IGN Says Battlefield 4 could be GOTY

By Da Ill One - 03-21-2013, 06:12 AM - Boxden > BX GameSpot

The official website of Battlefield 4 has gone live today, however its source code includes a hidden message that made some laugh and others cry out loud. It appears that IGN has already a promo article for DICE’s upcoming FPS title, suggesting that EA has partnered with IGN in order to promote it. That, or a DICE has already held a press event and showcased its title to a number of gaming portals, meaning that preview articles will start popping out in a couple of days.

> IGN Says Battlefield 4 could be GOTY - Photo posted in BX GameSpot | Sign in and leave a comment below!

> IGN Says Battlefield 4 could be GOTY - Photo posted in BX GameSpot | Sign in and leave a comment below!

As we can clearly see in the image above (spotted by NeoGAF member ‘Wario64′), IGN has a preview article for Battlefield 4, stating that it could be the game of the year. After the debate about the exclusive on-going review that IGN has been allowed to publish, a lot of gamers felt that there was something fishy going on here between the publisher and the publication. Hell, even industrial personalities felt a bit awkward when they found out about it.

> IGN Says Battlefield 4 could be GOTY - Photo posted in BX GameSpot | Sign in and leave a comment below!

Now there are two possibilities going on here. Either IGN is currently preparing an exclusive preview for DICE’s FPS – which explains the promo hidden message as IGN was the only website mentioned – or DICE has shown the game to other publications who have not finished their preview articles yet. However, we’ve not heard about any secret press event held for showcasing BF4 to the press (it’s secreeeeeeet, of course and you don’t know anything about it), so that’s definitely a bit weird.

Contrary to the review embargo of Bioshock: Infinite, this is nothing to be ashamed of, despite the reactions of gamers and industrial people. IGN naturally chose a sensationalist title to attract viewers, which explains the game of the year comment. Truth be told, some publications may feel cheated (if IGN was only shown the game before its official reveal) as they were not able to cover it, but that’s how the industry works.

After all, we haven’t seen anyone complaining about GameInformer’s exclusives reveals and previews, so this is not as bad as people make it seem!

Source

03-21-2013, 06:47 AM

IGN's reviews have no integrity.

03-21-2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Msirae

IGN's reviews have no integrity.

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

03-21-2013, 08:38 AM

i mean, isnt that the general consensus though?

its Battlefield [pic]

03-21-2013, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by XxHeAtMaKeRxX

i mean, isnt that the general consensus though?

its Battlefield [pic]

No lol.. MP mainly games dont win GOTY... the SP will ve less than 5 hours on the hardest setting again...

03-21-2013, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Da Ill One

No lol.. MP mainly games dont win GOTY... the SP will ve less than 5 hours on the hardest setting again...

i know bro, i was just kidding [pic]

i know the GOTY criteria is highly based off SP/Campaign

although, nowadays, i meet more and more ppl online who have never played the campaign of the game theyre on. they just hop straight on to MP and thats all they care about.

some ppl dont even wanna buy games if it doesnt have MP. i feel like the games who are SP heavy are losing ground which sucks. i make it a mission to get through the SP part of a game before i hit the MP.

03-21-2013, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by XxHeAtMaKeRxX

i make it a mission to get through the SP part of a game before i hit the MP.

Same here...I usually don't touch MP untill i've done at least some of the SP Campaign (I try to beat it before touching MP)...

03-21-2013, 10:53 AM

Is this the same IGN that just gave Gears a 9.2?

03-21-2013, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by LicensedLegend

Is this the same IGN that just gave Gears a 9.2?

Also the same IGN that has had reviews bought before, and pulls Kotaku and TMZ stories by throwing money or other stuff to get inside information...yes that would be them

03-21-2013, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Da Ill One

Also the same IGN that has had reviews bought before, and pulls Kotaku and TMZ stories by throwing money or other stuff to get inside information...yes that would be them

They can !! off then.

03-21-2013, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Da Ill One

Also the same IGN that has had reviews bought before, and pulls Kotaku and TMZ stories by throwing money or other stuff to get inside information...yes that would be them

Can this be proven? [pic]

03-21-2013, 12:39 PM

Ign is the new payola!

But ign is like ESPN. niccas complain all day everyday but use them as their primary source of info.

03-21-2013, 12:47 PM

The article questions EA's practices in general. You guys harp on the integrity of IGN's reviews, which is fine. However, EA only allowing IGN to see BF4 way in advance of everyone else is just foul. Hand picking media members for a preview is misleading.

03-21-2013, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Hovi Bryant

The article questions EA's practices in general. You guys harp on the integrity of IGN's reviews, which is fine. However, EA only allowing IGN to see BF4 way in advance of everyone else is just foul. Hand picking media members for a preview is misleading.

EA already showed BF 4 to Gamestop managers at their manager conference a month or so ago...

03-21-2013, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by CadillacVyse

Ign is the new payola!

But ign is like ESPN. niccas complain all day everyday but use them as their primary source of info.

IGN and ESPN have multiple types of information to present to different to people.

For example, I could care less about SportsCenter or First Take. I will watch programs like 30/30 or ESPN News.

With IGN, their reviews aren't too far off from the general consensus. Smaller publications like Game Pro were much more suspectable to paid reviews because they need the traffic and need early games that other press would get no matter what.

Reviews aside, news is taken very seriously. To lump everything that ESPN and IGN does and discredit the accuracy of their news, is quite naive on your part. Journalistic integrity is taken very seriously in that regard.

03-21-2013, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Da Ill One

EA already showed BF 4 to Gamestop managers at their manager conference a month or so ago...

GameStop doesn't offer previews or reviews. Or video game news.

03-21-2013, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by D.IrIsH

Can this be proven? [pic]

It can't. IGN is big enough to not need to do stuff like that.

The gains for a paid review is so marginal that there's no point.

They were goin to get a review copy even if they bashed every game the publisher gave them. Simply because of the traffic IGN has is significantly higher than competing websites.

This is due in part to several other divisions within IGN, such as movies, comics, and tech. So to sit there and say IGN is involved in this is quite stupid.

02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hovi Bryant

IGN and ESPN have multiple types of information to present to different to people.

For example, I could care less about SportsCenter or First Take. I will watch programs like 30/30 or ESPN News.

With IGN, their reviews aren't too far off from the general consensus. Smaller publications like Game Pro were much more suspectable to paid reviews because they need the traffic and need early games that other press would get no matter what.

Reviews aside, news is taken very seriously. To lump everything that ESPN and IGN does and discredit the accuracy of their news, is quite naive on your part. Journalistic integrity is taken very seriously in that regard.

What Journalism does ESPN do? Every breaking story, who is the on reporting last and with the least amount of info? Sandusky, BernieFine, Teo, etc They are the last when it comes to integrity. They put themselves, their biggest contributors and special interest before journalistic integrity. They've lost a ton of talent journalist because they couldn't be objective! The Mike Leach situation was the k!lled all ESPN's credibility.

ESPN is good at being an RSS feed of others journalistic work.

As for IGN...do they even produce non (p)reviews anymore? I stop fuvkin with ign when their reviews became too convenient. Like moving the GameCube reviewer to review too human because he was a silicon knights fanboy. For any sort of game journalism I go to a site like polygon which has stories like how XCOM developed Jake Solomon its lead producer or how FTL and its devs are the opposite of fail.

03-21-2013, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by CadillacVyse

What Journalism does ESPN do? Every breaking story, who is the on reporting last and with the least amount of info? Sandusky, BernieFine, Teo, etc They are the last when it comes to integrity. They put themselves, their biggest contributors and special interest before journalistic integrity. They've lost a ton of talent journalist because they couldn't be objective! The Mike Leach situation was the k!lled all ESPN's credibility.

ESPN is good at being an RSS feed of others journalistic work.

As for IGN...do they even produce non (p)reviews anymore? I stop fuvkin with ign when their reviews became too convenient. Like moving the GameCube reviewer to review too human because he was a silicon knights fanboy. For any sort of game journalism I go to a site like polygon which has stories like how XCOM developed Jake Solomon its lead producer or how FTL and its devs are the opposite of fail.

ESPN is a ridiculously large network. So for you to even ask that question ... Did you even try to see for yourself? Or do you not know what journalism is?

Bill Simmons is behind Grantland a very popular source for editorials on ESPN. Simply because he is a stats guy. You also had guys like John Holliger who go above and beyond the basic, watered down information and aynaisis presented on Sports Center or the main networks on TV.

IGN is no different in that regard. Some people may disregard the reviews, but still go there for the news or rumor mill. That's what makes these sites so dominant on the Internet. They have so many avenues for viewers to take, that it squeezes out all of their competition who may just have one our two types of information.

Which goes back to what the article is really about. EA is damaging their own credibility as a publisher by hand picking the best sources that may offer them a favorable review or preview. It's rather odd that they've chosen this tactic for BF4 which would have received praise no matter what.

03-21-2013, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by D.IrIsH

Can this be proven? [pic]

Hasn't been proven yet . That said they've got caught plenty of times not playing a game thoroughly and then reviewing the game. Playing games on easy then reviewing it from that easy play.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Join us on Facebook. Check out the BX fan page and hit the Like button.	Follow BX on Twitter to get instant hot topic alerts.	Enter your email address below and receive a daily hot topic newsletter.
5,315 fans of BX and 1 new today	4,292 following and 1 new today