Talk:IGN

Perfect score list

Someone needs to add a list of the games that received perfect scores (like they did on gamespot's page). This helps the reader better understand the viewpoint of IGN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.196.227 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN's official editorial rating info may be referred to here (- http:// games.ign.com/ratings.html -). I suggest you read it. [face_dancing] 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)sng-ign

Criticism section?

Any chance for a "critisism" section? I happen to know there are a very large number of people (A good deal of them on IGN's own message forums) that take issues on a regular basis with IGN's often times personally biased, unfair, badly written, and at times, rather childish and subtly ignorant "professional" reviews from their own staff on DVD's and Games that often cause an uproar, more than most such sites do.

Often, their reviews don't have to have any real reasoning or firm criteria. Such as a bile-filled and hateful review for the Kill Bill films that seemed largely preoccupied with self-proclaimingly "humiliating the fanboys" than it did on actually discussing the merits of the film. As well as the types of comments associated with referring to the Sonic The Hedgehog Saturday Morning DVD collection as simply "A badly made cartoon" (which angered it's very large and vocal fanbase), and flippant, unprofessional remarks made towards their personal views towards the fandom of certain games and dvd's rather than the material they are reviewing.

And the least of which is their very distasteful and overly arrogant attitude on moderation of their forums, often verbally lashing out at users for disagreeing with them and their methods and comments? Many users from IGN.com have been banned simply becuase one or two admins or professional site maintainers on IGN.com wish to save face on not being criticized, themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.242.41.219 (talk) 09:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

They have had a criticism section here in the past but I guess the critical comments you talk about from the forums eventually came over here and they eventually removed it due to "vandalism".

I'm pretty angry with their blatant bias against the PS3, scoring games lower when most other sites aren't penalizing PS3 games if they aren't as good as the Xbox 360 version. I think their reviews are very much how you described them. I don't use their site for movie reviews, though.

I never was banned as an Insider (May 2002-October 2005) but the moderators are a bunch of people who traded away their dignity to become yes-men to the administrators and many of the editors are rude, unfriendly egomaniacs who have zero respect for the people who pay their salaries.

I can't professionally say how much I detest IGN. I guess that's what my blog is for.

Brighat 22:19 September 19, 2007 (UTC)

First off, corrected "criticism"; second of all, adding a criticism section is opinion -- that's what your blogs are for. I think a more important addition/change is to get our damn names/titles up to date.

[face_dancing]

sng-ign

Yes, but that is still criticism none the less. What do you think critics do? They write reviews on what they think of the thing they are reviewing. Not to forget, most of the things IGN has said turned out to be false, and just about everyone out there don't trust their site. Opinion or not, many people think this and it should be mentioned. This is not a IGN-fan site, its wikipedia. If it were only a few people, it wouldn't need mentioning. But, this is more than just a few bunch of people. Not only, but there are much more things that people blame against IGN. This is all criticism. Pash Master (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Has it occured to you that as the editorial staff of IGN changes, their reviews on software will change? Bet you didn't FIGURE THAT OUT GENIUS. Using criticism to criticize another's criticisms on a neutral reference is more or less trolling -- or what GSIJago does when not working. [face_dancing] sng-ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If an organisation has faced criticism or controversy in the past, then that IS encyclopedic and thus valid for Wikipedia, and is not Blog Material. And that remains a fact regardless of any agenda anyone may have. 134.115.68.21 (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, a criticism section should be reinstated. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact that they are widely criticized/hated by many people. It also is a fact that almost every single one of their articles is riddled with lies and half-witted speculations that are not appropriately labeled as such. Just take for example their review of Splinter Cell Conviction, in which they said Sam Fisher's codename at Third Echelon was Panther... where'd they get that from!? Did ALL of IGN's staff mishear "Fisher" every single time it was mentioned in-game? If you want more examples of their incompetence, just ask. I've got hundreds of these. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this site is widely regarded as the worst gaming website on the planet. Even Penny Arcade constantly bashes them and criticizes, and they are a very notable group in gaming culture. Many other pages have criticism sections, and if proper sources can be found... why not add them? 69.136.26.181 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What Does IGN Stand For?

Does IGN Stand for International Games Network or not, or what does it stand for? --Sam Green 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

IGN DOES NOT STAND FOR ANYTHING CURRENTLY. IGN was Imagine Game Network, Imagine Media's online branch, until IGN formed independently. For all details, you can check public records for the date. Thanks kids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 June 2006.

...What the heck do you mean, "currently"? If it stood for Imagine Game Network, that should really go on the article. And you should add the "public records" as resources. MasterXiam 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently -- as the description implies -- means "IGN" does not stand for anything at the moment; that may change in the future or not. If you want to create a history (sneer, sneer) -- suggest you get a neutral party to write one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.1.116 (talk • contribs) .

Institut Géographique National (France) is one answer. Needs disambiguation ---Vernon White 19:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vernon White posted, "Needs disambiguation" -- you mean a citation (or something equivalent). Check the SEC records when IGN filed to be public/private; press releases are certain to have that information you need for cit. You can also ask the staff, if wiki accepts such responses as "cit."

[face_dancing]

sng-ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.104.70 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

almost all articles on wikipedia have a critism section, you better get busy editing all those articles fanboy 82.3.48.129 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to edit those articles -- that's what suck -- I mean "volunteers" do on wiki all day. [face_dancing] sng-ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.208.172 (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Guys, an attack has started, straight from the Vesti. Just a little heads ups. ~DEATHBRINGERMAN

Semi protection of the article has been requested. Hopefully that will solve things. Cowman109^Talk 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And protected, thanks to KimvdLinde. That solves that! Phew. Cowman109^Talk 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that was fun wasn't it. Almost makes you glad to be alive. -- Steel 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some indefs on the way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response, KimvdLinde. Cowman109^Talk 02:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, all three have been blocked indef (vandalism only accounts), and the IP for a week. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You deserve some credit too, Cowman. I'd have been overwhelmed by myself. -- Steel 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you all did a good job! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cookies for everyone! Cowman109^Talk 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it appeares things aren't over yet. Radiokirk appears to be adjusting the history to remove some personal information that was put in. Full protection may end up being required. Hopefully we didn't miss any vandalism. Cowman109^Talk 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we just need to wait for the page to get re-protected now. It got unprotected when it was deleted. Cowman109^Talk 02:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There! All fixed, at last. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove some personal info again. If someone cares, could they check the history if it is clean, otherwise, I will remove the remianing as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A few of the IP edits appear to bring up names again. this one, for example. I'm not sure if those are the edits in particular that you are speaking of though.. Cowman109^Talk 03:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We also have an accidental revert of a revert here. Cowman109^Talk 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a good read through and I think that's all the vandalism removed. -- Steel 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There was still substantial stuff that was borderline in the history, and I have moved aboyt 20+ revisions away again. It now reads ok. Better save than sorry with this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful when removing vandalism. Not all edits are from vandals. --Icep 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think the reader review ranking should go, it's just copied & pasted straight from the site by the looks of it and adds little value. We don't need that huge section just to tell people that a score of 10/10 means it's a brilliant game. I'd also question the notability of the message boards section. They're a big part of IGN I guess, but the information there is irrelevant for the encyclopedia. Competitions on that wrestling board are nothing special, and there's sweeping generalisations aplenty (This board does not take kindly to new comers). I'm not entirely sure what to do with that board riot section either.
If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the C&P ranking bit, and cut down the message board section to just what's needed. Alternatively, we could find more info on the message boards and create it's own article, much like GameFAQs has. But I personally don't think that's worth it. -- Steel 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and got rid of the rankings thing, and cut out a few nn message boards. Not being that familliar with IGN myself, that's about all I can do. -- Steel 19:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys should take some of the stuff we listed on this page into account (esp. staff changes). Thanks kiddies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 June 2006.

Cleanup!?! We don't need no stinkin' cleanup!!! 71.126.173.111 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Staff changes +

Jeff Hall is no longer with IGN.com. Please remove him, or I'll do it when the article is no longer protected.

Mehgan Sullivan (new) is added to Gamestats.

Criticisms section is subjective; advise removal -- don't editorialise. That's our job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the criticisms section is POV. Both that and this Jeff Hall person have been removed. What exactly do you want done with Mehgam Sullivan? -- Steel 00:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Meghan's with Nix on Gamestats.com. Zoromski is the new EIC of tv.ign.com (2006). Brian Linder is still on FilmForce. This IP address should be Snowball's BTW. Not sure if that got changed by our IDC/IT dept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs)

Page unprotected. Looks like the attacks have stopped. Kimchi.sg 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Original Imagine Games Network

I think it should be known that for a few months before Imagine launched their own produced content and editorial, Imagine Games Network was actually 8 independent affiliates which entered into contracts with Imagine. PSX Nation was one of the first eight, along with www.vidgames.com, www.segasages.com (which was bought by Imagine for 5 million dollars and became cheats.ign.com), www.sega-otaku.com, www.bluesnews.com, www.casesladder.com, www.n64hq.com and www.sega-saturn.com. Imagine used the collective traffic generated by these eight sites to promote the launch of their "IGN" internal sites a few months after "IGN" formed. I feel this is an important part of history which should be added to the content.

brian - owner psxnation.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psxnation (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Good god man. Why didn't you put this into/create a history section?

The DEN?

Where does the Daily Entertainment Network fit into IGN's history? I remember it being a parent of sorts for the movies, music, and IGN for Men sections of what is now IGN, but don't remember specifics enough to actually edit the page.

and "Goldeneye is the eye tat is golden."

-Patrick - long time fan

What is the URL? IGN has many URLs (i.e., mail.ign.com) that are legacy links -- IGN owns the subdomain (have to, since it is under 'ign.com') but the services may not be supported anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.1.116 (talk • contribs) .

Well-known users

I made an edit about well-known users that I think is relevant to the Vestibule, as anyone curious would be able to find out about fads and incidents involving other users.

Unfortunately, I don't have the edit saved anywhere, so unless you happen to have that edit, I'm going to have to remember as much as I can of what I added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.149.145.113 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

Wouldn't that be textbook original research? Unless there's some sort of published material about this, it can't go in the article. Ace of Sevens 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone other than the site administrators (whoever they are) are notable enough to be included in the article. Suffers from OR anyway. -- Steel 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? That section would be constantly changing as people are banned for various offences or leave the network. A better thought -- link to the IGN blog / club area. That's what it's for *external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IGN busybody. 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) .

Except nobody uses the IGN blog/"club", dickweed. 69.61.190.221 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who ever posted above. Please sign your comments. --Philip1992 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Philip1992

Wasn't me. [face_dancing] 64.41.179.238 (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)sng-ign

Editing The Page

I am requesting the IGN page be edited. Under the "sports" portion of the IGN Boards section it says that the basetball and football boards are among the most active on the IGN Boards. That is untrue. The NCAA Football Board is by far the most active sports related board on IGN and has been for sometime. Many of the users have accounts to other sports sites like rivals.com, scout.com, etc. and actually have broken news before it has appeared on national news outlets. The NCAA Football Board is also the third largest gaming board with well over 1.3 millions posts. The regulars on the board have been around for years and have formed a close knit community. The board is also known for it's quality user created dynasties one which has been heralded by many as IGN's best user made dynasties, ***Coach Controversy: Fairbanks And His Players*** by Da_Big_Nasty is the ongoing saga of Coach Fairbanks. The story which started in 2005 when Da_Big_Nasty created another popular dynasty, Slaughter U. DBN's dynasties are known for their user created players, deep storylines and the actual immersion of the other users into the active, ongoing fantasy world of Coach Fairbanks. The NCAA Football Board is also the posting home of JuicePats. JuicePats is a well known Boston native sports bloqer. JuicePats is well known for his sports bloq, Musings From The Meathead, which often contains witty, insightful and crude takes on current sports events. JuicePats not only serves as a calm, level headed poster on the board but is also responsible for doing the much anticipated NCAA Football 198 team sim tourny every season. - Josh1207 12:13AM EST Aug 4th, 2006

Do you mean that the statement should be changed to say that just the football boards are the most active? Oh, and you can sign your signature automatically by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Cowman109^Talk 04:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the NCAA Football Board is far more active in the discussion of real life sports than the basketball and football boards combined. The NCAA Football Board has a great collection of regular posters and as said before, has proven in the past to have very intelligent and knowlegable users. It was in my opinion that the statement IGN is also known for its active sports boards, mainly the Basketball and Football board which are two of the most popular and active boards on IGN. is untrue because the most active board that talks about a sport(s) is the NCAA Football Board. The Football board and Basketball board combined wouldn't be as active as the NCAA Football Board and in my opinion is no way "the most popular and active boards on IGN." I felt that the entire statement was untrue and I stated why I thought so and what I would replace that statement with. Josh1207 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All that above is a personal opinion; traffic on the boards wax and wane depending on the football games released (shudder). If you want active boards, why don't you just say "Vestibule"? and save yourself 5 min. of writing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.1.116 (talk • contribs) .

HOW IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE BIAS TOWARDS SONY AND EA!?!?!?!?!?

Um, no.

Neutral Point of View

The section on the Insider Community Board seems completely opinionated. This is coming from someone who has no connection to the board at all, but the language in that section just seems really slanted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.241.121 (talk • contribs) .

You are right, the complete article is a mess of opinions. I have added two tags to get more attention from editors. I may clean this up later if I get some free time. -- ReyBrujo 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want the editors' attentions you can always e-mail us via our e-mail pages. (derisive snort) SNG-IGN suggests the article be LOCKED and a neutral party use unbiased language for this entry, or you will never hear the end of it as "you'll get wiki'ed". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.41.179.238 (talk • contribs) .

I am only a wikignome. I find an article that needs help, and I work on it. Some topics interest me, others no. IGN is not one of those, so I tag the article to get dedicated editors to pay attention. -- ReyBrujo 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: re-writing entire entry will help "neutral" the language. The Vestibule (see other topics) is an important part of IGN; however, it does not warrant a fat section on it within the IGN article -- in fact, no single channel warrants a fat section within the IGN entry, apart from what IGN was, is, and covers (in general). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.1.116 (talk • contribs) .

The Vestibule

Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vestibule (second nomination) was to merge and redirect it to this article. A couple of participants were concerned that not much of the content is worth keeping. I'll leave that to those more familiar with the topic, so here is the other page's edit history, have fun. — CharlotteWebb 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with an account remove the merge notice in the Vestibule section. Sometimes it sucks being an anon :P --- 71.67.132.178 04:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I will request unprotection. Nobody has merged anything from the article, so the tag may stay for now. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

minor changes

I remove a erroneous link, corrected a sentence so it would make sense, and removed the anime, manga, toys, and umd part of the other sections of part of this article. as they are not sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merc25 (talk • contribs) .

What happened to the movies section?

I finally managed to get into the site, and it appears to have changed from Filmforce to Movies. So all IGN links are screwed now, and I still can't enter the site again! Any other reports as to what's going on? Wiki-newbie 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Soory, I'm stupid

Can someone fix the ref?--[[User:NFAN3|NFAN3 "I try so hard to be a Uber Geek!"~Jason Fox]] 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Site Editors

I think this list should be purged to only the main staff (Editors-in-cheif, etc.) as it is a rather long list, and is unlikely to be much use to anyone anyway. -Ally 15:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the depth of that list, and vote that it stays just as it is.

-- Last Thylacine 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

today the IGNCB no longer has a pulse.

What does that even mean? That sounds far too slang-ish for my tastes, but having no personal experience with it I really can't suggest a way to alter it to sound better.

-- Last Thylacine 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's dead.--RavensIllusion 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Corp Site

Shouldn't IGN and IGN Entertainment have different articles? --Simonkoldyk 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on if someone wants to create an info page for IGN Entertainment (the corporate entity, which has merged with Fox Interactive Media). Hey, this is wiki. It's all yooooooooooooooou bud.

[face_dancing]

sng-ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.104.70 (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Zelda

I really don't think that, besides the Nintendo editors,the IGN editors liked zelda. It wasn't even in the top 10 of any of the editors besides the Nintendo staff. Also in the best of 2006 GOTY video it seemed like everyone Critisized the game!

Sonic reviews

They said in the review for Secret Rings that it was, quote "The greatest 3D Sonic game ever". HOWEVER, it only got a 6.9, SAB2 got a 9.4. Now, theres a difference there. Someone on the forums pointed that out, and they responded with "they were dillusional as they were dazzled by the new 3D"

The graphics weren't "beautiful" for the time, they were PREVIOUS GEN grpahics, SAB2 was a port of a dreamcast game. when this was pointed out, the member was banned. I honestly hate IGN.

Indented line

Remember when the Jump Button was fatally unresponsive? Anyone with half a brain and little sight would be able to tell they were actually very bad at it. Heck, even a child that never played Sonic would have figured Sonic Unleashed controls before making a dumb mistake like that.

I honestly question IGN's ability to review, specially considering they are blinded by smoke and mirrors and spits upon pixels. By that statement I mean: look at the poor feedback they gave to Ju-On. The only MAJOR flaw in that game are the CONTROLS. That's all. The story is alright, I remember back when you couldn't understand Metroid's story because the game itself gave no message other than end and items. Gameplay is good, disregarding controls, because the game gives INDIRECT HINTS. Haven't we seen indirect hints in games like Zelda (lone tree in nowhere), Final Fantasy (Hall of Titans), Metroid (enemy walks into walls that soon you learn that are fake and safe)? Same happens in Ju-On. The hospital makes that EVEN MORE obvious.

Incorrect Founder flags

None of the people listed as founders were actually part of IGN when it launched in 1996. In fact, I'm pretty sure none of them were even at Imagine Media at that time. Suggest that you pull the "founder" flag entirely now that none of the people who could possibly be construed as a founder are there (Doug Perry was the last to go).

Matt Casa-something-something (I just stopped remembering how to spell his name) is Founder. So is Craig Harris. That's all I believe.

[face_dancing]

sng-ign

That small section about "The Vestibule".

Is it really needed? It seems silly to me, like some Vestibule users were looking for fame and put it on Wikipedia. It just irks me, I don't see why it's activity over most other boards should grant it a special section.

I agree. I deleted it, and have put this page on watch so if it shows up again it will be deleted again, and again, and again... Vikramsidhu 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Added the criticism section; if you don't believe me then post on the IGN BOARDS. They always criticize IGN.

Added the criticism section; if you don't believe me then post on the IGN BOARDS. They always criticize IGN.

Zephead999 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Danger!

Hello everyone. I noticed that "ign", written in the Search slot, does not redirect here, but to Ign. Given the fact that "Ign" is extremely short, not categorized and uses an ordinary language, i think that it's a spam article. Is there any solution for this? --Twicemost 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that too. I think someone fixed this (thanks!) and have the site's page on "ign.com" now.

[face_dancing]

sng-ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.104.70 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Add German Wikipedia Entry

Hi there, I've wrote a German Wikipedia Entry for IGN de:IGN Entertainment, but I can't add it to this site, so please do it for me. Thanks! --217.83.190.247 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Added, but I am not sure why you needed help on this. The article is not protected. --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I cant edit without Registration and i will not register for one change, because i'm german. --77.186.28.29 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just notices that I can edit it now, but thanks for adding it! --77.186.28.29 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should talk Game Collections

I think the game collection is a major feature of IGN. It's a huge database that can be used to reference game titles, release dates, publishers, developers, etc. It also allows users to maintain a record of their own individual collections. I don't know if I'm right, but I think that IGN was the first site to offer this type of thing for video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olanmills (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins: The History of IGN

Information regarding the history of IGN is available here. Mahanga^Talk 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

IGN Channel updates?

Should someone remove or seperate the current channels (the ones that are currently at the top of the page) and the old ones? eg., N64, cube, xbox? 99.144.228.81 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New section added

Hi, I have added a new section, which explains about the scoring system used by IGN to rate games; I also added several games that gained perfect scores, with nice sources cited.--Twicemost (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Podcast Section

The podcast section is writen stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.173.131 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

IP Freely!?

I think someone delibratly gave false-information on this page as a joke. The Senior Vice-President and Publisher's name on the staff list reads "IP Freely" (I pee freely). Unless this really is the Senior Vice-President and Publisher's name someone should find the real name and fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landmark356 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The blog link was correct, but the name was obviously wrong. His real name is "Peer Schneider". 64.41.179.238 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, 9 years? Try 2

As I recall, Tornado Mania got a 10/10. It received that score two years ago. Even the IGN page says so. So it is 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.42.125 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Usefulness of information

I'm no Wikipedia master or anything, but I can look at this article and say with confidence that much more information is present than is necessary. The opening paragraph is great, but from there it gets messy. I've already trimmed down the channels list quite a bit. The big staff list seems like it can be reduced significantly if not completely removed. I'll need to keep looking at this. Juhsayngul (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Scoring

Most of the Scoring section in the article right now is taken up by an arbitrary list of games that have received a perfect 10. I know someone suggested that that be written (see above), but I don't know if it's really important to have that list. It seems to be thrown in pretty randomly, and talked about in more depth than is necessary (a single sentence listing five or six games might be one thing...but in this case, it's almost the entire section, with lots of extra statistics such as which games got a 10 on IGN-UK and what the most recent game to get a 10 was). This doesn't really tell us a whole lot about IGN's scoring practices in general, as the vast majority of games do not get 10s and people are probably interested in knowing how those games get scored, too. I think the discussion of 10s in this section should be seriously truncated. Or, at the very least, we could implement this as a subsection of the Scoring section, so it doesn't look like it's the main point of the section. Any thoughts/suggestions? --Politizer (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey people, as of August 3, 2010 (or whatever, I was busy), the games editorial staff at IGN will be using a 20 point scale (http://games.ign.com/articles/111/1110219p1.html). I don't think this really matters for Wiki (it's a general info site, not Vesti wiki) but if you are going to have a section for IGN (the site) on our scoring system, try and link to the latest "How we score" page. Thanks.

sng-ign // [face_dancing] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.155.2 (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Redesigned homepage

Is this really notable? —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for cleanup

The "other sections" is not really miscellaneous, and doesn't really need to be tagged {{trivia}}. I think it could be improved a lot if it were converted into a list or table format, rather than the current format which is pretty random and makes it hard to read or look at. Specifically, if the section were titled something more descriptive (like "Other sections of IGN" or "Other sites [or something like that] owned by IGN," we could turn the information in this section into a table, giving a) the name of the section; b) the dates when the section was established and, if applicable, discontinued; c) a description of what the section is/was about. If that were done, everything but the April Fool's stuff could be included in that section without the {{trivia}} tag, and April Fool's could be moved into its own section or cut.

On a slightly unrelated note, in this section there is mention of how faqs.ign.com was established when IGN split from Gamefaqs; the History part of the article, as far as I could tell, says nothing at all about Gamefaqs, either the split or the period when IGN and Gamefaqs were associated with one another. This seems to me like important information, and someone who knows more of the history should add stuff about it. (Or I can do it once I get around to reading the History that is linked to in the footnotes.) —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Payola (Pay for reviews)

It is well known in the game programming community, that I.G.N. regularly takes Payola for reviews. They take it to write a good review for the companies game and a bad review for the companies competition.

This can be seen now much more easily then in the past.

Microsoft has done ALOT of work with advertising and payola. They publish half-truths and full lies on many subjects. Of course ALL companies do this. The problem is, in this case, Microsoft has found its way into IGN .

For example, take a look at some more recent reviews. Grand Theft Auto 4 is a cross platform game and was developed this time with a technical emphasis on the XBox-360 platform. It of course came out for the Playstation 3 platform, but was really just a port, with Basic "SixAxis" controls added. This game scored a perfect 10 on IGN. However, this game is REALLY below par on MANY if not ALL technological standpoints.

In the same manner, Metal Gear Solid 4 came out and was reviewed for the Playstation 3. It's original Review Score was not a 10. I cannot, for a fact, remember the EXACT score, but I believe it was 9.7 or 9.8. Seems like not a big deal. However, this game is by FAR technically superior to ANY game, EVER released, on ANY platform. The Blu-Ray disc is almost completely full on the game, NOT some lowly 9GB DVD for cross platformed trash games. It takes full advantage of the Cell Processor. It even uses the IOP processor to render an older version of the game that you can play during a flashback. It also uses the absolute most advanced, impressive graphics I have ever seen in a video game.

It was obvious that they had a bias towards Microsoft.

However, this was pointed out to them, by literally thousands of people on the forums and other methods. They have since, re-reviewed the game and it currently sits with a perfect score of 10. Pretty much admitting to everyone that saw the original score, that they have been up to something.

My point in writing this, is just to let this information reach the people who are looking for it, on THIS page alone. I do not wish it be added to the main article, as it is full of opinionated and unprovable situations. However, the changing of the score is provable. I would just like to keep this on the talk page only, and I do not want to start a "Flame" war on the subject. I will NOT respond to negative attacks, posts, or any kind of negative behaviour on the subject.

Thank you - TheСyndicate 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.188.221 (talk)

Thank you for keeping this unverified and uncited information on the talk page. As a longtime reader of IGN, I have never noticed such payola practices. This may be because I rarely read the same game review across multiple platforms. However, I still think someone should respond to these claims. You may be right that IGN changed the MGS4 score, but presently it was given a 10 by IGN in US, though not in UK or AU, so perhaps that is the confusion. Having not played the game, I can't comment on how perfect it may be, but your assertion that it should have a 10 partially due to its disc is full is flawed. MGS4 is filled with video that can take up space but not necessarily make a perfect game (although the quality of these videos should be considered in reviewing).

Moreover, your rant is rather confusing. You claim IGN has a bias toward Microsoft after claiming IGN was wrong to give the PS3 version of GTA4 a better score. Would the Microsoft version of the game be scored better if such a bias existed?

Finally, IGN uses different editors/reviewers for each console. The editors know the consoles strengths and weaknesses and likely take gamer expectations into consideration when reviewing. This is how a Wii game can achieve a 10 without the groundbreaking graphics of a PS3 or XBox game. Ost (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor journalism?

I know there is a lot of debate over whether or not a 'criticism' section is necessary (I personally don’t think it fits properly), but some aspects of their journalism really is more factual than opinionated. Take their Sonic and the Black Knight review. 3.9/10 for a game they didn't even finish. The game features 'fake credits' that, after rolling, allow you to experience literally the other half of the game. IGN Nintendo turned the game off during these credits, thinking the game was finished. Whether or not this error is understandably human or not is irrelevant; it is extremely poor journalism. They are paid to review games properly, and this is a shining example of where they failed. I feel mistakes like this warrant public profiling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.44.21 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my attempt at a response here. (Full disclosure: I am utterly disgusted by most of the people who edit this page and try to make it an anti-IGN rant because IGN didn't rate their favorite game 10/10. Your post was more reasonable than most, though, so I have tried to actually think it over.)

No, I don't think this single incident warrants mention unless there is more information you can give. Specifically, you would have to dig up some sources (reliable sources, not someone's blog, maybe not even the game developer's official opinion) making the claim that IGN dropped the ball here; otherwise, it's just our (or your) personal opinion that they screwed up. More importantly, whatever sources you find would have to criticize IGN more generally and claim that this incident is an example of a systemic problem, rather than just an isolated thing, because otherwise it would just be a single non-notable event. Or, you would have to provide some evidence that this had an unusual and notable consequence—the game sued IGN for a ton of money, fans rioted in the streets and burned down Los Angeles, something along those lines. If we can't provide sources saying one of those two things (either that this is a general systemic problem with IGN—which would need a very highly regarded source, NYT or something—or that this game review had a major impact) then there's simply no justification for us to include a discussion of a single game review, and it would come up as bitter whining rather than actual encyclopedia-writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of instances of poor journalism in their articles. I can't recall all of them, but I know that almost every article I read on their site had me going "WTF? This is totally wrong!". In terms of reliable sources, there really aren't any (What reliable source would waste their time criticizing a criticism website?). There really isn't any way of citing a source to prove that what they say is completely made up either (since they're the only ones who said that, duh), so I guess we're outta luck proving to Wikipedia that IGN is crowded with unprofessional, biased editors and that many hate them for that. Too bad. Anyone who takes the time to read the talk page would see, though... --142.213.254.2 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You all don't understand IGN. They don't get their $5 million check from the publisher? Well hello score below 6. This happens all the time. 99.18.131.49 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

meh

somone fix the bottom of this article its like somones talking to you realy fast without stoping to breath IGNDOESTHISNIGNUKNASK.COMNIGN

New logo

The http://www.ign.com/ website has recently had a new redesign including a new logo. Iv'e added a new image for to replace the old, it's the best I could find hopefully better pictures will be released. Until then feel free to add new/better images if you find one before I do.

Page move

I think this page should be moved to ign.com, and the ign page should point to either the Institut Geographique National or the disambig page; the latter is far more internationally recognised and important the website referenced here. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, IGN might be known as Institut Geographique Nationale in other languages, but in English it's most widely used to refer to the games network. Since this is English Wikipedia, that's the standard we follow (per WP:COMMONNAME). I searched Google and Google News using several different terms, and every time the game network was more prominent in the English search results.

Therefore, I'm going to undo this move pending further discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AU Podcast

I don't know if it is an official podcast or not yet, but maybe the podcast section should be updated with info on the IGN AU Pubcast. There is only one episode so far.

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1116058p1.html

There's a link to the first podcast...--210.14.96.246 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

IGN plagiarizing Gearspedia for their "wiki"

• http://forums.epicgames.com/threads/830800-IGN-is-plagiarizing-Gearspedia

Worthy for the article? --76.110.37.244 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)