Actually he didn't.
-
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
Actually he didn't.
Spottiettiedop
Member
So wait, AJ's 7/10 equals a great game? I wonder what an 8/10, 9/10, or 10/10 rated game on his scale is labeled as?
who averages a shitton of viewers (over 1500) for every stream he does and has over 108k followers on twitter. your point?
I'm not even an angry joe fan but seriously wtf?
pretty much this
So, in other words, Kotaku's rating system is much better? Got it.
Brainfreeze
Member
Dan may be overreacting to what's happened, but he still has every right to call Joe out on it. Joe's being an immature child in response, but knowing his content that doesn't surprise me in the least. Dan's in the right here.
By the way Dan first called out Joe back when Joe's review first came out. It just wasn't acknowledged until today, apparently.
By the way Dan first called out Joe back when Joe's review first came out. It just wasn't acknowledged until today, apparently.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Kotaku's review system has its entire own set of problems, like being practically meaningless.
Coolade
Member
Hmm, I guess I just don't consider angry joe a professional, and thus don't hold him to this standard. He's just a guy on youtube having fun and making videos. Or maybe I don't take all of this as seriously as everyone else.
Welcome to IGN, where even the numbers used in our petty twitter sniping are inflated... just like our review scores!
As others have stated quite eloquently what Joe has done wrong, I'll use an example of what's happened.
To the best of my knowledge, Joe did a gushy preview video on why "Aliens Colonial Marines will Rock". Obviously the game did not turn out well, and I'm guessing Joe has said as much elsewhere. Fine. What's happened here is like someone has taken Joe's preview piece and used it as if it's representative of how he feels about the final product, and then gone on to bash him for it in a vitriolic manner regardless.
This is why the IGN guy has taken umbrage.
Titanfall got the hype because it was remarkably fun to play in short bursts, like you know... at a trade show or something?
The real, primary criticism with Titanfall is that it doesn't hold up in the long term, and how would you ever expect anyone to know that before the final review?
Is it so hard to accept that a game can leave a far better first impression than a final one?
Agreed, it's a pointless scale, but it boils down to: "Should you play this?" and gives its reasons, with also the good/bad, etc.
Edit: http://kotaku.com/titanfall-the-kotaku-review-1541484198
The real story here shouldn't be the dispute between AJ and Dan, it should be about the continued hyperbolic free marketing pieces put out by IGN. I had not seen that preview article, but holy hell. I don't think Microsoft could have penned a better preview/advertisement for the title. Don't get me wrong, I've often complained here about the boring, robotic and monotonous tone found in many gaming articles, where the editors try a bit too hard not to come across biased, but wow. That preview is absolutely unbelievable, giving further credence to the decline of any realistic integrity to "games journalism". All of that said, I think both are at fault to an extent regarding the dispute, the difference being one party is a paid professional who could have chose his soapbox and responses much more carefully.
joecanada
Member
yes when things like this happen I always remind myself that despite IGN being this "big gaming outlet" they have regular average people working there like this guy. Terrible decisions from a pr standpoint in this whole dialogue. it comes down to this, who benefits more from a petty argument over trivial details in a gaming review on a public forum like twitter?
A. The guy trying to make a name for himself in the games industry solo, by generally acting out and going on diatribes and rants as his identity (exactly true to character in this twitter exchange).
B. A "professional" gaming journalism website with "professional" writers/reviewers who are an established games site who should generally not even acknowledge the existence of "small fry"
He seems to want himself and his content to be treated seriously, so people will judge him like they would any other outlet.
Uncle Rupee
Banned
Weren't they told during the preview events that there was no single player campaign?
And why is it so hard to believe that they would be given special treatment by members of the press when they were waging war with the almost universally reviled Bobby Kotick?
I can't possibly think of a worse review system than Kotaku's binary bullshit.
But there was Campaign Multiplayer, which ended up a disappointment.
But why would you want them to assume that would be a disappointment, without really seeing it? Nobody really knew what CMP was until the game actually came out.
If CMP was actually good, people may have been far more forgiving of the lack of content. Too bad it wasn't.
SlasherJPC
Banned
Slamming other reviews in your review only undermines your opinion and makes you look like you can't take nor understand someone else's view that didn't match with yours. Its not needed and looks like its only done to cause controversy and drama. Sure its good for views and the numbers game, but just comes off looking petty.
jim2point0
Banned
I was glad that he called out other outlets for hyping the game before it was even out though. It's silly to hype a game so hard, and then expect people to trust your high review score after release.
so you would go on twitter and call out your teacher? ok o_0
CassidyIzABeast
Member
whoops
Or, maybe, our esteemed IGN writer is just highly embarrassed by the PR fluff piece that he was called on. The preview was written by the same person that wrote the review, no? So, unless he someone addressed in the review that something was incorrect in the preview, the "hype" comment still stands.
Everything IGN writes is part of the same ecosystem -- you don't get to take pieces out just to show you should be a respected journalistic site. You don't get to turn off standards and practices -- it must be consistent through every article that is written and published by the site. They deserved to be called out on it. Angry Joe is a blogger ... He can editorialize however he wants - if you don't like it, don't buy into it. But, he's not required to take the same high ground as a professional site who wants the respect of being journalists without any of the restraints necessary for the job.
Wait. What? Why?
I get how you may dislike him on personal level by attacking others but you'll have to explain how his criticisms of other reviews weakens factual statements like various features for a multiplayer only game missing as well as the more subjective stuff like the storyline was dreadful (even if he explained eloquently why the campaign was being harmed)
jakonovski
Member
Is there some "you must be this immature to become a game journalist" scale somewhere? Because this is just too dumb.
Rickenslacker
Banned
"You will buy an Xbox One for Titanfall, and you should. Sure, you'd have a good time with it on PC if you've got a capable rig, but your couch and the Xbox Live community will be the ecosystem it's best enjoyed in."
Eye gee en dot com.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It is. I've already laid out my morality points earlier but this is more damaging to IGN than Joe. I respect him for coming in here and saying his piece.
None of us here are the benchmark on how to behave as we all have our off moments. Joe's ranting and back and forth on twitter is more of a regular thing and if you watch his channel this is almost par for the course although he doesn't really ever have to go on these kinds of rants in his videos.
In the end you have a big company vs 1 guy. It's fun to pick on the little guy but this is all trivial and Joe didn't do anything wrong really. Now we have a big stink over spilled milk.
This is a stupid argument on both sides. On one hand Joe did misrepresent IGN by showing a preview instead of a review. On another hand the dude from IGN was arguing about a .1 difference.
If anything I'd say this is exactly what's wrong with Twitter in relation to the gaming media. Stupid shit like this happens.
If anything I'd say this is exactly what's wrong with Twitter in relation to the gaming media. Stupid shit like this happens.
EL CUCO
Member
Joke post?
I've already explains my reasons in the thread. Doing this within the context of a review is neither the time nor the place. Imagine if every review from every outlet was filled with this.
At best, it's unprofessional. At worst, it's bush league.
As another poster said though, this was some sort of outlier so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Actually the OP admitted a couple of pages back that he omitted the fact Dan started with the name calling before Joe even started responding to his tweets since it was taking up space.
Yay, a sensible post.
GamingIsDead
Member
Watch the video, it isnt the same as the crap titanfall got, by a long shot. That said, Joe's preview piece was him fawning over the game, it wasnt professional...People dont watch Joe for professionalism, they watch him for his video's and more to his reviews(cause they are normally helpful). That said, Joe admitted in his review that he got ahead of himself and too excited about the license and that he needs to realize just because you have the license doesnt mean fans(like himself) should forgive issues with the games. Something that doesn't really happen at the big game sites. Again though, the comparison of hype from his 10 reasons video, compared to the hype Titanfall got isnt very comparable, imo. Joe made a mistake with that video, and then admitted it, so less of a problem there.
Oh, and if someone pointed out Joe's preview as to what NOT to do, that would be perfectly ok, because that person would be right.
DarkJedi24
Member
Unfortunately for Joe, willingly providing misinformation for the benefit of his own review is pretty damning in my book. Passing off a preview quote as one from a review is no better than playing a single round in the game and assigning a review score for the entirety of the game. It's plainly dishonest and doing your followers a disservice. If Joe actually cared about anyone but himself, he would have had the humility to admit he made an error. Instead he chooses to go the Fox News route and make himself look like a fool.
Grimløck;108485979 said:
Agreed. I normally have a soft spot for Joe, in the same vein as a crazy, drunk uncle who makes me laugh... but he came off as a colossal prick in that exchange.
Yeah, Dan is arguing a completely asinine point that certainly merits ridicule, but I expect that from IGN. They haven't been relevant since the Stone Age. No one cares about Dan's opinion. I'm more disappointed that Joe has turned into an arrogant punk. News flash, dude, you're not a professional journalist and should not strut around as if you have street cred.
flatearthpandas
Member
No, missing the point is arguing that because the quote is from a preview and not a review means that IGN did not give the game a high score (specifically an 8.9, as shown in the video). You know, the thing actually being critiqued. The high scores that major review outlets are giving a game that, in his opinion, has glaring problems.
If anyone wanted to ride in on a high horse, the IGN review editor could have said, "Hey, that 'Believe the Hype' quote is actually from our preview and not the review. Our review did mention the glaring problems, which is why we gave it .10 points less than a 9."
And then a reasonable person would have laughed at them for thinking it was worth mentioning, but confirmed that is where the quote came from.
You didn't actually watch it, did you?
Love Deterrence
Member
"Believe the hype" is how the article ended. Fitting!
You're not a dumbass!
(Sorry, just wanted to post for those who were curious!)Uncle Rupee
Banned
Not within the context of gaming journalism as we know it today. Hell, gaming journalists are almost as a bad as U.S. senators (who go on to become lobbyists) - a lot of them are looking to join the very companies they are reviewing products from. If Angry Joe noticed that there seemed to be overly-positive, dick-sucking previews and reviews that glossed over the game's deficiencies, why not call them out?
This just serves as an example of why scalar scores for video games are all but meaningless. If the difference between an 8.9 and a 9.0 is night and day then the scale of their scoring system is far too wide. Worse are sites like Metacritic that treat all of these scores as if they can be weighted to be equal and then come up with a new value to boil a game down to.
If you want to talk about misrepresenting something, single scores for games are the thing to talk about.
If you want to talk about misrepresenting something, single scores for games are the thing to talk about.
figadapaura
Member
That's just embarrassing. No wonder Dan is mad.
DarkJedi24
Member
I watch all of Joe's reviews thank you very much. Normally he does a good job of using relevant information, but this time he's called his own credibility into question. So please don't make assumptions if you don't have facts.
DyslexicAlucard
Member
This thread is pretty embarrassing.
First off, way too many people seem to focus on the 8.9 vs 9 argument. While I side with Joe a bit on this, it's pretty common that there is a difference in perception from an 8.9 to a 9. Some value that difference more than others. Plus, Dan stated in his response that they see teach full integer as a "category." While it's an odd way of doing things, it's within their review scale and, to them, makes a difference.
This is a wash, with me siding slightly with Joe. But, honestly, this is the least-important part of the debate that I think a lot of Joe's fans are just clinging to.
Second, Joe quoted a preview while slamming others' reviews. It's a misrepresentation, whether he meant it or not. And it's not a small point that Stapleton is IGN's Reviews Editor, so of course he'd not want his department to get mixed up with another. He's in charge of reviews, so he wants them to be represented. Would you like to be blamed for someone else's work?
Heck, Dan even said Joe was welcome to criticize their previews; he was just asking that Joe not conflate the two.
Point easily for Dan
Plus, Joe says that reviews didn't mention the poor single player campaign. But he does this after focusing on IGN's preview and review score. IGN did mention the poor single player campaign, and Joe is obviously implying they didn't.
Another point for Dan.
Joe also shouldn't be "correcting" other people's opinions in his own review. A review is for your own opinions. You shouldn't need to crap on others to make your own point. If you want, you can make a different video about it.
Plus, from my own experience and from other reviewers I've heard talk about the issue, it's usually not a good idea to read other reviews before writing your own. It only works to potentially sway your own review one way or another. Plus, I mean, if you're reviewing the game, why do you even need to read another review? You're already playing the game, supposedly.
all in all, I think Joe just comes off as a petulant child who has a very myopic view. He literally cannot even comprehend what Dan was trying to say. Stapleton could have began the discussion in a better way, but Joe's reaction is totally over-the-top.
First off, way too many people seem to focus on the 8.9 vs 9 argument. While I side with Joe a bit on this, it's pretty common that there is a difference in perception from an 8.9 to a 9. Some value that difference more than others. Plus, Dan stated in his response that they see teach full integer as a "category." While it's an odd way of doing things, it's within their review scale and, to them, makes a difference.
This is a wash, with me siding slightly with Joe. But, honestly, this is the least-important part of the debate that I think a lot of Joe's fans are just clinging to.
Second, Joe quoted a preview while slamming others' reviews. It's a misrepresentation, whether he meant it or not. And it's not a small point that Stapleton is IGN's Reviews Editor, so of course he'd not want his department to get mixed up with another. He's in charge of reviews, so he wants them to be represented. Would you like to be blamed for someone else's work?
Heck, Dan even said Joe was welcome to criticize their previews; he was just asking that Joe not conflate the two.
Point easily for Dan
Plus, Joe says that reviews didn't mention the poor single player campaign. But he does this after focusing on IGN's preview and review score. IGN did mention the poor single player campaign, and Joe is obviously implying they didn't.
Another point for Dan.
Joe also shouldn't be "correcting" other people's opinions in his own review. A review is for your own opinions. You shouldn't need to crap on others to make your own point. If you want, you can make a different video about it.
Plus, from my own experience and from other reviewers I've heard talk about the issue, it's usually not a good idea to read other reviews before writing your own. It only works to potentially sway your own review one way or another. Plus, I mean, if you're reviewing the game, why do you even need to read another review? You're already playing the game, supposedly.
all in all, I think Joe just comes off as a petulant child who has a very myopic view. He literally cannot even comprehend what Dan was trying to say. Stapleton could have began the discussion in a better way, but Joe's reaction is totally over-the-top.
What's not to get? Obviously there's a distinction between an 8.9 and 9.0 and their descriptors back that up.