News Corp to acquire IGN

thesuperkillerxxx · Post by **thesuperkillerxxx** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:52 am

If anybody cares....

Click here!

it290 · Post by **it290** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:58 am

Whoa... I didn't think it was possible to make IGN even crappier, but apparently I was wrong!

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:58 am

From here on in I'm on the lookout for the inevitable "Why Mario Hates America" article to appear on there.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:33 am

As if they weren't biased enough.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:54 pm

DELETED.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:03 pm

How would Murdoch's political affiliations affect IGN's game reviews at all? The guy owns the network that shows The Simpsons, Family Guy and American Dad, none of which I'd consider conservative mouthpieces. Fox News is hardly his own source of revenue.

This is happening just so he can increase his audience. He doesn't give two shits about the content.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:49 pm

dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.

consider the following:
we are not paid
we are a community not a corporation
we at no point claim to be a news site and are not morally obligated to have journalistic ethics
we often give reasoned opinions, just not to you

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:49 pm

magnum opus wrote:
dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.
consider the following:
we are not paid
we are a community not a corporation
we at no point claim to be a news site and are not morally obligated to have journalistic ethics
we often give reasoned opinions, just not to you

I consider "search google" a reasonable opinion. boo-urn.

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:36 pm

magnum opus wrote:
dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.
consider the following:
we are not paid
we are a community not a corporation
we at no point claim to be a news site and are not morally obligated to have journalistic ethics
we often give reasoned opinions, just not to you

Touché. Very nicely put.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 2:13 am

sethsez wrote:How would Murdoch's political affiliations affect IGN's game reviews at all?

Heh, I don't think any of those first few comments were serious...mine wasn't, anyways. I personally don't go to IGN in the first place, so I have even less reason to actually care, heh.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:40 am

The n00b wrote:
magnum opus wrote:
dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.
consider the following:
we are not paid
we are a community not a corporation
we at no point claim to be a news site and are not morally obligated to have journalistic ethics
we often give reasoned opinions, just not to you
I consider "search google" a reasonable opinion. boo-urn.

And I consider "I know how to use Google" and "I've already tried searching there" facts. Take some time to listen once and a while, it really does help a community. Not a single one of those points means that someone can't actually take some time out to elaborate on specifically what is good or bad about a game. I give people on here information, do you imagine that I get paid to do so? No, but I do it because the person ASKS; not because I'm being paid to act like someone's nagging mother.

Amd as far as IGN goes, they are very useful in terms of release dates. Those dates don't always hold, but that is the fault of the companies behind the games, not IGN.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:19 am

dave4shmups wrote: And I consider "I know how to use Google" and "I've already tried searching there" facts. Take some time to listen once and a while, it really does help a community. Not a single one of those points means that someone can't actually take some time out to elaborate on specifically what is good or bad about a game. I give people on here information, do you imagine that I get paid to do so? No, but I do it because the person ASKS; not because I'm being paid to act like someone's nagging mother.

no, none of those points means that we can't take time out to answer a question. what they mean is that it is in no way hypocritical for us to complain about the bais of a news site.

i repeat: we often give information and well reasoned opinions. just not to you.

benstylus · Post by **benstylus** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:30 am

When I want to hear what people think about a game (i.e. a review of sorts) I go to fansites.

When I want videos or other large media, I'll go to the big sites like ign simply because they generally have it in droves. I avoid their reviews like a shmupper avoids bullets.

As long as Rupert Murdoch doesn't suddenly get rid of the videos or switch IGN over completely to a subscription based service, then I won't care one way or the other how much more biased the reviews get. The reviews on any large website or print magazine are, by and large, formulaic pieces of trash that say almost exactly the same thing as all the others and attempt to convert the blood sweat and tears of the dozens or hundreds of people who created a game into a single easy to read number or letter grade.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:38 am

benstylus wrote:As long as Rupert Murdoch doesn't suddenly get rid of the videos or switch IGN over completely to a subscription based service,

This will never happen. The money gained in subscriptions would be hugely offset by the money lost in ad revenue. That's why the subscribers only get "extra" content... ads aren't put in danger by that.

attempt to convert the blood sweat and tears of the dozens or hundreds of people who created a game into a single easy to read number or letter grade.

Sometimes, the blood, sweat and tears of dozens of people deserves a big fat F. I mean, okay, I understand that they put a ton of work into their crappy game, but that doesn't make up for the $50 I could have wasted on it.

Incidentally, most reviewers regardless of medium hate scores. I know at least a few writers over at IGN wish they could be rid of them, and Roger Ebert has been pretty vocal about the uselessness of both the thumb gimmick and the stars. They're there because the general public demands it, but from the reviewer's perspective it's just another bit of work, and people wind up skipping over the bulk of what they've written which ticks them off to no end.

benstylus · Post by **benstylus** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:13 am

sethsez wrote:Sometimes, the blood, sweat and tears of dozens of people deserves a big fat F. I mean, okay, I understand that they put a ton of work into their crappy game, but that doesn't make up for the $50 I could have wasted on it.

You can be told that a game sucks without seeing an F or a 1.2 score. The score reflects the words of the review. Writing a good review for a bad game is no different than writing a good review for a good game.

Incidentally, most reviewers regardless of medium hate scores. <snip> They're there because the general public demands it, but from the reviewer's perspective it's just another bit of work, and people wind up skipping over the bulk of what they've written which ticks them off to no end.

It's true - A number and a clever tagline is all of a review that most people read.

"7.1 - The game's impressive visuals and storyline could have made it a classic, but it is hampered by somewhat awkward controls and repetitive gameplay."

How many games released in the last 12 months could that little snippet be for? 50%? 70%? 90%?

The problem with encapsulating an entire game in a number and a couple dozen words is that it doesn't give people a feel of whether or not they personally would enjoy the game.

A prime example is Aquaman for the Xbox.

A quick search on gamestats.com reveals an average score of 3.1 out of 10. By all accounts, this should be a horrible, bug-ridden piece of trash with no redeeming value, and nobody should like it.

I've played through it three times so far. THREE TIMES. While three times may not mean much in the shmup genre, Aquaman takes a good 8-10 hours to beat.

It's certainly not the best game on the planet, but it's not as bad as that number might indicate. It absolutely lacks polish, but there is enough there to give the game a look.

I like it.

DantesInferno · Post by **DantesInferno** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:24 am

I've always found ign, and gamefaqs for that matter, to be the village idiots of the gaming world. Sure, ign has videos, but once you get past that, you are dealing with sub-mediocrity at best...and some people like that nice, bland approach.

howmuchkeefe · Post by **howmuchkeefe** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:29 am

When my drunk racist uncle spouts off against half of America's population, it's pretty much harmless. He has no real power to influence or harm anyone.

When Rupert Murdoch does it (through intermediaries), that's a different story. I won't even watch Family Guy unless I'm quite sure that Murdoch won't see a stinking cent as a consequence of me viewing it.

I doubt that he'll care enough to politically taint IGN, but putting Rupert in charge of a site that gave good reviews to GTA:SA is like putting Mother Theresa in charge of a site that gave good reviews to Sin City. Even if they kept their puritan paws off of the apparatus, it'd still be perverse- though some might find the utter hypocrisy of the situation satisfying.

..and that's all I've got to say about that. I migrated from another site where all I did was argue politics, just about. All day long.

I think it gave me crow's feet.

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:37 pm

magnum opus wrote:
dave4shmups wrote: And I consider "I know how to use Google" and "I've already tried searching there" facts. Take some time to listen once and a while, it really does help a community. Not a single one of those points means that someone can't actually take some time out to elaborate on specifically what is good or bad about a game. I give people on here information, do you imagine that I get paid to do so? No, but I do it because the person ASKS; not because I'm being paid to act like someone's nagging mother.
no, none of those points means that we can't take time out to answer a question. what they mean is that it is in no way hypocritical for us to complain about the bais of a news site.

i repeat: we often give information and well reasoned opinions. just not to you.

You're right, and I apologize for getting all up in arms. I was stuck in a crappy job that I just finally got out of (long story), but that's no excuse.

At any rate, other then the fact that he owns a lot of media, I have no idea where Rupert stands in the political spectrum, so I don't know where and how he's criticized America or certain Americans.

What I do know is that IGN has been the best source for me (at least on domestic games) for release dates, so as long as IGN stays as good as they are on that, I will continue to visit their site.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:43 pm

dave4shmups wrote:At any rate, other then the fact that he owns a lot of media, I have no idea where Rupert stands in the political spectrum, so I don't know where and how he's criticized America or certain Americans.

If you want to know more about that, do a little research on some of the furor that Fox News in particular has caused recently...I believe someone even made a documentary about it ("Outfoxed", I think it was called...I've never seen it myself, so I don't know how accurate it is). In any event, if nothing else, Murdoch's never exactly been shy of indicating (in one way or another) where he stands on political matters...

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:56 pm

howmuchkeefe wrote:When my drunk racist uncle spouts off against half of America's population, it's pretty much harmless. He has no real power to influence or harm anyone.

When Rupert Murdoch does it (through intermediaries), that's a different story. I won't even watch Family Guy unless I'm quite sure that Murdoch won't see a stinking cent as a consequence of me viewing it.

I doubt that he'll care enough to politically taint IGN, but putting Rupert in charge of a site that gave good reviews to GTA:SA is like putting Mother Theresa in charge of a site that gave good reviews to Sin City. Even if they kept their puritan paws off of the apparatus, it'd still be perverse- though some might find the utter hypocrisy of the situation satisfying.

..and that's all I've got to say about that. I migrated from another site where all I did was argue politics, just about. All day long.

I think it gave me crow's feet.

Damn you better watch it or else the only things you'll be enjoying are things made/owned by people who could be enjoying child porn and you will never know. You might as well not go out in public because a piece of side walk you stepped on was made by the cousin of a serial killer! All Rupert Murdoch owns that gives him his "taint hehe" is a conservative news network. It's just one facet to a guy that could be pretty cool for all you know. Does it really even matter though?

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:59 pm

The n00b wrote:
howmuchkeefe wrote:When my drunk racist uncle spouts off against half of America's population, it's pretty much harmless. He has no real power to influence or harm anyone.

When Rupert Murdoch does it (through intermediaries), that's a different story. I won't even watch Family Guy unless I'm quite sure that Murdoch won't see a stinking cent as a consequence of me viewing it.

I doubt that he'll care enough to politically taint IGN, but putting Rupert in charge of a site that gave good reviews to GTA:SA is like putting Mother Theresa in charge of a site that gave good reviews to Sin City. Even if they kept their puritan paws off of the apparatus, it'd still be perverse- though some might find the utter hypocrisy of the situation satisfying.

..and that's all I've got to say about that. I migrated from another site where all I did was argue politics, just about. All day long.

I think it gave me crow's feet.

Damn you better watch it or else the only things you'll be enjoying are things made/owned by people who could be enjoying child porn and you will never know. You might as well not go out in public because a piece of side walk you stepped on was made by the cousin of a serial killer! All Rupert Murdoch owns that gives him his "taint hehe" is a conservative news network. It's just one facet to a guy that could be pretty cool for all you know. Does it really even matter though?

It sure as hell does if he is indeed racist!

If he is just a conservative, fine, I could care less since I don't care for either political party. I'd like a little clarification here on the comments being made about him being racist, though.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:07 pm

dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.

Thanks for the kind words, you can always ask to IGN for detailed reviews on old games like the ones you usually spend money on. Or you can always ask them on game mechanics of said titles. Beside that, i'd wonder what your fundamental contribution to this site is, aside insulting people for not being your servants. If you don't like what you see...be the maker of the changes you would like to see. Personally, i'm not getting paid, nor anyone who provides infos on this site is. A little gratitude goes a long way.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:38 pm

dave4shmups wrote:
The n00b wrote:
howmuchkeefe wrote:When my drunk racist uncle spouts off against half of America's population, it's pretty much harmless. He has no real power to influence or harm anyone.

When Rupert Murdoch does it (through intermediaries), that's a different story. I won't even watch Family Guy unless I'm quite sure that Murdoch won't see a stinking cent as a consequence of me viewing it.

I doubt that he'll care enough to politically taint IGN, but putting Rupert in charge of a site that gave good reviews to GTA:SA is like putting Mother Theresa in charge of a site that gave good reviews to Sin City. Even if they kept their puritan paws off of the apparatus, it'd still be perverse- though some might find the utter hypocrisy of the situation satisfying.

..and that's all I've got to say about that. I migrated from another site where all I did was argue politics, just about. All day long.

I think it gave me crow's feet.

Damn you better watch it or else the only things you'll be enjoying are things made/owned by people who could be enjoying child porn and you will never know. You might as well not go out in public because a piece of side walk you stepped on was made by the cousin of a serial killer! All Rupert Murdoch owns that gives him his "taint hehe" is a conservative news network. It's just one facet to a guy that could be pretty cool for all you know. Does it really even matter though?
It sure as hell does if he is indeed racist! If he is just a conservative, fine, I could care less since I don't care for either political party. I'd like a little clarification here on the comments being made about him being racist, though.

yeah me too. I don't remember him being racist at all but some links with evidence would be really nice.

UnscathedFlyingObject · Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:17 am

dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.

Q: "Is Barbies' Horseback Advantures good?"
A: "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game"

Need more detail?

howmuchkeefe · Post by **howmuchkeefe** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:04 am

All Rupert Murdoch owns that gives him his "taint hehe" is a conservative news network. It's just one facet to a guy that could be pretty cool for all you know. Does it really even matter though?

I guess it all depends upon one's point of view and priorities. I'm not going to say much more than that... I've already ranted about IP law on these forums, violating the promise I made to myself to avoid discussing politics here. I'm on vacation, dammit!

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:25 pm

i think the_n00b IS Rupert Murdoch

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:14 pm

captain ahar wrote:i think the_n00b IS Rupert Murdoch

OMG I have the conservative taint on me!

dave4shmups · Post by **dave4shmups** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:28 pm

Randorama wrote:
dave4shmups wrote:As if this site is OH so un-biased! Spare me. And at least when IGN doesn't like a particular game, they give DETAILED reasons why they don't; as opposed to the usual "I'd rather eat a bag of shit then play this game" cop-out "review"s on this site.
Thanks for the kind words, you can always ask to IGN for detailed reviews on old games like the ones you usually spend money on. Or you can always ask them on game mechanics of said titles. Beside that, i'd wonder what your fundamental contribution to this site is, aside insulting people for not being your servants. If you don't like what you see...be the maker of the changes you would like to see. Personally, i'm not getting paid, nor anyone who provides infos on this site is. A little gratitude goes a long way.

Deleted

So any info on good 'ole Rupert??