Support NeoGAF

[DarkLordMalik]

"Twitter"

Creating the best gaming related news and debacles since inception.

 

[Odrion]

Thanks for the clarification Joe, you definitely are a cool passionate dude.

 

[SlasherJPC]

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?

That's fine. Do it in different video then. There is no need to have it in your actual review. I don't read nor watch reviews for drama or personal vendettas. I just want to see said persons take on a game nothing more. There is a time and place for calling people out but reviews are not it. If you think this is right, then your basically encouraging all reviews to bring up others reviews and where exactly is that going to get us? It's just a waste of viewers time.

 

[atr0cious]

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.

Dan and you are misunderstanding Joe. Joe is liked for his tendency to call shit on the corporate masters. His grading scale is about whether or not a consumer should waste their money on a game. That whole segment is talking about the hyperbolic nature of "game journalists" sweeping major issues under the rug to appease corporate relationships, which screws us out of our money.

When someone is trying to argue the difference down to a decimal with subjective views regardless of objective issues, there is a problem. Why did the game not get a 9? What objective measure can you use to take off .1?

IGN must think they're figure skating judges. But at least then they'd have an actual score break down other than 9+ = Amazing.

 

[DocSeuss]

Dan and you are misunderstanding Joe. Joe is liked for his tendency to call shit on the corporate masters.

Exactly! Joe's just bashing IGN, without cause, because that's what gets him the hits.

Spoiler

There's a tongue partially in cheek here.

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.

The professionals I've learned from would crucify Joe for this. It does not matter whether or not Joe's point is ultimately right, what matters is that he made a point and used false information to prove it, using an outrageous quote and linking it to someone who didn't say it. That is not cool, ever. If it's someone quoting Stalin saying "Communism is so great," when the person who actually said it was Marx, it's still very wrong.

Being unwilling to correct one's self after someone responds to that, no matter what tone they use, is even worse.

There's literally no way Joe isn't the bad guy here. Dan's offended, Joe did the offending, then got offended back.

 

[Zombie James]

Fuck off, IGN.

 

[Parakeetman]

Is basically how I see this whole thing. Regardless of that Id much rather listen to what Joe has to say vs. most things IGN does. And this isnt some sudden decision either. Its just have not been impressed with IGN at all for some time now and it sure does not look like it seems that will change any time soon.

Amusing thread though.

 

[wildfire]

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.

But the value of the review is getting information about what is in the game. Being personally offended has nothing to do with the product. I get the point it's not something you don't want to see but after watching the "Daily Show" or "Colbert Report" regularly outlets deserve being skewered for false reporting because it shines a light on other outlets are failing to serve my interests or are harming others I have to talk to on a daily basis.

With that in mind it would be fair to say that if Joe wants to go that route he has to be on point with his critiques.

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.

Checking twitter, you are right. He did bring up his objections back then. Fair enough to say that this didn't just come from no where.

 

[paolo11]

That's fine. Do it in different video then. There is no need to have it in your actual review. I don't read nor watch reviews for drama or personal vendettas. I just want to see said persons take on a game nothing more. There is a time and place for calling people out but reviews are not it. If you think this is right, then your basically encouraging all reviews to bring up others reviews and where exactly is that going to get us? It's just a waste of viewers time.

Doesn't Angry Joe sometimes call out reviewers on his review vids (Like the Sonic Kinect game)?

 

[atr0cious]

Exactly! Joe's just bashing IGN, without cause, because that's what gets him the hits.

Their hyperbolic quotes based on a preview build is cause enough. Most people have already bought the game before the reviews even come out, especially the casuals. They probably only watch the commercials. Joe isn't just "fighting" for us, the informed, he's fighting for the uninformed, the moms and grandparents who were told what their kids wanted, and now will have to hear their child returned the game cause it "wasn't fun enough."

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

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.

If I had to guess, I'd say I disagree with approximately 89% of what you've stated here.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

I didn't think it was possible for Joe to be more obnoxious...

 

[DyslexicAlucard]

I've I had to guess, I'd say I disagree with approximately 89% of what you've stated here.

...okay? Care to elaborate?

 

[wildfire]

Unfortunately for Microsoft/EA/Respawn, willingly providing misinformation for the benefit of their own sales 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 IGN actually cared about anyone but themselves, they would have had the humility to point out Microsoft's/EA's/Respawn's error. Instead they choose to go the Fox News route and act like foot soldiers for their marketing campaign.

FTFY


Believe the Hype (From 75+ reviewsawards.)

 

[Rickenslacker]

The professionals I've learned from would crucify Joe for this. It does not matter whether or not Joe's point is ultimately right, what matters is that he made a point and used false information to prove it, using an outrageous quote and linking it to someone who didn't say it. That is not cool, ever. If it's someone quoting Stalin saying "Communism is so great," when the person who actually said it was Marx, it's still very wrong.

The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.

 

[KaiserBecks]

This is way more embarrassing for IGN...Joe's just a single dude letting emotion get the best of him, but Dan is representing IGN and trying to argue 0.1 is a big difference.

Right, he's actually called "Emotional Joe" and not known for screaming at the camera in his living room. While I think the IGN guy is blowing this thing a bit out of proportion, Angry Joe's type of "journalism" is part of the problem here.
He must be very naive if he doesn't notice what's wrong with his review. Then again, if I was Dan Stapleton, I wouldn't bother. Arguing with Joe seems to be a waste of time.

 

[unbias]

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.

Bold - He probably used it to help highlight his point that there was too much hype for the game and people over looked things. As for mentioning the campagin...sure he mentions it, oh so helpful explanation though, because forgettable is clearly what describes Titanfalls campaign(near non existent would be a better description). Also, just didnt just say not mentioning it, he also said focusing on, which the IGN review certainly did not do, by any rational standard, imo.

Joes reaction was over the top and made him look foolish, but Dan didnt look any better. Dan didnt want his review he was in charge of look worse? Fine, if you are the review editor and you dont want these issues, dont have the guy who made it fucking embarrassing with previews do the review. It just shouldn't be done if you are going to complain about this.

Also, joe probably does understand but he was mad and not exactly the most professional person out there.

 

[meanspartan]

While Joe was wrong to surrender the high ground by starting with the namecalling, fuck the whole "that was a PREVIEW!!!!!" argument.

Yes, previews are different than reviews. But let's be honest, when previews are starting to feel so hyperbolic that they may as well be ads, you can't just take that same outlet's actual review as if it is in a vacuum.

IGN with Titanfall (like their gross week of GTA V "Coverage" before it) was essentially acting as an advertising firm for Respawn. Just read that preview excerpt- do you SERIOUSLY think it reads like just an unbiased and fair preview? They even throw in words like "guarantee" and "believe the hype" and "next great evolution".

And then Stapleton comes in and gets hung up on the fact that Joe mixed up a preview that read like an over the top review with their actual review? Please!

This is the biggest issue with the exchange, not the .1 thing.

 

[Kikujiro]

Exactly! Joe's just bashing IGN, without cause, because that's what gets him the hits.

Spoiler

There's a tongue partially in cheek here.

Coming from you it's really funny. Your facts are completely wrong and biased and you think you are smart, it's useless to even argue with you when you are literally making up how the story went and what Joe said in his video review.

 

[GDJustin]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe the word used to be smaller, underneath the number. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

 

[unbias]

Right, he's actually called "Emotional Joe" and not known for screaming at the camera in his living room. While I think the IGN guy is blowing this thing a bit out of proportion, Angry Joe's type of "journalism" is part of the problem here.
He must be very naive if he doesn't notice what's wrong with his review. Then again, if I was Dan Stapleton, I wouldn't bother. Arguing with Joe seems to be a waste of time.

Angryjoe isnt a fucking journalist, game critics are not journalists FFS. And he is less of a problem then major gaming websites, imo, by a long shot. The gaming press is a media blitz for the publishers and that is about it. We have seen plenty of games review high, but still sell like crap, so clearly they dont generate purchases based on review scores...hmm then maybe it is just getting that information out there that publishers truly care about, while tying bonuses to scores so they can wiggle out of them easy enough if they have to.

 

[Deadstar]

Whether IGN thinks it or not, 8.9 and 9.0 are the same score in my mind.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Isn't IGN about a decade too late to start worrying about their rep?

 

[mreddie]

To sum up the topic in one gif.

 

[MechaX]

Stapleton could have began the discussion in a better way, but Joe's reaction is totally over-the-top.

While the rest of your assessment is sound, you kind of massively understate one of the issues with this entire discussion.

Think of it this way: Stapleton was in a position where he could have his voice heard if he were to go the twitter route. Sure, Joe was talking about something else entirely, but in Stapleton's defense, he did try to bring up the misquotation issue in the Titanfall fervor. And the first thing he alleges is that Joe was maliciously misquoting folks. Now I know Joe has said many times that he's not a "journalist." But he's only not a journalist in the official sense; he still performs the basic duties of a video game journalist for that their worth. Joe still conducts interviews, he still gathers information, and he is, or at least should, be held accountable for the information he publishes.

When you say that someone in a journalist function maliciously misquotes like that, without even providing any context as to what is going on, that's pretty much dooming any discussion from the get-go. You're calling him out, whether true or not, on something that is at the core of his duties. It's like saying that a doctor kills everyone he touches, that an accountant cooks books, or that a lawyer always tries to get phony judgments and verdicts. When someone brings accusations relating to their job or duties like that, even in some semblance of context, they're most likely going to react pretty strongly to it. Joe reacted to it poorly, don't get me wrong even for a second. But in that circumstance, I'm not even surprised the discussion went to the shitter so quickly.

 

[see5harp]

Right, he's actually called "Emotional Joe" and not known for screaming at the camera in his living room. While I think the IGN guy is blowing this thing a bit out of proportion, Angry Joe's type of "journalism" is part of the problem here.
He must be very naive if he doesn't notice what's wrong with his review. Then again, if I was Dan Stapleton, I wouldn't bother. Arguing with Joe seems to be a waste of time.

Joe can get a little carried away at times but Stapleton responding with his "look at my employer's giant penis" tweet is like the ultimate in child tactics.

 

[Jedi2016]

He must be very naive if he doesn't notice what's wrong with his review.

I'm sure Joe is well aware of the issue, he just doesn't think it's nearly as big a deal as what's-his-fuck from IGN thinks it is (who's name I can't even be bothered to learn). Joe's main problem in this exchange was actually bothering to argue the point in the first place. He'd have been better off just making one statement about the video and his intention, and then blowing off every other line of bullshit the other guy said.

 

[unbias]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe it used to be smaller, underneath the word. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

That literally doesnt make sense though; .1 isn't details, details are details. That .1 without any mathematical system behind it is an emotional bullet point for the reviewer over anything helpful to a consumer.

 

[antitrop]

Isn't IGN about a decade too late to start worrying about their rep?

Has it been that long since the Jade Empire 9.9, already?

 

[SimpleGamer]

IGN earned this reputation.

Arguing over 0.1 is insane.

This. Dan is so oblivious to the fact that he's making himself seem like such an idiot.

 

[UnrealEck]

All I care about is the reference to 'comfy couch' when he talks about the Xbox version after mentioning the PC version.
I've seen IGN say stupid shit in reviews a few times. If I remember right, Dark Souls 2's reviewer said the game runs consistantly smooth at 30 FPS.

 

[figadapaura]

Why ? it's from IGN themself o_o
Look at the first page.

Exactly! He should be mad that shit is on a website he works for.

 

[HoodWinked]

i wish they would just both go away such shitty content from both of them.

 

[NoirVisage]

I have no respect for a man that comes sideways at another man in public over an apparent beef, there were avenues he could have taken, but no, he had to go the catty route..IGN should be better than that, but its not.

 

[Deadstar]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe it used to be smaller, underneath the word. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

If no one knows what the numbers mean except for IGN why use them? They serve no purpose. I don't need to know if a game is a little awesome or extremely awesome. I can use my brain after reading the review to decide for myself.

 

[wildfire]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe it used to be smaller, underneath the word. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

Eh if you guys somehow managed to be consistent on this more power to you. When I was younger I used to believe you guys could maintain this level of integrity but you failed back then and I have no interest in seeing if you corrected yourself years later.

Maybe you should go back to the listeners you still manage to have now and ask them if they don't see any inconsistencies in your decimal system. If your most ardent followers still do then please understand why everyone else at this point looks at an 8.9 and sees a 9.

Would you buy something for 3.99 and say it cost about $3 or $4 to anyone who asks?

 

[atr0cious]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe the word used to be smaller, underneath the number. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

Please propose a new system, because while that makes sense in a vacuum, you are using subjective terms to place an objective value on it. What is the technical separation point between "great" and "amazing?" Can you explain that to me to the tenth degree?

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Yes. He literally did what they taught us in J-school not to do. By posting the IGN review, he's conflating it improperly. It's a kind of tactic guys like Fox News use. Talk about something objectionable, and post a picture of something not related so you can encourage the audience to draw connections. It's a huge problem in journalism, and an immediate flat that the person in question is full of crap.

Do I think Dan handled it well? NOPE. But I can at least understand why he's upset. His work is being called into question, and Joe's spreading misinformation about it.

Joe, on the flip side, had literally no reason to do what he did other than just capitalize on generic hate for IGN. One's performing scummy journalism, the other's upset about that. Dan absolutely should have reached out and said "hey, Joe, I have a problem with this."

I consider someone who's sloppy and too arrogant to apologize for his sloppiness way worse than someone who's been offended when their work's been called into question.

Being offended by one's work being questioned doesn't warrant public childish whining. It's not even a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Voicing the "this is overrated" sentiment is pretty pointless, but if someone illustrates why they believe that, it's not

Dan didn't start out by saying "our review mentioned the things you said weren't mentioned in other sites' reviews." He split hairs, building his argument on "8.9 is different from 9.0" and "that hyperbolic statement was made in a preview, not a review." It's fitting that you mention Fox News's tactics because that's something they'd do: argue semantics and split hairs in an attempt to ignore a point that's being made. It's ridiculous to think that 8.9 is different enough from a 9.0 in this context to invalidate the "overrated" point and the distinction between hyperbolic statements made in previews and reviews (written by the same person, no less) is negligible when it comes to how the game is being presented to the public.

Even though saying "why is this getting so many high scores?" isn't worth the time it takes to say/write such a question, that, on its own, is pretty innocuous. Numbererd scores are a matter of opinion (and a waste of time, but even so) and if someone says they think others' scores are too high/low, that's just another opinion. What Dan should've had a problem with was that Joe suggests they didn't mention the campaign issues in the game, which they do (albeit briefly).

Using the 8.9/9.0 and review/preview distinction as a jumping off point for calling out that line in the Angry Joe review shows that Dan's indignation was a kneejerk reaction and he used the first shoddy justifications he could come up with. That his reaction was for childish, personal reasons is supported by his tone and name-calling that would soon follow.

 

[LX_Theo]

That literally doesnt make sense though; .1 isn't details, details are details. That .1 without any mathematical system behind it is an emotional bullet point for the reviewer over anything helpful to a consumer.

Its says almost rather than is... How does that not make sense? I swear, the IGN haters take everything and try to turn it into a horrible thing regardless of how legitimate it is.

 

[Atrophis]

Hey all -

Not really interested in wading into all of this in any kind of heavy way, but I would like to take a moment to provide a little bit of context around IGN's review scores, since a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions about this being an argument over "1%".

Our philosophy is that review scores aren't math. We rate games according to their number label, not to the number itself. So the first question is "Is this game good? Is it great? Is it amazing? Or maybe just Okay?"

That determines whether a game will be in the 6s, 7s, 8s, etc. From there the decimal places let us refine this opinion. "Is it VERY good?" "Is it a great game that is almost an amazing one?"

If a game is good but not great it'll probably receive around a 7 flat. If it's almost but not quite great it might be a 7.8.

I don't speak for any other critics (or for Dan), but I can tell you that the guideline is not to think about a review in a numerical sense. Instead the number is meant to communicate whether a game is bad/good/great, and the decimal place gives people (who want it) a little more fine-grain detail.

This is why the actual review word is in huge letters at the bottom of the review, right next to the score, by the way. I believe the word used to be smaller, underneath the number. And we got that revised, to give the word more prominence.

Its unnecessary. Be confident in the review text to offer that fine grain detail. The number should be a reflection of the general feeling the game gave you and a way to compare it to other games. The 5 point scale is more than enough for this.

 

[RedNumberFive]

The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.

This is the same guy who was asking to host Microsoft's E3 press conference, correct?

 

[GDJustin]

That literally doesnt make sense though; .1 isn't details, details are details. That .1 without any mathematical system behind it is an emotional bullet point for the reviewer over anything helpful to a consumer.

*shrug*

I can't speak for anyone else, but in those uncommon situations when I review a game (I'm IGN's features editor), the score itself is pretty simple.

After I've decided a game is "Okay" (in the 6s), I then just think about whether it is closer to mediocre (5), or closer to good (7). This is generally very self-evident. The game typically scores itself and I don't agnonize over it.

It's an Okay game bordering on Good, or an Okay game bordering on Mediocre. That's it.

 

[MYeager]

Joe can get a little carried away at times but Stapleton responding with his "look at my employer's giant penis" tweet is like the ultimate in child tactics.

Specifically he was responding to someone telling him he was jealous of Angry Joe and felt threatened since he was part of a dying medium. It's not like he wrote that out of nowhere or without context, it was a direct response to an attack made at him.

 

[DyslexicAlucard]

While the rest of your assessment is sound, you kind of massively understate one of the issues with this entire discussion.

Think of it this way: Stapleton was in a position where he could have his voice heard if he were to go the twitter route. Sure, Joe was talking about something else entirely, but in Stapleton's defense, he did try to bring up the misquotation issue in the Titanfall fervor. And the first thing he alleges is that Joe was maliciously misquoting folks. Now I know Joe has said many times that he's not a "journalist." But he's only not a journalist in the official sense; he still performs the basic duties of a video game journalist for that their worth. Joe still conducts interviews, he still gathers information, and he is, or at least should, be held accountable for the information he publishes.

When you say that someone in a journalist function maliciously misquotes like that, without even providing any context as to what is going on, that's pretty much dooming any discussion from the get-go. You're calling him out, whether true or not, on something that is at the core of his duties. It's like saying that a doctor kills everyone he touches, that an accountant cooks books, or that a lawyer always tries to get phony judgments and verdicts. When someone brings accusations relating to their job or duties like that, even in some semblance of context, they're most likely going to react pretty strongly to it. Joe reacted to it poorly, don't get me wrong even for a second. But in that circumstance, I'm not even surprised the discussion went to the shitter so quickly.

I can agree with this.

 

[VanquishUK]

The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.

Is that.....Times New Roman?

 

[Dlacy13g]

Ok I found the OP pretty entertaining ... while I don't really care too much for IGN reviews I care even less for Angry Joe. His antics and tact put him in "clown" status for me.

 

[GDJustin]

If no one knows what the numbers mean except for IGN why use them? They serve no purpose. I don't need to know if a game is a little awesome or extremely awesome. I can use my brain after reading the review to decide for myself.

You should know what the number means because the word is in huge letters, right next to the number

If you don't want the extra detail, fine. You don't need to pay attention to it. You can see that Hearthstone is "Awesome."

What if someone else does want that detail?

Eh if you guys somehow managed to be consistent on this more power to you. When I was younger I used to believe you guys could maintain this level of integrity but you failed back then and I have no interest in seeing if you corrected yourself years later.

Maybe you should go back to the listeners you still manage to have now and ask them if they don't see any inconsistencies in your decimal system. If your most ardent followers still do then please understand why everyone else at this point looks at an 8.9 and sees a 9.

Would you buy something for 3.99 and say it cost about $3 or $4 to anyone who asks?

I didn't work for IGN years ago. I can't speak for any decisions made then. I can only address how we think about things now. As for audience, IGN had its highest traffic period of all time last fall, during which we operated under a 100-point scale. Is it because of that? No.

But it does mean we have to balance criticism we receive on places like NeoGAF about our review structure against people's actual actions, which had them visiting us more now than any time in IGN's 15-year history.

 

[DocSeuss]

Their hyperbolic quotes based on a preview build is cause enough. Most people have already bought the game before the reviews even come out, especially the casuals. They probably only watch the commercials. Joe isn't just "fighting" for us, the informed, he's fighting for the uninformed, the moms and grandparents who were told what their kids wanted, and now will have to hear their child returned the game cause it "wasn't fun enough."

Um...

First, "hyperbolic" makes the assumption that "believe the hype" is not an accurate statement. The hype at the time was "it's an awesome game worth buying an Xbox One for." Guess what! It was. Titanfall's an utterly amazing game that many believe completely deserves it got.

So you're off to a rocky start there, because you're calling an opinion--that a game lives up to its hype--hyperbolic. Because of this, your entire argument, that Joe is somehow fighting for the uninformed, doesn't hold weight. It's an opinion. An impression of a game. It gets to say things like that. Telling people you disagree isn't an opinion.

And y'know what? Those people he's supposedly protecting? How many of them do you think actually watch his show? I'ma guess none. His target audience isn't those people, it's largely teens and college students who are disgruntled with the way the industry handles game reviews. Always has been.

He's talking to them--the counterculture guys who couldn't possibly accept that Titanfall might actually live up to its height.

This isn't consumer advocacy, this is playing to the crowd.

The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.

For different departments. You do realize that they can have different standards, right? I know if I were running a review department, it'd be pretty different from the way I ran my features department.

While Joe was wrong to surrender the high ground by starting with the namecalling, fuck the whole "that was a PREVIEW!!!!!" argument.

Yes, previews are different than reviews. But let's be honest, when previews are starting to feel so hyperbolic that they may as well be ads, you can't just take that same outlet's actual review as if it is in a vacuum.

IGN with Titanfall (like their gross week of GTA V "Coverage" before it) was essentially acting as an advertising firm for Respawn. Just read that preview excerpt- do you SERIOUSLY think it reads like just an unbiased and fair preview? They even throw in words like "guarantee" and "believe the hype" and "next great evolution".

And then Stapleton comes in and gets hung up on the fact that Joe mixed up a preview that read like an over the top review with their actual review? Please!

This is the biggest issue with the exchange, not the .1 thing.

I learned, quite some time ago, to never trust myself with impressions or previews. Turns out, my initial impressions of a game are almost always super positive, and the nuance comes out a few weeks after I've played the game.

So yeah, taking a quote from a preview vs a review is bad practice, even if the two happen to line up. If you want to criticize something, post the thing you're criticizing, not a picture of something completely unrelated. It lets people draw bad conclusions.

If I write an article explaining that Ford Mustangs are coming to life and murdering kittens, and then post a picture of a Dodge Charger, most people are going to come away with a negative impression of a Dodge Charger, even though the Charger isn't to blame.

While the rest of your assessment is sound, you kind of massively understate one of the issues with this entire discussion.

Think of it this way: Stapleton was in a position where he could have his voice heard if he were to go the twitter route. Sure, Joe was talking about something else entirely, but in Stapleton's defense, he did try to bring up the misquotation issue in the Titanfall fervor. And the first thing he alleges is that Joe was maliciously misquoting folks. Now I know Joe has said many times that he's not a "journalist." But he's only not a journalist in the official sense; he still performs the basic duties of a video game journalist for that their worth. Joe still conducts interviews, he still gathers information, and he is, or at least should, be held accountable for the information he publishes.

When you say that someone in a journalist function maliciously misquotes like that, without even providing any context as to what is going on, that's pretty much dooming any discussion from the get-go. You're calling him out, whether true or not, on something that is at the core of his duties. It's like saying that a doctor kills everyone he touches, that an accountant cooks books, or that a lawyer always tries to get phony judgments and verdicts. When someone brings accusations relating to their job or duties like that, even in some semblance of context, they're most likely going to react pretty strongly to it. Joe reacted to it poorly, don't get me wrong even for a second. But in that circumstance, I'm not even surprised the discussion went to the shitter so quickly.

Great way to put it.

The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.

Hm. Do I respond like Joe, and insult you?

Or do I say "yup, my bad. I was at lunch and rushing through. I skipped tracks somewhere in my line of thought, and went from saying they were different departments to different writers, which was a big mistake on my part. I hope my explanations of why previews and reviews can be so different, as well as my remarks on different department, better convey what I was trying to say. Very sorry for messing that up."

 

[TriniTrin]

*shrug*

I can't speak for anyone else, but in those uncommon situations when I review a game (I'm IGN's features editor), the score itself is pretty simple.

After I've decided a game is "Okay" (in the 6s), I then just think about whether it is closer to mediocre (5), or closer to good (7). This is generally very self-evident. The game typically scores itself and I don't agnonize over it.

It's an Okay game bordering on Good, or an Okay game bordering on Mediocre. That's it.

Why not just give the score a 6 and say its ok but not great, and here is why..... Then explain in the review why it's not a 7 or a 5 or whatever number. Your current system makes it more convoluted then it needs to be.

 

[Mushroomer25]

IGN's not a great site, but I'm completely on their side here. Joe quite blatantly misrepresents their review, and I get the sense that he feels immune to criticism because of who he's targeting.

I've always gotten the sense that Joe is a bit of a prick, and this whole debacle confirms it in my eyes.