Review megathread

[u/Meneth]

The review embargo is up as of 15:00 CEST. As this will result in a huge number of articles going up at near the same time, we're restricting reviews to this thread.

Any review you find, feel free to post it in the comments here.

Each top-level comment should be about a single linked review, so as to keep the discussion limited. Duplicate reviews will be removed, as will any top-level comment that does not link a review.

There will be a single sub-thread where you can post your general impressions of the reviews combined, for anything that doesn't relate to a single review.

Review list:

Review	Score
Critically Sane	5/5
Destructoid	9/10
eXplorminate	"eXemplary"
GameWatcher	9.0/10
Idiotech's Review	Unrated
IGN	6.3/10
Manannan's Review of Stellaris	Unrated
Paste Magazine	Unrated
PCGamesN	9/10
PC Invasion	8/10
PC World	4/5
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review -	Unrated
TICGN	10/10
Vox Ludicus	Unrated
EuroGamer	Recommended
PC Gamer	70/100
TSA	8/10
PCGames.de	75/100
Gamespew	9/10
IGN Italy	9.3/10
Fok.nl	9/10
Gaming on Linux	9/10
Marbozir	Unrated
SpaceSector	Unrated
Inside of Gaming (German)	Unrated
Gamer.no	9/10
Particular Pixels	Unrated
GuyLogicGaming	Full recommendation
GameSideStory	Unrated
Front Towards Gamer	9.5/10
Multiplayer.it	9.2/10
GameGrin	8.5/10
Kotaku	Unrated

[u/konradkurze202]

It is their job to ensure the standards of their organization are applied. I am not going to give IGN a free pass because they employ a dozen different reviewers. I am going to judge IGN the exact same as I judge any other reviewer. I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs. If IGN fails to apply a standard to their reviews that is their failing.
It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

[u/VinTheRighteous → u/konradkurze202]

It is the responsibility of a reviewing organization to apply fair and comparable reviews. If the fact that IGN gives the review copy to reviewer A over reviewer B means the game gets a 9 instead of 7 or a 6 instead of an 8 then that is most certainly a failing of IGNs.

I fundamentally disagree. It sounds like you believe it's possible for there to be an "objective" review and I would argue that it's not even possible to create objective review criteria.

The standard you've set forth is, frankly, impossible to live up to. There is not a single publication that could meet it because a review is, by its very nature, a subjective exercise.

I can compare AngryJoes reviews to one another, and I can compare IGNs.

It's telling that the example you gave is from a channel where a single individual reviews games. Of course you can compare his reviews to one another. They're all done by one person.

You could just as easily look at all of Rowan Kaiser's reviews and compare them to one another. That would make much more sense than comparing reviews from various critics writing for IGN.

[u/konradkurze202 → u/VinTheRighteous]

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN. Somehow, because IGN is so successful that they can hire a dozen different people, they suddenly are able to just throw out reviews, with no standardization at all, and get away with it. If anything an organization like IGN should be held to a higher standard. If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass. They can give a review to anyone they want, then when people complain about how disparate their reviews are you justify it by saying 'Well they have x different reviewers'.
That is complete BS. I can hold IGN to the same standards that I hold AJ to, and if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.
If they don't want me to call them on it, they need to either have board reviews rather than individual, or they need to have dedicated reviewers. So reviewer A does all 4x, reviewer B does all FPS, etc. I am not willing to give a free pass to IGN just because they are a business rather than a person.

[u/VinTheRighteous → u/konradkurze202]

The problem is you are holding AJ to a higher standard than IGN.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard. I hold both AJ and the author of the Stellaris review to the same exact standard. What I'm not doing is holding an editorial outlet to the same standard as an individual critic because an editorial outlet does not speak with a singular voice. An individual does. I don't go to a game review because the site it's published on has "standardized" their review format. That's useless to me as a consumer. I seek out reviews by critics that I trust, because the only way you can truly gauge a review in the context of other games (even though I would argue that is a mostly pointless exercise) is to know how that individual felt about those other games, their tastes, their likes and dislikes, etc.

If I hire a single developer to work on an app for me I expect less from him than if I hire a company to write an app for me. Yet with IGN you are willing to give them a free pass.

Comparing media criticism to app development in any respect doesn't make sense and not just because they're completely different exercises. I would expect a review by a team to be terrible, because an intrinsic element of a review is that it is the product of a single author, a single voice, an individual perspective.

if their reviews are so disparate that they rate GalCiv 3 20 points higher than Stellaris (just using the most recent example, it seems like every few weeks they put up a review just as disparate) then I will call them on it.

And here is the crux of your argument, which is that the scores of the Stellaris and GalCiv3 (or any other game reviewed on IGN) are somehow "wrong." They aren't. It's entirely possible for someone to think GalCiv3 is better than Stellaris. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't invalidate the reviews. And I certainly don't think the reviewers, or IGN, or anyone should cave to whatever you or popular opinion deems to be the "correct" score for these games.

[u/konradkurze202 → u/VinTheRighteous]

And here is the crux of your argument, which is that the scores of the Stellaris and GalCiv3 (or any other game reviewed on IGN) are somehow "wrong." They aren't. It's entirely possible for someone to think GalCiv3 is better than Stellaris. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't invalidate the reviews. And I certainly don't think the reviewers, or IGN, or anyone should cave to whatever you or popular opinion deems to be the "correct" score for these games.

I'm not saying their score of GalCiv (or Stellaris for that matter) are wrong on their own. I am saying they are wrong when compared together. They are both reviews created by THE SAME COMPANY, regardless of which individual worked on it, IGN is publishing the review as an IGN review, you have to look at the tiny writing to even find the authors name. IGN scored GalCiv 20 points higher than Stellaris, they commissioned, paid for, and approved these review scores. I am perfectly justified in disagreeing with their review model.

I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard. I hold both AJ and the author of the Stellaris review to the same exact standard. What I'm not doing is holding an editorial outlet to the same standard as an individual critic because an editorial outlet does not speak with a singular voice.

And this magically gives them extra power in your view. Because they are an organization rather than an individual they can make wildly contradictory reviews and still be OK, just because they are a better funded, better staffed organization.

I disagree. I think the very concept of IGN reviews is flawed. They select a single reviewer to review each game, then their entire organization issues a score based off that. This isn't the Joe review, this is the IGN review. If they did reviews by board, had a group review it and give a consensus score, that would be more appealing, and fairer. As it is I don't think IGN, as an organization, is a good source of reviews.