That doesn't make sense though, unless you can mathematically differentiate what makes a .1 difference, otherwise it is an emotional state represented by a number and not a number representing quality.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Angry Joe gets called out by IGNs review editor for misquoting their Titanfall review
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
That doesn't make sense though, unless you can mathematically differentiate what makes a .1 difference, otherwise it is an emotional state represented by a number and not a number representing quality.
Yeah I know its just semantics. I'm just saying if Joe wants to be an awkward sod he could always point out that he did post a review when showing the "believe the hype" quote just not a final review.
Which would just be pointed out as a preview/first impressions because Joe would also be trying to play an argument solely based on semantics. Hopefully he isn't THAT stupid to try and use it.
If this (the 8.9 different of 9) wasn't a poor damage control (And I think the guy was just doing damage control), I hope IGN understand that their scale are completly stupid. Right ?
You can't dealing with number if you don't follow rules of fucking maths. Distance between 8.8 and 8.9 is the same of between 8.9 and 9.0. Period. IGN can take the scale they want, but they can't redefine the meaning of numbers.
If this not how they see their score, so they need to take another mark system, some websites gets stars, some gets graphics, or some get a whole number plus a mention when the game deserve "more than that but not one point more". Dunno what.
This twitter conversation is creepy as hell.
He didnt misquote though, he never said it was in the review, and when he said "believe the hype" right after that he started saying "9/10, 10/10" and ect. He was using the saying to highlight the hype the game got, while also using it as a point of reference to issues ignored or downplayed. There was no misquoting and at WORSE, just made that little quip of theirs look better not worse.
spookyfish
Member
I think we're all missing the bigger picture, here.
IGN was brave enough to not just kowtow to the hype, and just arbitrarily give Titanfall a 9.0. They were strong enough and had enough integrity to score it what they really thought it was: an 8.9.
Thank you, IGN, for holding the line of responsible journalism and totally unambiguous scoring.
IGN was brave enough to not just kowtow to the hype, and just arbitrarily give Titanfall a 9.0. They were strong enough and had enough integrity to score it what they really thought it was: an 8.9.
Thank you, IGN, for holding the line of responsible journalism and totally unambiguous scoring.
A 100-point scale for scoring is patently ridiculous.
Agreed. I was tolerant of people criticizing Joe for portraying a preview as a review even though IGN editor was misrepresenting Joe's accuracy of his criticism.
But to see that the writer who wrote that preview and review publicly beg MS for a job shows how much the guy cares more about pleasing Microsoft than expressing his opinion. He pretty much undermines the defense that previews aren't the same as a reviews when he blatantly tries to curry MS's favor as much as he can.
Forsaken82
Member
not that I am defending him or anything, but if a game gets a 9.9 would you call it a 10? Or is this case different because it isn't .1 away from the highest mark?
Joe quoted that preview piece, talked about 9/10, showed an image of the IGN score then went directly on to say that none of these major outlets were criticising Titanfall's shortcomings, such as the campaign.
Regardless of the preview article being gushy it is separate from the review, the score comment was not directly quoted as IGN but when you're showing their image at the very least you're heavily inferring that's who you are talking about. Finally when you roll straight in to condemning the lack of criticism from the inferred review regarding the campaign, and the review does indeed criticise it, I'd say you have definitely strayed into misrepresenting with no real wriggleroom. Joe definitely got a lot wrong even if you agree with his sentiment behind proceedings.
What's the excuse for name calling too? There isn't one in my eyes.
Exploratory
Banned
Then I guess you haven't seen much Joe. His reviews are far more in depth than IGNs. Not that IGN reviews are bad they just don't get down to the nitty gritty.
On the whole though this conversation if it had to be had shouldn't be done on twitter. It makes everyone look ridiculous. Also Joe as much as I like him and his reviews has gotta be more professional even when he is clearly in the right (especially when he is clearly in the right).
Rickenslacker
Banned
But it wasn't misquoted, that is what the preview says. I think it just highlights how weird it is that it's okay to go ahead with "believe the hype" during pre-release, then post-release having the message change to oh uh forget about what we said about believing the hype.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
Yeah but dropping from 8.9 to 8.8 doesn't change the rating, but changing it from 9.0 to 8.9 changed the rating from "great" to "good".
I don't think review score is math, it is just a label of the reviewer's feeling. Like street address or index.
If their goal of pointing out joes review publicly was to make themselves not look as in the tank, then the way he did it makes sense. I mean just look on GAF how many people side with IGN on this one. Being aggitated over Angry using the "believe the hype" quote that was said over a preview while talking about a review is just stupid and a month later? I'm sorry but there is no way I believe this wasnt calculated.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Hahaha arguing over a decimal point... IGN keeps being a joke. Not that I'm a fan of Angry Joe, he came across as a bit of a dick and the whole thing is completely stupid anyway, but geez, IGN, lol.
But then he'd have to rename himself "Professional Reasonable Joe"...
Broder Salsa
Banned
They both come off as idiots.
But at least I know I can semi enjoy some of Angry Joe's reviews (what a shit name btw, angry joe...), while IGN is just 95% mouth diarrhea.
But at least I know I can semi enjoy some of Angry Joe's reviews (what a shit name btw, angry joe...), while IGN is just 95% mouth diarrhea.
RicoTheMad
Banned
I actually watched the whole review and liked how he went into detail. I haven't watched any other videos, but the Titanfall one actually made me sub to his channel because I appreciate someone who takes the time to detail out what they like or don't like about a game. In fact he gave it glowing praise and some pretty good suggestions on how to improve it. It was a constructive review, rather than destructive, which is often what you see in a lot of review sites.
Overall I give his review a 7e^-356 out of 3/128477 dolphins.
Deified Data
Banned
Just don't misquote articles, seems simple enough. If IGN's 8.9 review wasn't hyperbolic enough for Joe's tastes he should have moved on and found something that was. All arguing about whether a 8.9 is really a 9.0 aside (it isn't), Joe didn't even quote a review, but a preview. It's okay to just admit you're mistaken and move on. It never had to escalate.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
What a lame asshole for arguing .1 of a score. Fucking seriously?
Megatron
Member
Joe doesn't misquote the Preview. His quote is accurate. Dan's upset because the quote comes from the preview and not the final review. While he may be right technically, the preview and review were written by the same person. Dan seems to feel the things they say are somehow not fair game unless they are in the review, like they can say any ridiculous, flowery, hyperbolic statement they want, and not be held accountable because it's just a preview, but they reign that shit in for the review.
akidnamededdy
Banned
You know you're having a shitty day when you get called out on journalistic integrity issues by IGN.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Why do people care about Angry Video Game Guy #573 anyway?
Or IGN, the contrived bacteria of media gaming?
This is like Battle of the Titans, and just the like movie, they're both bloated trash.
Or IGN, the contrived bacteria of media gaming?
This is like Battle of the Titans, and just the like movie, they're both bloated trash.
He makes it seem that all 8-8.9 games are of the same tier and that 8.9 to 9.0 is a significant difference. So then why have decimals?
But he does have a point as to the review/preview cross. Many games preview well then review mixed.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here.
It didn't escalate. It STARTED escalated from the jump when Joe's own review was misrepresented by the IGN editor, claiming MALICIOUS misrepresentation was done by Joe with absolutely no context or proof given.
Claiming malice is involved is orders of magnitude worse than citing a quote from a preview instead of a review during a video.
LostOne428
Banned
Oh, you're right that this is bullshit to the point where we are arguing over this ".1" and it does not help consumers at all when a game comes out with weird scores like 8.75. The review system is broke (IMO) as well. So i take every review as a grain of salt. But when we get down to it we are just arguing over semantics and people's points of view. I don't believe that the there is and objective 10/10 or will there ever be one because IMO everything is is relative when it comes to game reviews.
Stapleton has a valid complaint; though focusing on the 8.9 vs 9.0 was a mistake. He should have focused on the fact that a quote from a preview was misrepresented as a quote from the review. That's some shady shit. Angry Joe is just defending this exactly as should be expected as the loud voice of gaming entitlement that he is.
Riedinizzo
Banned
dat .1
Neuromancer
Member
Dan Stapleton is IGN's Arthur Gies.
Wouldn't be dramatic enough.
Online gaming community loves that drama.
I suppose my view of this situation isn't helped by me not being a fan of either party, though IGN does have decent articles outside their mainstream coverage from time to time. I've almost always viewed Angry Joe precisely as he comes across in this exchange.
Bold - Are you fucking serious? From the IGN article, them mentioning the campaign:
Theres a laudable attempt to infuse a two-sided campaign into the multiplayer through a fixed set and order of nine of the 15 maps, in which NPC faction commanders give context to the goals and game modes of each battleground. Having played through it on both sides, though, I couldnt tell you what its about, other than that the IMC and Militia factions are at war. Trying to stay alive in a brawl with human-controlled bad guys is too distracting, and without controllable lulls in the fighting, most of the story is reduced to background noise.
Oh ya, they definitely complained about that one!
Spring-Loaded
Member
In this is like LJN being indignant iver an AVGN review. The core criticism is sound and even if the tone is abrasive, that's the reviewers' style.
I personally don't like review scores, but if you're going to use them, fine. However, getting at all upset about .1 difference in someone's criticism if said score is objectively stupid. I hope IGN pressured this guy to tweet about it instead if it being a personal choice.
I personally don't like review scores, but if you're going to use them, fine. However, getting at all upset about .1 difference in someone's criticism if said score is objectively stupid. I hope IGN pressured this guy to tweet about it instead if it being a personal choice.
If a site is going to stick with a crazy 100 point scale and want to convey a game is closer to an 8 than a 9... just give it an 8.4.
This guy does not even seem to grasp how his own audience will interpret the score. Joe should have just ignored him.
No, he doesn't. He cannot claim malice without evidence, lest he fall in the EXACT same trap of misrepresenting someone else's review.
He(Joe) didnt do that.
I understand not dwelling on negative aspects of a game during a preview, because it's not final code. The idea of a preview is to give people an idea of what a game is and what its potential is. But IGN seem to just completely lack the restraint required to talk about that potential in realistic terms.
You say that like it's a good thing. Previews and reviews should be on the same level. Why should a game be hyped to Saturn in a preview and then be received mildly in a review? Weren't the problems there in the preview? And even if they weren't, how can you honestly hype so much a game, knowing it's a preview build? Won't you have any caution in dealing with the hopes of your readers? That is unless publishers and developers deliberately try to deceive the press (Aliens).
I honestly dont believe that is why previews exist, atleast anymore(for the most part) they are advertisement press junkets. Not dwelling on negative aspects, sure, but dwelling on the positives dont make anymore sense, unless getting as much info from the preview as possible is not the goal(which clearly is not, imo).
This
Neuromancer
Member
Even if AJ had said 'This quote was from their preview, not their review' I don't see how it would have really changed anything.
Saying the campaign is background noise isn't a complaint?
Deified Data
Banned
Just don't misquote your source, malicious or not. And when you're called on it, apologize and move on. It really is that simple.
I'd say that calling the campaign "background noise" and not being able to tell what the story is actually about, is indeed criticism.
If it isn't, then what is it?
Previews are pretty much worthless advertising with the same 3 screenshots posted across the internet at different outlets. They have to skirt the line with advertisers telling them that they're not allowed to talk about certain things (this has creeped into reviews as of late), and are overall pretty worthless filler for websites.
I agree completely, don't misrepresent your source.
That includes misrepresenting someone's video review by implying malice was involved. It really is that simple.