IGN
IGN: The Most Reliable Game Reviews Money Can Buy (But You Shouldn’t)
Ah, IGN—where video game reviews are handed out like participation trophies at a middle school field day. For decades, they were the gatekeepers of gaming wisdom, the high council of pixelated judgment. But that was back when the internet was slow, YouTube was just cat videos, and your grandma wasn’t sharing conspiracy theories on Facebook. Back then, we were stuck relying on whatever these gaming "journalists" had to say. Post-COVID, though? IGN’s reviews are about as relevant as a Blockbuster rental card.
The Art of the IGN Review: A Masterclass in Bias
Reviewing games at IGN is a delicate dance of appeasing advertisers, pushing DEI agendas, and making sure the intern doesn’t accidentally play more than five minutes before slapping a score on it. It’s a finely-tuned machine where the criteria for a 10/10 seems to be:
- Diverse Representation? +5 Points!
- Open World with Shiny Graphics? +3 Points!
- Microtransactions That Pretend Not to Be Microtransactions? +2 Points!
- Actually Fun to Play? Optional.
Let’s be honest: when a game gets docked for “too much water” (Pokémon Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire, 7.8/10), you know something’s fishy. But if the protagonist checks all the DEI boxes, expect a glowing review—never mind if the gameplay feels like a digital root canal.
The Review Score Inflation Crisis
IGN’s review scores work on a sliding scale where the numbers 1 through 6 simply don’t exist. The "worst" games land in the 7-8 range, which, if you’re not familiar with IGN Math™, is basically code for "this game sucks."
A true 10/10, meanwhile, is reserved for games that:
- Have the depth of a mobile match-3 but the aesthetics of a tech demo
- Champion a cause (preferably a trending one)
- Offer exclusive pre-order DLC through an IGN affiliate link
Alien Isolation, a game known for its masterful horror and atmosphere, was casually dismissed with a 5.9/10. Why? Not enough "accessibility features" and too much actual survival horror. Yet a game like Concord—which lasted about as long as the average Minecraft phase—gets a higher score, seemingly for existing. The real horror is IGN’s grading curve.
Post-COVID: When IGN Became the Meme
In the wake of COVID, gamers were locked inside with nothing but time and internet access. With platforms like YouTube, Twitch, and Steam reviews offering unfiltered, unbribed, and unpaid perspectives, the illusion of IGN’s credibility shattered like a Bethesda launch. Gamers now trust Jim from Wisconsin’s Steam review—typed out in broken English but filled with genuine insight—more than IGN’s polished fluff piece.
Who Even Trusts IGN Anymore?
Let’s call it what it is: IGN isn’t a review site; it’s a marketing arm disguised as journalism. If a game studio cuts the right check or nods to the right causes, the review might as well be ghostwritten. Meanwhile, legitimate critiques get watered down or ignored entirely.
Why would anyone put faith in these glorified ad copywriters when we can watch streamers, read user reviews, or try demos ourselves? The common gamer knows more about a game’s value from a Steam review titled "DO NOT BUY THIS BROKEN TRASH" than a 3,000-word IGN article.
Final Verdict: 0/10 - Game Journalism Should Disappear
IGN and its ilk have become the clowns of the gaming circus—fun to watch, but you’d be a fool to take them seriously. The industry has moved on. Steam reviews are the new gospel, and the average YouTuber with a camera and a hot take is more reliable than any IGN “journalist.”
Game journalism? Hard pass. We’re better off without it.
