The IGN review...



It's terrible. It seems as though the reviewer only played the game for an hour. It's very telling that he gave it a 4.9 but the IGN reader review average of Arena is a 7.1. Granted I lost all faith in IGN back in 2000 when they downgraded Rowan's Battle of Britain just because it made you feel like one little pilot in a big war and you couldn't personally change the outcome (which I consider a -good- thing)... but still, I find their review of Arena particularly stupid.


212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I just don't get how supposedly "professional" reviewers can get away with half heartedly playing a game for 10 minutes and then posting a bunch of made up crap and passing it off as a review.

"Professional" review sites are little more than Livejournal or Blogger users now. The sweeping majority of these sites are written with the same snide, self-affirming hand as all those assignments rejected middle school newspaper reviews.

These sites reek so badly, I wouldn't line a bird cage with them.


Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
I was in the Boneyard last night with some random people, and one of them asked everyone: "Hey, did you see that IGN review for Arena?" And the room exploded! Everyone was angry at how stupidly it was written and how unjust the score was.