Alright. This has been pissing me the hell off every since I found out about it this morning, and I might even do a Youtube rant on it.


IGN gave Battlefield 3 a 9.5 out of 10 in sound.

What BS. If you ask any audio technician or anyone with any knowledge in that general field, they will tell you that Battlefield 3 has the best sound, bar none, no questions asked, of ANY first person shooter released TO date.
Sure, the graphics of the game are what the marketing was focused on, but the audio in Battlefield 3 set a much higher industry standard, and was much more revolutionary. While the game definitely looks good, the visuals aren't industry changing. Crysis is easily competitive with Battlefield 3 in terms of graphics.

Frostbite 2.0's audio is 100% dynamic. Fire a weapon in a large room, you hear echo. Fire it outside, you get a distinct thud. These aren't static sound files, they audio the game produces is calculated 100% in REAL TIME. All the base sounds and effects are recorded from a real firing range.
The game even simulates the Doppler effect, the shellshock filter is amazing, and the highs and lows are amazingly crisp.

After I thought all of this through, I realized IGN probably just reserves 10's for technology changing feats. I'm talking the first 3d game, etc. Wrong.

One of my subscribers on youtube leads me to IGN's review of Modern Warfare 2. Audio score? 10 out of 10.


Three possibilities:

A: IGN is actually mentally handicapped, or challenged of hearing. (Yeah right)
B: They received a defective copy. (Yeah right)
C: They tried to hide their obvious bias in something that they think the general populace won't notice. I mean who cares about audio in a game right?

Pissed off.

About audio really? Obviously audio can be a huge part of a game, but I feel that if your mad that a game got .5 higher on an AUDIO rating of a game, your overacting even if it is IGN.

It's not the rating, it's the fact that IGN thought they could get away with hiding their bias through something like audio. I mean they are right, most casual gamers don't care about audio, but it's just sad that they will resort to such low tactics to give COD a boost.

Sometimes I wonder how much Activision pays them.

While I think the raging is a bit unnecessary, I agree. Battlefield 3 has the best sound I've heard. Modern Warfare 3 (and other Call of Duty games) have muddled sounds and everything sounds very bland after a little while.

I don't think any game should get any perfect score because there's always something they could have done better, but I do wonder where IGN faulted BF3's audio but not MW3's.

You can't really expect much out of IGN. I've never really given them a chance, and have no reason to.

So how did they rate COD? Or have they yet?

Your really complaining about a .5 in an audio score on IGN?

Reviews are subjective and it wasn't necessarily the same person who reviewed both games. You will note that your post is your "opinion" and not fact. It's also only a .5 difference. You posting on these forums has led to the pretty accurate assumption that you are biased towards BF3. It is a bit hypocritical to complain about other biases.

But yes, rawr rawr IGN.

This is an outrage. Let's picket their office. "Occupy IGN".

I agree. But if we brought in a third party, they would most definitely agree that Battlefield has better sound than MW2. It's purely factual, and is explained in the technology.


I would be 100% content if IGN gave Battlefield an 8 in graphics, I can see how opinion factors into that decision. I'll admit myself, the textures on console are horrible.

But yes, I is BF "really devoted fan"
I is also PC elitist

Not only were they done by different reviewers, but I also doubt that they (or most other sites) have any sort of universal scale by which they grade each game, making comparing one game's score to another even more pointless than it is by default. You also have when the review was written to consider. Modern Warfare 2 was reviewed nearly two years ago. Perhaps at the time it was the best sounding game, earning it a 10 for audio.

In other words, score-based reviews are worthless.

Why do people care so much about what a website writes about a game? God forbid someone have a different opinion than you!
If you don't like IGN, don't go to their website, simple as that.

I care because it affects the sales of the game, and it's completely unfair.

DICE deserves more money than Sledgehammer, I think most can agree on that.

It's not hard to copy and paste textures, alter stat values, and throw up some meshes. For christs sake, IW/Sledgehammer doesn't even make their own game engine, they just use iDtech 3 year after year. Can they afford the new version? Of course they can, but they choose not to licence it because they are cheap as hell.

They screwed PC gamers over, lied about dedicated servers, and allowed people to buy advantages with stupid Doritos, Soda, and LAYS promotions. Furthermore, they launched COD: Elite which essentially makes you pay to see in depth stats. Doesn't sound too bad, but the way Call of Duty players are, it will become the norm to have Elite.

Activision milks games dry. Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and hopefully soon Call of Duty.

And it's really not opinion at all. I'm not saying I'm not biased, because I obviously am, but ask any third party with any knowledge on audio and they will tell you Battlefield 3 sounds better.

Wow, I could smell the bias and tears halfway across the Internet.

I was pretty blown away by the sound design of Bad Company 2. Honestly, until that game, I never really noticed how much sound can enhance a game's experience.

So, video game review sites svck? I see nothing new there :shrug:. Don't understand all the hate towards IGN specifically though, from what I've seen they're no better or worse than other game review sites.

9.9 would be worse.

CoD sounds pretty good right now. :gun:

A video game reviewer who isn't also a sound technician? Stop the presses!

I think it should have been a 9.62

1. I don't need IGN to tell me if I want to buy that game.

2. 9.5 is next to perfect, which means "Holy [censored]!" eyeball catching good. Enough to boost its sale to astronomical number. Giving a 0.5 only makes it unbeliveble, holding back sales.

9.5 isn't amazing?

Jesus people. Next you'll tell me that any game that gets an average of 8 is complete and utter crap and should never be played by anyone ever because it's not a glorious 10.0 perfect masterpiece.

:rolleyes:

battlefield should have gotten a 9.6 not a 9.5!!111 9.6 is soooooooooooo mcuh better

This is why score systems svck and everyone should just stick to only reading the reviews themselves. Or better, don't read any reviews at all and listen what the players are saying.

Or just ask for the opinion of a select few individuals who's judgement you trust, since most player reviews are even worse than IGN.

Agreed. I definitely wouldn't go to Metacritic player reviews.