Do Gamers have an issue with IGN? [POLL] + Also explain why?

I'd rate their reviews 6.5/10

Well'p their known to have ruined their reputation by "scoring games weirdly" ... but not that i care, plenty of "better" alternatives.
e. almost forgot, if that wasn't reason enough - i don't like their website, review-setup/videos/description/texts nor interested in their com.
^ IGN is pretty much one of those sites one stumbles upon when having gotten interwebs the first time or so :D

yes i do have problem with their reviews because many of the time it's not correct. Since reviews are like one of their main job, their computers are like a beast . They also get games directly from developer in advantage before games release on public so they often don't have server issue or technically issue due to overload of people. I'm not sure if they are getting paid for their reviews either but I believe some games they do so their opinion are kind of bias.

Gamers will always have issues with any professional reviews. There is always the underlying sense that they are shilling for the big companies, and even if they are not, the deadlines usually mean that reviews are rushed and not indicative of the full value of the game.

7.8/10 too much water :-)

i have issues with most reviews, since they usually don't help me at all to realize if i like a game or not. i'd rather watch 2-3 gameplays on youtube and make my own choice.

It's simple. IGN hires professionals to review games, but most people are NOT professionals, therefore most of them do NOT agree with the same arguments as professionals might have. Of course, we can say that in general the review is more or less accurate, we can also use the argument that "they know better", but in fact, if it was rated by many typical users that see a game as a game, and not a professional job - it would be far more objective. I'd say that steam reviews is fair more reliable to give an insight in the game than any other "objective" source, especially if you have many votes to base on, because it's very hard to abuse it. I'm speaking mostly for games with 1k+ reviews, not about unknown games with 3-5 bought reviews. It's really hard to control that, because you can't convince whole population of gamers with money to rate given game. Anybody owning the title and playing it can express their own opinion, and you can only agree with it or not.

In addition to that, a review from IGN is coming from "one approved source" - it's like TV - you can buy it. If you want to hear objective opinion e.g. about political situation in your country, you do not watch a TV, because it simply can't be objective when it's more or less controlled by government. I say more or less, because there's a very small difference between being forced to say X (dictatorship), and being afraid to say Y because of reasons (democracy).

For the same reason you should not check IGN reviews if you want to read "objective" opinion. IGN is not objective, both because of the fact that only specific group of people do the reviews, but also from the fact that it can be controlled by third-paty, and you'll never hear that it is, because no service would openly claim that somebody "convinced" them to rate given game better/worse than they would normally do. Yes, nobody says that you can't trust them, or that you should not - you can, and most of the time IGN may be accurate, but it also can be non-objective or review the game based on arguments you don't agree with. Therefore, for instance, I often read a review from a third-party service I trust (tvgry.pl in my case), but also from non-controlled source (steam reviews in my case). This way I can learn more about game from first one, and see how that opinion works in reality. That gives me very good insight into the game, if I don't want to watch gameplay for any reasons (and usually I don't, because I know I'll miss the fun).

IGN is just another example of a company/product that started out fantastic, but was eventually was sold off and exploited to its core.

Their review quality is inconsistent. Some reviewers aren't very critical and give every game a 9+ while others are too critical and give the latest Pokemon (for example) game a 7.8.

IGN's reviews are mostly based on how much money the publisher gave them. People learnt to just substract 15-25% from their reviews to get the real picture, but that doesn't help when an obviously well-paid one is more like a long marketing piece rather than an article about the game itself.

They mostly do retarded reviews by only focusing 90% on the good points and 10% of the bad points. They don't really care and they just get paid to do the review by giving it more of the positive whilst ignoring the many negative parts of the game.