Hmmmm.. I get the feeling that article was somewhat ambivalent, dry and unfocused as well as incredibly short for a feature article. I also did not come away from it with really any insights on the multiplayer aspects of play except for the bounty system. I guess that is why the "staff" is credited for writing it.

You guys should have had Charles Onyett to do it because he did the game preview and the single player hands-on stories for IGN and his writing style is informative. Moreover it add high degree of credibility to the story because he would likely be the most knowledgeable about the game at IGN at least from a public perspective. When I see a new name or worse yet no name at all I have to wonder "why is this so?".

Additionally, what is up with most of those comments? Are those guys in the beta if so they should clearly identify themselves as such. As it stands now the posts come across as mindless dribble with no merit and questionable intent to say the least.

Yarlen should open up a big huge can of whoopass!

I concur, that article seemed to wander aimlessly about. I mean, I know the idea is to get across as much about the multiplayer as possible, but it seemed they didn't stay on anything long enough to get any real info across.

im guessing the Ign peeps just snuck onto ICO and had a quick bash.

Publishers can't determine this stuff. 

yea I got that too... I think that they should have done a more indepth review. I get the feeling that they jumped on and played crapy maps.

Yeah I know.

I figured it would have been a comment made in casual discussion with the IGN rep like "Hey thanks for doing the new review. By the way, do you think that guy who did the last few could do this one as well? After all he reflects your image so nicely and it adds to your journalistic integrity"

LOL.