My favorite multiplayer was Heist. The single player is awesome as well though. I prefer this version of the game to the Xbox and would've probably given it a higher score.
Fair enough. Is that true, Angelo? Do you agree with the 1up review more than the IGN review?
Okay. Got around to reading them both in full. The intro in the IGN review is being purposly brash about the content of the game and then continues to bring it up periodically throughout the review whereas in the 1up review basically says "lots of cleavage", describes what that means and then mentiones it one more time at the end.
I will say that the IGN review mentions this aspect of the game much more than the 1up review but that gives me the impression that this is because it is such a pervasive component of the game. Also, the IGN review was more positive than the 1up review so this translates as "hey, this game is pretty good but it has this one thing about it that will turn some people off regardless" and the 1up review is more like "hey this game is kind of boring so the fact that there's all these boobies talk doesn't matter because the game isn't really that fun."
Both are well written reviews though. IGN's does have that brash intro but after that, it's a good critique of the title. I'd say it was more effective. I want to play this game now. 1up's is well written and it's a different opinion, sure, but IGN's was more convincing as to why it's worth playing. I will say though that the focus of that review could've been done a bit better. The whole cleavage thing in the game may be worth talking about more in a review due to its (assumed) pervasiveness in the game but it could've been conveyed better. I can see how that could be misconstrued and viewed as alienating towards women.
Do you have some kind of contrasting example? Like an IGN article that's catered towards males as opposed to a similar article from another site that isnt? I don't see the difference that you and your wife are seeing but that's not to say I'm infallible in my stance. Am I missing something?
I don't see this obvious bias that you see though. That mission statement is bad with using the word "guys" but the work on the site don't seem bias to me. I haven't seen anything on the site that shows that. Sure, they have Naomi Kyle as a host for several videos for most likely superficial reasons but I would call that objectifying per se. Nothing else even comes to mind.
I don't want to be the person who stands here defending IGN but I guess I will. IGN isn't that bad. I personally think that they are a pretty good website that manage to get news, reviews and previews out quickly and effectively. They've managed to let the personalities of their staff writers shine (most of them anyway) and build a following (although I will say their community is less than mature).
Your argument about the open bias is interesting because from what I've read on the site, they don't actually do this. Now, to be fair, I asked someone else to read that mission statement and it pissed them off too. However, I think it's just poor word choice (and the confinement of 140 characters). IGN is pretty good when it comes to sourcing and the example you gave is either them dropping the ball on this occasion or they got their source from someplace else that wasn't possible to show in an embeded link. Too many unknowns.
I tend to like IGNs reviews because they are thorough and get to the point rather quickly (depending on who's writing it). However, the Jak and Daxter review was poorly done. They completely screwed up with that. Also, the Babe of the Month stuff and the like do need to be dropped from the front page, if not the site all together. I won't say that IGN doesn't have its flaws but to say that IGN is bad for the gaming industry as a whole is going too far. Of course, that's my opinion and you are free to have your own and disagree with mine.
I agree with the Asura's Wrath DLC to an extent. I didn't play it (as you may have guessed) but from what I heard, it had a satisfying ending. Calling the DLC the "True" ending is a real smack in the face to fans of the game but it really is just bad marketing. Like I said in the podcast, if they would've just called it an extended ending, it would be much more easier to stomach.
That's still too much. Costumes should be no more than a buck. Probably even free.
They charged $5 for a costume? What the frak?
