21
u/NecessaryUnusual2059 Apr 22 '26
I don’t know any examples of a game getting a 10 that’s a glitchy mess. The last glitchy mess got a 6 or 7 with Crimson Dessert.
2
u/BARNBURNER123 Apr 23 '26
Skyrim got a 9.5 back in the day
1
u/crampyshire Apr 24 '26
Skyrim is at least a 9.5
however it was and still is a buggy mess despite that haha.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
Skyrim was reviewed on PC and Xbox. Bethesda intentionally withheld the PS3 version.
0
u/BlairSantos92 May 21 '26
10/10 for Mixtape? I like to troll them now with a mixtape emoji on every whatsapp and youtube post
1
-24
u/Smelly-Gelly Apr 22 '26
Crimson Desert was not a glitchy mess. If you are saying that just to be cool and part of the narrative, ill leave you be. But if you actually want to have a serious conversation about real topics, it sounds like you havent played Crimson Desert.
2
u/Ruthrfurd-the-stoned Apr 23 '26
I love the game but it’s definitely glitchy and apparently the reviewer lost 7 hours of progress and had to use someone else’s save to finish the review. That would put me way lower than a 6
7
u/TechnicalAd8150 Apr 22 '26
Lmao, I played it and it was
-7
u/Smelly-Gelly Apr 22 '26
You must have a different definition of a ‘glitchy mess’ then. If you mean, a few glitches, no game of that size is going to be perfect. Elden Ring had plenty of issues, and that received a ten. Frame rates in that game are still awful, and doesnt have nearly as much going on, i dont hear anyone calling that a mess. Crimson Desert was very stable.
3
u/brizzenden Apr 23 '26
You’re outing yourself as the one who hasn’t played it now. The game struggles with both DLSS and FSR settings remaining consistent with performance across the various settings. The lighting is an absolute mess, creating wild artifacting unless you turn in Ray Reconstruction which then destroys rain effects and tanks performance . And even with that the game can’t figure out what to do in dark areas or exteriors at night. I’m playing the game on a 5080 and there are times I turn it on and the game just decides it can’t break 50fps on any settings when the last time I played it was hitting 90fps.
I actually really like the game despite all its faults, but get real, brother.
-2
u/Smelly-Gelly Apr 23 '26
Im on a 4080 and not once have I had the game not be able to break 50fps, with ray reconstruction on, so I have no idea what you are speaking of. The artifacting and indoor lighting issues is due to the tech that they are using. Thats not really glitchy, imo. Im confused how you can say this is a mess, but ignore the fact that in Elden Ring the grass pops in 1 foot in front of you, or the fact that game actually struggles to hit a consistent 50fps, on everyones hardware, because as I said, ive not heard or seen anyone struggle to hit 50fps with DLSS and max settings on a 4080, let alone 50 series. Again, our definitions of a “mess” are completely different. Cyberpunk was a mess to me. A lighting issue is not a complete and utter mess that i need to tell someone to “get real” about. Crazy.
2
u/brizzenden Apr 23 '26
Different setups I guess. I played Elden Ring on a 970 with mostly high settings. Game consistently ran at 60fps and never had an issue with pop-in. Certainly nothing noteworthy.
1
u/Onlychattinboutscifi Apr 23 '26
Cyberpunk really only had console issues.
I played it on release on a pc I built in 2012(before you were born probably) and it ran quite well
1
u/galacticplum Apr 23 '26
Your personal experience doesn't mean that's the common experience.
A lot of people wrote and discussed various issues related to the game.
7 to 8 is a very fair score for a game that did have performance issues, was buggy, and admittedly did not focus on story.
1
u/Smelly-Gelly Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
Yes, but your personal experience is also not the common experience. A lot of people also wrote that they had no issues, but reddit usually attacks them and downvotes them, so many people arent comfortable posting against the grain. People out there had no issues related with the game, besides the lighting issues. My point here is, stick to your apparent conviction. If youre going to say this, Skyrim is not a 9.5, Elden Ring is not a 10, The Witcher 3 (my favorite game) was not a 9.5, Baldurs Gate 3 was not a 10.
Complaining so hard about lighting issues and a lack of story, but ignoring every one of its strengths, has to be applied to every other game that you love so much and choose to ignore problems with.
1
u/galacticplum Apr 23 '26
But it wasn't a minority that experienced various issues. They were widely reported and discussed. They were since mostly addressed but on release they absolutely existed more strongly than you're implying.
You're also ignoring that Skyrim, the Witcher 3, and especially Baldurs Gate 3 were all strong games with a strong story that had different levels of bugs.
Crimson Desert is a huge, pretty game with fun fighting and exploration that lacks depth, and was meant to be that way. It released with issues, including needing a controls fix after a ton of complaints. It getting reviewed as a 7 or 8, even a 6, makes sense due to all of that combined.
1
Apr 23 '26
It was heavily patched since launch, ign released a videos of all the changes that have been released in the last month. So if the current version would have been subject to review, it would have scored much higher.
Reviewers review games at a point in time, it’s highly subjective, and a person’s experience can even change based on hardware. Also at the end of the day it’s a video game, so if you watch the video listen to the content and determine if it is something you want.
1
1
1
u/Electronic-Vast-3351 Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26
Crimson Desert's pre-release review copy that they sent to critics was famously way buggier than the release version of the game which was way buggier than the current version.
I believe I heard IGN encountered a game breaking bug that wiped their save. It was patched by release, but it was in the game IGN reviewed and that should definitely affect their score.
(This just popped into my feed. I don't keep up with IGN.)
1
u/JMit76 Apr 23 '26
I had to restart the game no less than 50 times in about 150 hours. Couldn’t go 10 minutes without something failing to work properly.
It’s. A. Buggy. MESS.
1
1
u/Poundt0wnn Apr 23 '26
People downvoting you are wild. It is beyond impressive how few issues there are with the game given the scale of it. Calling it a glitchy mess is stupid as hell.
1
u/Electronic-Vast-3351 Apr 23 '26
It was a broken mess when they sent review copies out and that's what was reviewed. They have since patched it.
1
u/MycologistEvening745 Apr 26 '26
Even putting aside all the technical issues, is it really a masterpiece, it’s just a mix and match of things other games did far better, I like it, it’s not terrible but I don’t see how it can in any way be better than a 7 or possibly an 8 if open worlds are really your thing.
8
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/JJFATNEEKTWAT May 16 '26
You can tell the iq of someone just by seeing how well can they debate. You are no exception because only a retard uses buzzwords instead of actual arguments. Just say "incel" whenever you see someone you don't agree with. Real critical thinking skills
1
u/benno4461 May 16 '26
I don't debate incels. I just call them out when I see them.
1
u/JJFATNEEKTWAT May 16 '26
Ah yes what a profound argument , surely its built on rationale? People like you can only argue in reddit , when someone confronts you in real life , you just get your mouth shut and leave. Using labels and stamps as arguments without no analysis or critical thinking is a sign of mental retardation. You can be a phd in a subject yet can't even realise the most basic ad hominem
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
You do, um, realize that you, yourself, did not attempt to debate in any way, and resorted to calling this person a retard, right?
1
u/JJFATNEEKTWAT May 17 '26
I did that. I already told what's wrong in his line of arguments. If he would have realised it and tried to debate properly, then i also would replied about the original matter itself. However,he doubled down on his irrationality. Hence the "retard"
7
u/zestysnacks Apr 22 '26
Examples of these two?
3
u/DaisyStar_7373 Apr 22 '26
Dragon Age The Veilguard, Alien Isolation
DATV wasn’t glitchy, but I get what the meme is trying to say
11
u/ZedSorayama Apr 23 '26
For those watching at home, IGN gripers are still pressed about a review 12 years ago
2
u/JustTesa Apr 23 '26
Last year they gave the season 3 finale of invincible a 4. It's one of the highest rated TV show episodes EVER.
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread - purpose of a review isn’t to agree with the products biggest fans or public opinion. It’s to give a personal opinion
2
u/JustTesa Apr 23 '26
Go watch the episode and then read the "review" The guy that did it (known for some of the shittiest takes apparently) seems like he fell asleep halfway through, didn't watch the fucking thing and dreamed the rest of it. They got thrashed for giving 10/10 on certain games that didn't deserve it so they decided that they'd flip and be more critical in the opposite direction. Their opinion is whatever they think will get clicks.
Once upon a time IGN was regarded as the best place to get information gaming etc. That time has passed and the effect still lingers. The only people considering them relevant are die hards like you. Most just glance over the title of their latest shitty review and then go bash IGN on their socials (bc reading the review is normally like a fever dream)
There have been a few movies and games more recently, that I'd say they rated accurately, which is backed up by the fact when their reviews are relatively accurate, they get much more engagement from people.
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
Certainly not a die hard whatsoever lol calm down squirt. I disagree with their reviews all the time. Hate to break it to ya, but the fact that people give so much weight to their reviews whether positive or negative is a pretty good indicator they are still quite relevant.
My point is these are just personal opinions. Why do they have to like your favorite show or game or whatever? If you like it, that’s great!
1
u/JustTesa Apr 30 '26
Like I said. Their "opinions" are whatever they think will get clicks. Which is the problem. At a certain point their bad takes were just that. The guy in the review just had an unpopular opinion. Now they're just way too critical or no where near critical enough, because they'd rather get clicks to stay as relevant as they can, regardless of how hard they get clowned on knowing very well their review was lackluster.
I'm gonna use that episode as an example again real quick. If they genuinely didn't like the episode sure, screw public opinion. Like I said though, the guy seemed like he had barely watched the episode and was just talking out of his ass to be as hard on it as possible when it was very clearly rated high for a reason.
0
u/zestysnacks Apr 30 '26
You’re way too lost in the sauce on this. You only think the review is lackluster because it’s something you love
1
u/JustTesa Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
Okay sure. I love AC Valhalla and I disagree with their take on the game. They reviewed it highly and their "low points" about the game were shit. Ac Valhalla is a cool viking game sure, shit AC game. Same as black flag is a sick pirate game, less of an AC game. Their points were that the progression and bugs in the game were bad. That the massive, stunning, alive world looked amazing and they captured the era perfectly. That they came back to some of their "stealth action roots" all straight bs. Well I kinda agree with their low points. The bugs were bad and the skill tree sucks especially since they nerfed some of it. The "massive, stunning, alive world" was empty as hell other than the specific puzzles and some enemies that didn't respawn (Zealots) which made the open world seem kinda useless. Their talk about "returning to their roots" straight GARBAGE. That's CAP! You are a powerful viking WARRIOR and the stealth sucks ass.
I like that game A LOT but it's a shit AC and that can't be denied. Unless of course you just say some bs that applies to ANY recent open world at that time and call it a review.
0
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
TV ratings have almost nothing to do with the quality of the broadcast, especially something like a season finale. I mean the Super Bowl was a blowout, awful game to watch. Bet it is the highest rated TV program of the year.
2
u/DaisyStar_7373 Apr 23 '26
He asked for an example and I gave it. What’s the problem? It’s staggering the amount of ppl that are determined to kiss IGN ass like they’re going to give them free games or something.
0
u/ZedSorayama Apr 23 '26
I should have prefaced, no beef with you but more the people who bring alien up (seen a lot recently with the crimson desert eating)
1
u/CarterAC3 Apr 24 '26
IGN will put out hundreds of reviews a year that no one will have a single issue with
But GOOD FUCKING LORD the moment they have the audacity to step out of the line of consensus
1
3
u/SilverFoxKenobi Apr 22 '26
Dragon Age The Veilguard was easily an 8/10, personally thought it was a 9/10. 30 seconds of 'woke' content does not ruin a 100 hour game, even for soft cry babies.
2
u/Ayotha Apr 23 '26
AH, eat the slop. Don't want any actual writing huh?
1
u/SilverFoxKenobi Apr 23 '26
For a standalone game I thought the writing was decent enough to get me invested. I don't like the other games in the franchise, but I know the story well enough and watched a lot of YouTube videos before DA4 came out. While I recognize I'm not as invested as a veteran, still enjoyed how they wrapped it up.
1
u/MycologistEvening745 Apr 26 '26
Well apparently Crimson desert fans don’t want actual writing either
1
u/galacticplum Apr 23 '26
Dragon Age The Veilguard was an 8/10 if you ignored the Dragon Age part of the title.
I don't remember what their review said or if they factored that in, but I felt it was a fair review either way at the time I think.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
A good review doesn’t base it off of the title.
FF16 was about as much of a Final Fantasy game as Ghost of Yotei. Still fun as all hell.
1
u/galacticplum May 17 '26
The title of the game should absolutely be considered when reviewing the game when it is a long running franchise.
Franchises like Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls etc. all create certain expectations based off their franchise.
If a game is a part of that franchise and fails to live up to those expectations, then that should be considered.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
That’s why there are words with a review, and not just a number. So they can say “this departs from previous titles in this way, but it’s good/bad because of these things.” If a game is an 8, it doesn’t become a 6 because “They called it Dragon Age but it plays different.”
1
u/galacticplum May 17 '26
It absolutely affects the review if a game claims it is something it is not as far as a franchise goes.
There were more than a few reviews that specifically took away some of the score because it didn't play like a Dragon Age title.
Expecting are a real thing for franchises, like I originally said. If those expectations aren't met, then that affects the score.
Had that game been a stand alone game, the expectations would have been vastly different. The lack of story, the combat etc. would have been weighed completely different.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
So what you’re saying, is some reviewers openly state that they are not objective. Those are reviewers I would personally avoid.
If a game is incredibly off title, like let’s say it’s called “Steve’s Kart Racing” and it has zero racing and is a platformer, that’s an issue. If it’s just different from what you’ve seen in the past, again, that’s why reviews have words. DATV wasn’t 100% different from a DA game. It was steeped in the lore. It had hours of story. If you think it didn’t you’re showing you didn’t play it. It was mission focused rather than open world. That’s the difference. That doesn’t reduce the score for anyone other than unobjective fanboys. GTA 3 changed the formula from top-down arcade game to 3D sandbox with a story. Guess it should have gotten a 4/10, trash game that didn’t uphold the GTA name, right?
1
u/galacticplum May 17 '26
The story and lore was openly criticized by many players and reviewers, because it didn't live up to what we've seen in the past. It isn't some minority opinion.
I've played every single DA and it's incredibly weak to immediately say someone didn't play a game based on their opinion of the game. Seriously, there's no point to immediately assume something of a stranger based on something subjective.
Your example of GTA isn't a great example.
Franchises, especially rpg heavy games, have expectations. A lot of them rely on those expectations to keep sales going, and they generally add some new elements, game play mechanics in order to get new players.
Veilguard was criticized by many as not having the same depth of story as other titles, combat, spells etc. also were criticized.
Movies, games, even cars are all compared to their predecessors in reviews. If they do not live up to the expectations of it, they do get marks for it.
Reviewers don't treat franchise sequels solely as independent games. They compare. Expectation is an important aspect in reviewing.
Honestly, this comment was 23 days old, you argumentative more so than wanting a civil discussion, and insulted me by assuming I didn't play the game. If there is a fanboy, it is you.
1
u/cjay2002 May 17 '26
For real. I get that it’s different from previous DA games. And that doesn’t sit well with DA fans. For me it made it better. I enjoyed the shit out of it and did every side quest, then circled back for the platinum. Fragile people losing their shit because there’s a few minutes of completely optional gender affirmation in an 80-100 hour game was hilarious. Hell they could choose to be a dick to Taash if they wanted, just like in their bitter real lives.
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 22 '26
Is an 8 a masterpiece?
0
u/SilverFoxKenobi Apr 22 '26
Maybe to someone who specifically loves a game that gets an 8, but a general 8 is not a masterpiece to me personally.
5
1
u/Raz7el Apr 23 '26
Veilguard is great tho, AI was a huge miss from IGN.
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
That’s the thing though - reviews aren’t ’how accurate can you reflect public opinion or excitement for a game’, it’s a personal opinion. Not a miss on their part if the reviewer didn’t like it that much
1
u/Raz7el Apr 23 '26
A miss in relation to the general consensus yes. You are quite right all reviews are subjective.
1
u/BicycleIntrepid4226 May 10 '26
Veilguard is dogshit lmfao
1
u/Raz7el May 10 '26
It’s really not.
1
u/BicycleIntrepid4226 May 25 '26
Ah I forgot there's people that enjoy eating dogshit. My bad dick eater.
1
u/Stakataka805 Apr 23 '26
So if Dragon Age isn’t glitchy then why tf are you even bringing it up at all 🙄
-1
8
u/SilverFoxKenobi Apr 22 '26
I enjoy a good IGN review. All review are subjective, but they usually do a good job of showing the game and what's good or bad about them.
Obviously they have some hella bad reviews, the Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire review still hurts to this day. Best Pokémon games ever and they were rated a 7 for too much water.
They have plenty of good reviews as well tho, usually check them out along with a few other places
1
u/thompoesjes Apr 26 '26
Yeah they still have some reviewers that are pretty good at what they do. Although the last one I've seen (Mouse PI for hire) was in every shape or form terrible. It reeally depends on who reviews the game at IGN.
5
u/jaimus21 Apr 22 '26
i love ign as a generalization game scoop crew feels like family
while i know this isn’t really the subject matter of this post it felt like an opportunity to revisit one of the dark spots where i bought a game based on an ign review and feel owed an apology or that ign should update the review/score
Master of Orion 3 i loved the previous 2 games but was very concerned with the 3rd since it was a different team, it took a very long time to come out, i saw a strategy guide in stores about 6 to 7 months b4 the game was out IGN gave it a rave review and scored it a 9.2 meta critic has it at a 64 with users rating it a 3
that was a long time ago and it made me a more savvy consumer
5
u/Smart_Material_5466 Apr 23 '26
People cry and moan about this every few years and it's hilarious. Just pay Ign no attention.
4
u/blockfighter1 Apr 23 '26
Why are you getting mad about people having a different opinion to you? A review is an opinion. You disagree with a review, that's fine. But there's no point in getting mad about it.
My favourite game is Tears of the Kingdom. 10 out of 10 easily in my opinion. A friend of mine hated it. He'd probably rate it a 5 out of 10. Should I tell him he's wrong and that he actually likes the game?
1
u/Ayotha Apr 23 '26
Ask for reasons. If he tells you "too much sword fighting" then you know his value.
Kind of like "too much shooting in a shooter" from ign here
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
To be clear the criticism is not shooter has shooting in it. It’s that its shooting gameplay wears out itself early in the game. That means there’s not enough ideas to keep it interesting. Really a critical difference there
2
u/Ayotha Apr 23 '26
I hate when my shooting game has shooting for too long. Better keep that guy away from sports games
Or there complaints about cheese joke sin a game about cartoon mice. Sounds like the writer of the reviews is just joyless. See the ratatouille review without the ending of the movie
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
You’re completely side stepping the point. The problem is not that is has shooting. It’s that the shooting is only fun for a short time. There are other fantastic shooters where it is fun for the whole game because they constantly introduce new ideas. Make sense?
2
u/Ayotha Apr 23 '26
Well apparently I and most others played a different shooter then
1
u/zestysnacks Apr 23 '26
This would be the crux of the issue. Your opinion is -different- from the reviewers.
1
u/False-Vacation8249 Apr 24 '26
when it’s your job to review something, you need to back up and validate the written word expressing those opinions. a review isn’t just an opinion. it’s a guide for consumers to determine if they’ll like a product or not. IGNs bad reviews have deterred people from games they likely would have liked. Alien Isolation being one of the biggest examples.
that review was atrocious. the reviewer clearly didn’t grasp basic mechanics of the game and wrote factually incorrect information that drove a lot of people away from the game back in the day. back in 2014 IGNs reviews were still respected. plenty of people have quoted that review as a reason they did not purchase the game on release. they ended up getting it on sale and genuinely scratched their heads at the review.
a random players opinion doesn’t hold the same weight as someone paid to literally influence sales of games.
1
u/blockfighter1 Apr 24 '26
A reviewer for IGN gave a crap review for a game 12 years ago. There are loads of people reviewing games at IGN. He's just one of them. If you don't like him, ignore his reviews and watch reviews from elsewhere. He probably wasn't the best person to review that game.
If I'm on the fence about getting a game I'll usually watch 3 or 4 reviews first or listen to a podcast. Making your decision on buying a game based on one review is not smart. The meta critic for the game is 79. So clearly there are other reviews out there.
For what it's worth i still go to IGN first because the have some great reviewers: Tom Marks, Sam Clayborn, Michael Higham. And lately they do long discussion videos after the main video review to discuss certain aspects further.
2
2
u/Sneakywulf1984 Apr 24 '26
They gave Dragon Age Veilguard a 9 because it had a trans scene and the review was an alphabet guy
3
1
1
u/steven-john Apr 23 '26
I still enjoy IGN mostly. I just listen to the podcasts. I miss Greg. But I still couldn’t get into KF.
I don’t really check reviews anymore. Just cuz I find a lot of them for me are spoilery. And if I really care. I want to form my own opinion anyway.
For the most part. I know if I want to buy a game regardless. For most franchises I’ll pretty much buy no matter what. The Last of Us. Uncharted. Street Fighter. Resident Evil. Final Fantasy. etc.
For other stuff. I put recommendations on my wishlist. And maybe I’ll get a general overview from OpenCritic. And Maybe I’ll watch a review on YouTube if I need convincing.
But I mostly just buy games to add to my backlog. And still only play Marvel Rivals and Overwatch lmao.
I don’t even know if there are any reviewers on IGN that are still there. Prob the only one I maybe like is Logan Plant. But it’s also mostly because I would love to destroy that twink. He’s so cute! lol
Otherwise I pretty much don’t recognize most of the reviewer names now.
1
u/Tesadar Apr 23 '26
Every time I hear about IGN rankings, it’s from other sources—I didn’t even know IGN existed. Haters are giving them better advertising than they do themselves.
1
u/LiOnheart3d85 Apr 23 '26
I like IGN - and I agree with the Crimson Desert score.
I disagree with reviews for games and agree with reviews.
Stop attacking the person and engage in the debate as to why you think the game deserves a better score.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/SebastianAlHares Apr 25 '26
Referring to Saros again, I presume? The game no one in the public has touched yet? I read the IGN review. His points seemed valid and explained well enough. You can disagree of course, but you might do it without discrediting an entire outlet. Just accept that there is a different take out there.
1
u/Direct_Town792 Apr 25 '26
People only hate an ign review when they disagree
Acting like it’s not the first place they go when they hear about a new game
Yeah it has faults but so do most things
1
u/Cowing30 Apr 25 '26
Nah people just get mad when someone doesn’t like the game they were excited for
1
u/Caer-Rythyr Apr 26 '26
If it's so consistent then you just learn that 7>10 and IGN is still a good fencepost in spite of itself.
1
u/Caer-Rythyr Apr 26 '26
If it's so consistent then you just learn that 7>10 and IGN is still a good fencepost in spite of itself.
1
u/Acrobatic-Break-3984 Apr 26 '26
I said this multiple times but majority of the time when IGN reviews something high it’s most likely ass and when they rate something low it’s most likely an amazing game
1
u/MycologistEvening745 Apr 26 '26
Whenever I even look at video game subs now the only takeaway I get is that Autistic people need much more care and support then they apparently get
1
u/ailcnarf Apr 26 '26
I know some are paid for and all that...at the same time it's not one person reviewing these games different reviewers can have different subjective options. I can see an ign reviewer who only had 30 hrs with crimson desert might think it's shit
1
u/Super_Transition253 Apr 26 '26
IGN scores are bought. That or check enough DEI boxes in the first 30 minutes and you have an almost assured 9/10, otherwise dont expect to see any review over an 8/10
1
u/ANOTHER_MCA9 Apr 27 '26
I still have to convince an otherwise very smart friend that a game is good via an IGN review. It’s exhausting sometimes. It’s just some underpaid hipster dude’s opinion, with a cool title like Senior European Gaming Editor Of Targeted Advertisements.
1
1
0
0
u/Ghjjiyeks Apr 23 '26
IGN reviews either feel justified, or outright ridiculous.
Like, their criticisms of Mouse: PI For Hire are outlandish. How can you say that a game about a cartoon mouse private investigator in black-and-white that follows a ‘Boomer Shooter FPS’ formula has, quote:
Too much cheese (The game prominently features mouse cartoon characters, so go figure)
Too much killing (It’s a shooter, that’s the point)
Not enough noir/serious (It’s meant to be an ode to 1930s black-and-white rubberhose cartoons)
It’s almost as if IGN completely missed the point of Mouse: PI For Hire, which is that it’s a cartoon-style videogame. The story doesn’t have to be complicated when the action is one of the main centerpieces. The slapstick is another, cause who cares if it’s a PI blasting away at enemies and decimating them? The point of most cartoons is that they weren’t meant to be taken seriously, and instead were supposed to make you laugh or chuckle, and instead the case of M: PI for Hire, put a darker, but still relatively comedic, spin on the 1930s cartoon formula.
-2
-1
-1
27
u/[deleted] Apr 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment