# IGN Going Up For Auction



## Gahars (Oct 17, 2012)

So, IGN. Love it or hate it (most likely hate it), the gaming site has been around for quite some time. From their coverage of news to their reviews, IGN is a powerful, recognizable name in gaming today.

For now, anyway. If the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, IGN may soon be on the auction block.



> ...After a year of fruitless talks with potential bidders, parent company News Corp. is working with investment bank Allen & Co. to auction off the group of entertainment and video game websites.
> 
> News Corp purchased IGN in 2005 for $650 million. Last year, the company also acquired online gaming network UGO and folded its properties (including 1Up.com) into its one-time rival. IGN has also sold a handful of businesses in recent years, including Rotten Tomatoes, Direct2Drive, and GameSpy Technologies. The Wall Street Journal (another News Corp. publication) reports that IGN is expected to sell for about $100 million now.







Games Industry International

Apparently there is some interest from other corporations in the sale, but there's nothing conclusive on that front. News Corp. has so far refused to comment on the speculation, so take that as you will.

Anyway, you might want to break out the handkerchiefs with the auction placards; we may _bid_ IGN a fond farewell soon enough.


----------



## Clarky (Oct 17, 2012)

not that I have really looked at the site in years suprised to see they seem to be falling out of love with the big media


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 17, 2012)

I hope the investor that purchases IGN dismantles the company. It's far past its prime now.


----------



## emigre (Oct 17, 2012)

Costello should buy IGN and make it part his Hong Kong-based GBAtemp empire.


----------



## beta4attack (Oct 17, 2012)

But how can somebody buy IGNorance? XP


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 17, 2012)

beta4attack said:


> But how can somebody buy IGNorance? XP



Simple, fire all the employees and restructure with new staff who actually give a crap and aren't a bunch of casual CoD and Halo loving fanboys who drool over 540p resolution console graphics.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Oct 17, 2012)

I kinda liked IGN actually


----------



## Lanlan (Oct 17, 2012)

I hardly know anything about this kinda stuff, but $100 million seems kinda low


----------



## Gahars (Oct 17, 2012)

Lanlan said:


> I hardly know anything about this kinda stuff, but $100 million seems kinda low



Especially considering it was purchased for $650 million...


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 17, 2012)

.... Auction ignorance? Who would buy that? XD


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 18, 2012)

shakirmoledina said:


> I kinda liked IGN actually



I used to like IGN about 7 or 8 years ago. I have since lost a lot of respect for them and the only thing worth using their site for is previews of games.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

I'd say there net worth is a 2/10. Improving them would be too hard.

GOD HAND NEVER FORGET.


----------



## dgwillia (Oct 18, 2012)

Maybe this will finally be the end of IGN.....couldnt say that I would miss them. They have literally got some of the worst reviewers in the industry (Outside of a few other sites who give bad reviews simply for page views)


----------



## narutofan777 (Oct 18, 2012)

i hope this is bad news for ign.


----------



## Traversal (Oct 18, 2012)

It'll be interesting to see how this goes, and what'll happen afterward. I'd like to see big changes, rather then dismantling, though most likely it'll be neither and things will stay roughly the same anyways.


----------



## InuYasha (Oct 18, 2012)

Waits for some game company to buy it to post fake good scores for their games...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

InuYasha said:


> Waits for some game company to buy it to post fake good scores for their games...



The console makers can already do that. Nintendo had Nintendo Power, Sony has Playstation Magazine or whatever, Microsoft has Xbox Magazine.

Also everyone would find something is rotten in the state of Denmark if any developer/publisher bought them and started pushing high scores for their games.


----------



## InuYasha (Oct 18, 2012)

Other then that theres no real reason to buy the company unless you wanted to destroy it but i'ts pretty much dead already...


----------



## Janthran (Oct 18, 2012)

Maybe someone who buys it will actually be able to make it good.
HAAAAAAAAAAH!


----------



## Geren (Oct 18, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'd say there net worth is a 2/10. Improving them would be too hard.
> 
> GOD HAND NEVER FORGET.



You casual.






Babyz on the other hand, is for the hardcore player.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

Why does everyone hate IGN? I mean, I don't follow or read them that much, but from what I've seen, they're just another entertainment site, and complaints about their video game reviews seem to boil down to "oh, they gave X good game a bad score," or "oh, they're just a bunch of fanboys of Y."


----------



## Minox (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Why does everyone hate IGN? I mean, I don't follow or read them that much, but from what I've seen, they're just another entertainment site, and complaints about their video game reviews seem to boil down to "oh, they gave X good game a bad score," or "oh, they're just a bunch of fanboys of Y."


From what I gather their reviews seems to have been and might still be heavily influenced by how much sponsoring they get in return for their review. That isn't a very good preset for a fair and honest review.


----------



## notmeanymore (Oct 18, 2012)

emigre said:


> Costello should buy IGN and make it part his Hong Kong-based GBAtemp empire.


I bet if we all helped out with funding, he could do it.


----------



## [M]artin (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Why does everyone hate IGN? I mean, I don't follow or read them that much, but from what I've seen, they're just another entertainment site, and complaints about their video game reviews seem to boil down to "oh, they gave X good game a bad score," or "oh, they're just a bunch of fanboys of Y."


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

Minox said:


> From what I gather their reviews seems to have been and might still be heavily influenced by how much sponsoring they get in return for their review. That isn't a very good preset for a fair and honest review.


People continue to claim that, and yet there doesn't seem to be much proof.



[M]artin said:


> *snip*


One pair or reviews doth not an argument prove. Have you personally played both these games? Do you know multiple people who have played both and think differently?


----------



## ody81 (Oct 18, 2012)

I love IGN oersonally, found out Jaz Rignall from Zzap64 started a website took a look and got hooked listening to Greg & Hilary on Gamescoop way back. Too bad the podcast's are slipping a bit in quality/quantity but that might come down to Greg's cancer treatments.

Not too sure about all the haters, I never have an issue with any review score (anywhere), it's just a suggestion - nobody's forcing me to buy a game or stopping me from reading a different review.

And God Hand wasn't bad for the first 20 minutes, but it's far from good after that, I'd say it earned that 3.0.

Scoop!!!


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 18, 2012)

dgwillia said:


> Maybe this will finally be the end of IGN.....couldnt say that I would miss them. They have literally got some of the worst reviewers in the industry (Outside of a few other sites who give bad reviews simply for page views)



Gamespot by and large has become a colossal joke as well.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Minox said:
> 
> 
> > From what I gather their reviews seems to have been and might still be heavily influenced by how much sponsoring they get in return for their review. That isn't a very good preset for a fair and honest review.
> ...


I agree since from the times I'm on there it doesn't feel all that biased but I do feel they are biased in their reviews of RPGs since somehow they usually come off as worse and more boring than yet another FPS which bothers me.


----------



## RikuCrafter (Oct 18, 2012)

We should all chip in $20 each and buy the site, then use the popularity of the name to transform it into something worth reading.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

RikuCrafter said:


> We should all chip in $20 each and buy the site, then use the popularity of the name to transform it into something worth reading.


People actually read stuff on IGN?

I judge based on gameplay videos I watch on Youtube.


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 18, 2012)

No doubt, it will be bought by either Sony or Microsoft.


----------



## Lanlan (Oct 18, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Lanlan said:
> 
> 
> > I hardly know anything about this kinda stuff, but $100 million seems kinda low
> ...


I heard on a recent TotalBiscuit video that when a company is sold, the buyer also takes on all the debts, so IGN could be in some crazy debt, and they sold so low just to get rid of the debt.


----------



## Prior22 (Oct 18, 2012)

So with all this IGN bashing over possible conflicts of interest whats a good site to go to for reviews?


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

Prior22 said:


> So with all this IGN bashing over possible conflicts of interest whats a good site to go to for reviews?


None. I find watching gameplay videos of the game you want to be the best option since it lets you judge if you want it or not. Reviews are biased since everyone is biased so why not just see for yourself.


----------



## Hadrian (Oct 18, 2012)

Prior22 said:


> So with all this IGN bashing over possible conflicts of interest whats a good site to go to for reviews?


I find Edge to be the least biased, they're a little more stricter on games than others but the reviews are well written, they state what version is reviewed rather than doing one for all formats (terrible way to do things especially as some PC to console ports are bad and vice versa) and the reviews are detailed enough.

People give them a bad rap because they rate some popular games lower than others but I trust their integrity and their site isn't full of ads.

Personally though I prefer to look at metacritic to get a general gist and if something is well liked and I like the look of it in trailers then I'll grab a game.


----------



## Satangel (Oct 18, 2012)

shakirmoledina said:


> I kinda liked IGN actually


Same here. I like their complete entertainment business, if it was a series, a movie or a game, they had it and a pretty good review too. I liked reading season reviews of TV series and all, mostly in school.


Just Another Gamer said:


> RikuCrafter said:
> 
> 
> > We should all chip in $20 each and buy the site, then use the popularity of the name to transform it into something worth reading.
> ...


I read it a lot, but I didn't base my entire opinion of something based on their review. I just liked that they had loads of content on specific games, like for AC3, they already have around 20 pages of writing, while the game isn't even out. That's something that's very handy IMHO, especially to read in class or so.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

Satangel said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > RikuCrafter said:
> ...


Well it's good you don't base your opinions on their reviews but my problem with IGN is their bias in their reviews.


----------



## chartube12 (Oct 18, 2012)

I used to love 1up.com. Then IGN bought it to kill it's better video guides and text guides last year. Now its reviews have been poisoned with misinformation.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> I used to love 1up.com. Then IGN bought it to kill it's better video guides and text guides last year. Now its reviews have been poisoned with misinformation.


I find this happens to a lot of review sites.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> None. I find watching gameplay videos of the game you want to be the best option since it lets you judge if you want it or not. Reviews are biased since everyone is biased so why not just see for yourself.


this is precisely what I do. I still check out a review or two just to see what people thought (gameplay videos can't tell you whether the game has good or clunky controls, for example), but I still use gameplay videos as my main source. That's what convinced me to get Cave Story on the 3DS eShop, for example, not the insanely good reviews it got everywhere or even the freeware version (which I didn't even bother trying before buying).

I also watch reviews from "independent" guys on Youtube. Since they're either unaffiliated with companies, or else more affiliated with smaller ones (id est, GameXplain, ReviewTechUSA), it seems to truly boil down to their opinion more often.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > None. I find watching gameplay videos of the game you want to be the best option since it lets you judge if you want it or not. Reviews are biased since everyone is biased so why not just see for yourself.
> ...


I sometimes watch independent reviews and I know that gameplay videos are usually not enough but it was a suggestion for those who want to see if a game is good or not. I get your point about the controls since its hard to tell if its good or not with a gameplay vid but that bit is usually the only bit of a review I read or I just ignore it and try for myself since someone might say its shit but it turns out to be alright for you.

Game reviewers really need to stop being biased towards X genre and then compare every other genre and game to it and saying its not that great or it could be better and actually play the game and review it for the game it is and not what it can be compared to, the exception is if its part of a series or sequel.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Oct 18, 2012)

I hate IGN reviews so much. But it's still sad to see a site shut down that has been around for so long. Assuming this is true of course.


----------



## MADKATZ99 (Oct 18, 2012)

Won't it still be there, just owned by someone else?

I usually really like IGN's reviews.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> I sometimes watch independent reviews and I know that gameplay videos are usually not enough but it was a suggestion for those who want to see if a game is good or not. I get your point about the controls since its hard to tell if its good or not with a gameplay vid but that bit is usually the only bit of a review I read or I just ignore it and try for myself since someone might say its shit but it turns out to be alright for you. Game reviewers really need to stop being biased towards X genre and then compare every other genre and game to it and saying its not that great or it could be better and actually play the game and review it for the game it is and not what it can be compared to, the exception is if its part of a series or sequel.


Personally, I think bias is unavoidable. Everyone has it, everyone has that one genre they really like or that one genre they really dislike. At least with a lot of independent reviewers, they'll be honest and say "I generally don't like RPGs, so I might be biased," or something to that effect because they don't have to worry about getting in trouble from a larger parent company which would rather they just pretend they're not biased. You know?


----------



## WiiUBricker (Oct 18, 2012)

I dunno. I'm not hatin' IGN. I use IGN for figuring out if some old games are worth it to play. Gamespot is much worse.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > I sometimes watch independent reviews and I know that gameplay videos are usually not enough but it was a suggestion for those who want to see if a game is good or not. I get your point about the controls since its hard to tell if its good or not with a gameplay vid but that bit is usually the only bit of a review I read or I just ignore it and try for myself since someone might say its shit but it turns out to be alright for you. Game reviewers really need to stop being biased towards X genre and then compare every other genre and game to it and saying its not that great or it could be better and actually play the game and review it for the game it is and not what it can be compared to, the exception is if its part of a series or sequel.
> ...


I know since everyone is biased but if you're not an independent reviewer then you need to put that bias aside and do a professional review not just put in a few pages just summing up that "this isn't latest shoot em up where you mindlessly shoot shit that I love so ima give this JRPG a low score since I can't follow the story and its gameplay doesn't involve smashing things" which I see happens a lot in these professional reviews even on telly. I mean there's a TV show here that criticized a game just because it only provided the original Japanese voices and they had to read subtitles, I mean WTF that's just stupid and I wanted to scream review the bloody gameplay and criticize that.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> I know since everyone is biased but if you're not an independent reviewer then you need to put that bias aside and do a professional review not just put in a few pages just summing up that "this isn't latest shoot em up where you mindlessly shoot shit that I love so ima give this JRPG a low score since I can't follow the story and its gameplay doesn't involve smashing things" which I see happens a lot in these professional reviews even on telly. I mean there's a TV show here that criticized a game just because it only provided the original Japanese voices and they had to read subtitles, I mean WTF that's just stupid and I wanted to scream review the bloody gameplay and criticize that.



Um, a game SHOULD be criticized for not having a localized language. It's lazy localization on the developer's part. Keeping a Japanese voice option is fine, actually praise worthy, but including the language of the region the game is being released in should be a must. It reflects a severe lack of a quality localization if it doesn't.

Also I have never seen people go "This isn't CoD so 2/10" in reviews. Also I do find it rather hilarious that, in general, those who prefer Japanese gaming seem to categorize western gamers and reviewers as barbaric. Just from your example, if it doesn't involve "mindlessly shoot[ing] shit" or "smashing things", then it doesn't suit the western gamer. I for one find that rather offensive and incredibly immature. I'm a western-leaning gamer and I enjoy deep storylines and in-depth gameplay mechanics.

So your whole rant on bias in game journalism fell, for me at least, laughably flat on its face when there is a clear and obvious bias against western gamers as a whole.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Oct 18, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > I know since everyone is biased but if you're not an independent reviewer then you need to put that bias aside and do a professional review not just put in a few pages just summing up that "this isn't latest shoot em up where you mindlessly shoot shit that I love so ima give this JRPG a low score since I can't follow the story and its gameplay doesn't involve smashing things" which I see happens a lot in these professional reviews even on telly. I mean there's a TV show here that criticized a game just because it only provided the original Japanese voices and they had to read subtitles, I mean WTF that's just stupid and I wanted to scream review the bloody gameplay and criticize that.
> ...


On what grounds? None a localized voice track is purely up to the company and if they don't want to have a localized track then its up to them. That in itself doesn't make the game any better/worse just because it lacks that authentic american touch and neither does it detract from the gameplay since the voices only play during cutscenes which can be skipped.

I said earlier that everyone has their own bias but western game reviewers are horrible when it comes to reviewing Japanese games properly without comparing it to yet another western game and criticizing it for not being more western and have you even seen the majority of western gamers? they bash anything that isn't another CoD or shooter, just go into your local game store and that'll easily prove my point because I did and the only thing that happened was a debate started on which is better. You say you enjoy games with deep storyline and in-depth gameplay but a game from anywhere can have that which isn't exclusive to Japan.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> On what grounds? None a localized voice track is purely up to the company and if they don't want to have a localized track then its up to them. That in itself doesn't make the game any better/worse just because it lacks that authentic american touch and neither does it detract from the gameplay since the voices only play during cutscenes which can be skipped.
> 
> I said earlier that everyone has their own bias but western game reviewers are horrible when it comes to reviewing Japanese games properly without comparing it to yet another western game and criticizing it for not being more western and have you even seen the majority of western gamers? they bash anything that isn't another CoD or shooter, just go into your local game store and that'll easily prove my point because I did and the only thing that happened was a debate started on which is better. You say you enjoy games with deep storyline and in-depth gameplay but a game from anywhere can have that which isn't exclusive to Japan.



On the grounds that this is the point of a localization. Your job in localizing a game is to make it as accessible as possible to the market. That means translating it, buffing out inconsistencies, censoring it if needs be, and providing voice overs of that language. Not everyone wants to hear moonspeak, its their job to add language of that region. Japanese language isn't discouraged but it should be an option, not mandatory, for a LOCALIZED game.

Also it does make a game worse. An adage in film is that a movie is 60% sound. While the ratios are most likely different for video games, the concept holds true. Its indicative of a lazy job on localizing the game. When you get lousy voice acting in a game, it affects it A LOT. Look at Final Fantasy X. Admittedly the story would be shit either way but it would have been much more bearable if it was a bad story with good voice acting. Audio is just as important to a game as anything else.

Japanese reviewers are hardly spectacular in reviewing their own games. Look at Famitsu. It's hardly a review publication as much as it is a fan fodder machine. I think its even been said that they don't write reviews to be critical but to show what readers want. Readers want to see that a new Final Fantasy game is good so they review it well. Famitsu very rarely gets controversy over "bad reviews". They mostly get flak for giving good reviews to games that aren't that good but something that's obviously popular in Japan.

It's an absolutely offensive stereotype to say that western reviewers "bash anything that isn't CoD or shooter" when the WRPG market is enormous. Games that aren't CoD gain much higher reviews than CoD. You're building a straw man that's so cheaply built that it just uses plastic bendy straws instead of actual straw. If you actually look at real review sites you'll see that CoD and shooters alike aren't what gain the highest scores around. Last year it wasn't MW3 that was snatching GotY awards or the highest metascores. It was Portal 2 (which many people consider the greatest game ever at this point), Arkham City, Skyrim, games that are so far from CoD that the only thing they share is western development.

As I said before, your strawman is cheap.

EDIT: IN FACT...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: 39/40 by Famitsu = 97.5%. Metascore: 91% average (between Xbox 360 and PS3 versions combined)
Call of Duty: Black Ops: 39/40 by Famitsu = 97.5%. Metascore: 87.5% average (between Xbox 360 and PS3)
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3: 39/40 by Famitsu = 97.5%. Metascore: 88% (between Xbox 360 and PS3)
EDIT 2: Metascores from Metacritic are only comprised of "western" (non-Japanese) publications.


----------



## emigre (Oct 18, 2012)

Damn, Guild is in super angry augmentative shit mode.


----------



## ichidansan (Oct 18, 2012)

if it does go up for auction, whoever does buy it should keep what core things they can.(as few as they are) and then make a decent amount of changes to get a more likable view of IGN. it's not a horrible site, just not one I, and many I know have on the list to view frequently. so whatever does happen, I hope it's for the better.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

emigre said:


> Damn, Guild is in super angry augmentative shit mode.



Or is that Just Another Gamer is in super inconsistent and incorrect mode today?

I just find that point that western gamers are essentially being called savages who can't appreciate anything that isn't shooting and smashing things is a thoroughly offensive thing to say, especially when it's wildly inaccurate.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

[member=Guild McCommunist] I agree with your bit about voice acting. Whenever a game is localized without voice acting in that country's language and resort to subtitles instead, there's no possible way that can NOT be seen as negative. It would be no different than if a game was localized with untranslated subtitles, but voice overs to read to text in your language. It doesn't make any sense.

[member=Just Another Gamer] I do think you're being a bit hard on western gamers. Perhaps if you actually were IN the west, you would see just how untrue your claim is. Sure, there's shooter fanboys who can't appreciate anything else here and there, but there are just as many RPG weeaboos who can't appreciate anything else either. Just saying.

[member=emigre] I take your post seriously. Does that burn?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> [member=Guild McCommunist] I agree with your bit about voice acting. Whenever a game is localized without voice acting in that country's language and resort to subtitles instead, there's no possible way that can NOT be seen as negative. It would be no different than if a game was localized with untranslated subtitles, but voice overs to read to text in your language. It doesn't make any sense.
> 
> [member=Just Another Gamer] I do think you're being a bit hard on western gamers. Perhaps if you actually were IN the west, you would see just how untrue your claim is. Sure, there's shooter fanboys who can't appreciate anything else here and there, but there are just as many RPG weeaboos who can't appreciate anything else either. Just saying.
> 
> [member=emigre] I take your post seriously. Does that burn?



Almost anything that isn't Asia is considered "western". So Australia is basically "western" in a demographic sense but not a geographic sense.


----------



## emigre (Oct 18, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> [member=emigre] I take your post seriously. Does that burn?



Possibly. Or it doesn't. That's for you to decide. Actually it isn't but I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 18, 2012)

For as much hate as IGN garners, I will be sad to see them go. 

Now lets let McGuildy and JAG get back to fighting.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 18, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Almost anything that isn't Asia is considered "western". So Australia is basically "western" in a demographic sense but not a geographic sense.


Hm. The way he's talking though, it sounds like he's not referring to Australia.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Oct 19, 2012)

I remember going to IGN more frequently years ago when I would look for occasional hints for the GBA or DS games I had. I quite liked the various banners that would resemble the console of the section you were in.



Guild McCommunist said:


> I'd say *there* net worth is a 2/10. Improving them would be too hard.


Please tell me you didn't do this.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 19, 2012)

ProtoKun7 said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say *there* net worth is a 2/10. Improving them would be too hard.
> ...



Hey, it's an easy mistake to make. They're's nothing wrong about it at all!


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 19, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Hey, its an easy mistake to make. They're's nothing wrong about it at all!


Unfix'd.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 14, 2012)

IGN is incredibly biased, especially when it came to reviewing Wii games.  Take for instance The Last Story; granted, it's not the best RPG out there, but it's far from being a horrible game, and yet the person who reviewed it was a moron.  If you look at the categories here http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/02/23/the-last-story-review (under Graphics) "For the Wii, it’s super, but obviously it doesn't compare that favourably to its peers on other platforms."  So, comparing a non-HD console to other HD consoles would be a fair and unbiased review?  You can't compare an exclusive game against other consoles that have more powerful hardware.  If you're going to compare the game, compare it to other Wii games and only those games.  Comparing a Wii game to an Xbox 360 game is like comparing a K-car against Bugatti Veyron, it's an unfair, biased comparison. I hope that reviewer got fired. 

IGN is biased against Nintendo for not being HD, or for other unjustifiable reasons, but then again, you can't spell ignorant without "IGN".


----------

