in it, so it's terrible," was the gist of her overworld section. I've been majorly against the series for its consistent copy/pasting of a good number of game series', and yet her contradictions make me severely wonder if I should actually be as anti-Darksiders as I am. As a side note, she needs to understand that the parkour used in Darksiders II is more like Assassin's Creed; Ezio scaled obstacles as large as the ones that Death does, but Prince of Persia gets the recognition for being there first.

With this being said, I think her overall rating of the game is a little bit ridiculous given her gripes. She praises the RPG elements, but apparently a bland bestiary outweighs it. I can understand glitches being an issue, but I don't even think that "Many Glitches," was listed as a negative at the end. I honesty cannot fathom how her scoring system was working in this situation, and I've been the one who's been against the series. This entire scenario just blows me away with how ignorant this really was. If glitches was such an issue, then why did the section about repetitive dungeons get more time spent discussing? I just don't even understand that.

Additionally, I'm not sure why "bad" graphics is a bad factor in this situation. I think they'll learn to use a more powerful engine - like AnvilNext, Assassin Creed III's engine - if graphics has really and truly become such an issue. I can compare the graphics easily to say, World of Warcraft, and I doubt anyone - including myself - would gripe about that. I saw the graphics as the game's redeeming factor, but apparently not. I suppose the graphics are in the eye of the beholder.

Now, since the reviewer didn't care to properly cover glitches, I suppose I should. Glitches should definitely be taken into consideration in this situation. How long has the game been in production? I can understand Skyrim having the glitches it does - there was a lot of space it had to cover - but Darksiders II is not half as large as Skyrim is. Apparently the glitches are short-term, so I can only assume that they aren't a game-breaking glitch, but I honestly think that Vigil needs to be more careful from now on. I can only hope that Darksiders is a series where Vigil is experimenting with what it can do.

The music, though, is my favorite aspect of the game thus far. This is for one reason, and one reason only; Jesper Kyd. Darksiders somehow stole the Danish composer from Assassin's Creed, but I think that this may have definitely helped Darksiders. Assassin's Creed has Lorne Balfe now, anyway. I would not by any means call good music a redeeming factor, but I do think that this is a step up from the uninspired music of the original.

With all of this kept in mind, from what I've seen, I'd give Darksiders an 8. It isn't a bad score by any means, but I'm just not as interested in the series as other people clearly are. The original just didn't do it for me, and I'm not willing to pay $60 for a game I may not actually enjoy. As a side note, what's up with the Horsemen beating up old people for them to comply with them? I really don't understand that.

 

[Ventus]

I'm cautious to take this video review as worthy as IGN didn't even talk about all the game modes in the actual game. In fact, the majority of reviews haven't. I get the sense that these reviewers just drilled through the main quest of the game, barely touched any of the optional or additional content.

Every big time site does this, it is extremely rare to find a review that covers the entirety of the game, and only in cases where post main game content is abundant do people actually care to give a semblance of a review for that portion of the game. Since most players, according to well most reviewers, play teh game for the main quest only (if the main quest is no fun, why would you push onto the extra content?), they only review the main portion of the game with everything else being a mere afterthought.

I myself can't accurately judge the review as I've yet to play either DS1 or DS2 -- I only watch videos at the moment. However, IGN in my opinion is rarely if ever credible; it is known that they [the many different reviewers that review fro the site] are incredibly biased for or against this and that kind of content.

 

[JuicieJ]

This is standard industry practice. They typically beat games in as much of a time crunch as possible and give a review of the bare bones.

They kind of have to. The big companies aren't given much time to review the games at all. They have to get their reviews out before the big games come out, so 100%ing the games is really out of the question.