Current Events > IGN: Spooderman 2 gets an 8

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/9/4/AAff7xAAE8HK.jpg

Flop confirmed

it really makes you feel like spiderman

Literally worse than 8.8

No exaggerated swagger?

Not enough swag

Across the Flopverse

Fable posted...

No exaggerated swagger?

Not when playing as Peter

I should really play the first game. I bought it on launch and played maybe 10 minutes lol

Really unfair score, but then again you cant spell ignorance without IGN

ColonizedMind posted...

Really unfair score, but then again you cant spell ignorance without IGN

the game is not even out for another 4 days, how the hell would you know lol

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It just might be!

Waxitron_Gazer posted...

the game is not even out for another 4 days, how the hell would you know lol

Because compare it to other reviews and DF tech review. This is a benchmark game with a gripping story and best in class gameplay. How is 8 fair for that?

ColonizedMind posted...

Because compare it to other reviews and DF tech review. This is a benchmark game with a gripping story and best in class gameplay. How is 8 fair for that?

Not sure if joking or child.

ColonizedMind posted...

Because compare it to other reviews and DF tech review. This is a benchmark game with a gripping story and best in class gameplay. How is 8 fair for that?

You are funny

so better story yet same gameplay.

i guess it sounds about right...

ColonizedMind posted...

Because compare it to other reviews and DF tech review. This is a benchmark game with a gripping story and best in class gameplay. How is 8 fair for that?

so cuz other people said it was a 9 or 10, IGN is unfair for giving it an 8?

im pretty sure that kinda weird groupthink gave us nazis

Too much water?

Waxitron_Gazer posted...

so cuz other people said it was a 9 or 10, IGN is unfair for giving it an 8?

im pretty sure that kinda weird groupthink gave us nazis

It just suggests IGN have another motive for marking down a game with;

• Stellar graphics
• Technical marvel that DF calls the next leap forward on PS5
• No bugs or glitches
• The best story in the series so far
• Best in class superhero gameplay
• A suite of accessibility features
• Best in class open world traversal
• Expanded open world features

But thats an 8/10? For a game of the generation contender?

I wish scores didn't exist in the first place.

You cant spell malignant tumor without IGN.
or something

At the end of the day, reviews are also affected by subjectivity. Maybe the 8 is because despite all its achievements the reviewer is not 100% thrilled about the genre? I guess one would say "why have him be the reviewer then" but I'd feel like having someone write a review who isn't a superfan of Spider-Man/superheroes and/or open world games would be able to write a more fair review.

In the end I wouldn't hyperfocus and worry about a slightly lower score for a game, especially if it's one I 100% was going to buy anyway.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/4/2/AAfOu0AADtlW.jpg

hopefully insomniac goes back to making ratchet games now i hope the next one has more content

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

so better story yet same gameplay.

i guess it sounds about right...

The first game had a super mid as hell story, so the bar ain't exactly high there.

A game is either an 8 out of 10, a 9 out of 10, or a 10 out of 10, and sometimes other scores too

Too much web

8/10 too much web slinging

ColonizedMind posted...

It just suggests IGN have another motive for marking down a game with;

* Stellar graphics
* Technical marvel that DF calls the next leap forward on PS5
* No bugs or glitches
* The best story in the series so far
* Best in class superhero gameplay
* A suite of accessibility features
* Best in class open world traversal
* Expanded open world features

But thats an 8/10? For a game of the generation contender?

Sure?

That being said, I can't help but have hoped for a few more flashes of Gotham City to make their way into New York. Something like the spontaneous shock of Manbat jumping at you out of nowhere went a long way to making Rocksteady's superhero open world feel more reactive than what we get here (even though it always cheated by finding ways to keep civilians off the streets). When you consider the evolution of open-world game design that the Arkham series took over the course of the trilogy, and its multilayered villain side quests, its a bit disappointing to see Insomniacs series stuck in time when it comes to its side content and the way it presents itself to you.

Standard open-world filler activities are here aplenty, and thats one area where Spider-Man 2 hasn't moved with the times or shown ambition at all. Collectibles, photo opportunities, and rather basic street crimes are still here and, despite having a few slightly more interesting quirks this time around, they only very occasionally excite. Youll regularly be stopping the same getaways with the same few button presses (the button-mashing from previous games is mercifully largely gone) or stopping a break-in by battering the same few goons. Granted, the additional enemy variety in play makes these activities take a little longer to get old than they did in the past, but that still isn't quite a strong enough twist to make prioritising photographing a couple of amateur cosplayers over saving a house full of people from a raging fire not seem ridiculous.

Different things matter to different people. For some people this doesn't matter. Others it does. 8/10 is still a great score.

Generally it's the more critical reviews that tend to age better too lol

It's been known for a while that IGN has a different person doing each aspect of every review. The score is done by somebody, the graphics is done by somebody, the stuff in the middle of the reviews is done by the person tasked to play the game, and the rest are filled by editors and other staff members, even the pros/cons points are done by somebody else under guidance of whoever played the game. Whether or not more than half these people actually played the game, supposedly no, most of them don't because they don't have the time nor permission.

Several former IGN staff talked about it in interviews and personal tweets.

So usually points for these gaming review sites are all done in the name of promotion and marketing. It's not actually about the games most of the time, unless the entire staff feels very passionate about whatever the fuck game. That's why Gamespot consistently gives scores that are different from every other sites for instance. Dunno what they gave Spiderman but I don't care and refuse to give them clicks.