This to me is like Dan Rather going on The Colbert Report to complain about Stephen's reporting being inaccurate. Angry Joe isn't a game reviewer in the traditional sense, he's a personality. It's in the name! He's Angry! He dresses in costumes and makes funny voices! How anyone can take his videos as anything but entertainment is beyond me, and IGN look like straight up fools for doing exactly that.
-
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
abstract alien
Member
I don't know why they even bothered responding to be honest. If anything, they did the exact opposite of their intent, regardless of what they felt was right and wrong.
...He isn't wrong there, dude. You can finish the missions in minutes if you rush and abuse Reflex.
fvng
Member
So you set the bar lower because he takes on an entertaining personality? I assure you his reviews are dead serious even though they are in the guise of entertainment.
and as long as you're mentioning Colbert Report, Colbert is a humor personality but he is covering very serious topics by satirizing them. Don't be fooled by the exterior, beneath the surface Colbert is addressing very serious topics. The fact that it's done in an entertaining way is irrelevant. The same could be said for Angry Joe, the reviews are serious even though it's done in an entertaining way.
I'm not with you on the double standard shit.. like you hold IGN to a higher standard than Angry Joe? So you guys are sick of the mainstream gaming media, but you have even lower standards for the smaller guys that you champion as the anti-mainstream gaming media.
good lord
fvng
Member
You can finish portal in about 20 minutes if you know what you're doing, so what? The normal play time on Portal is approximately 6 hours for a first timer.
You cannot finish all the side op missions in under an hour, specifically not on your first run through and when you're not using a guide. That's disingenuous as fuck. He's just pandering to the popular opinion by echoing the popular sentiment at the time.
You just proved my point, you can only do it if you're speed running and you know exactly what to do in each mission.
Unless he's the little kid from the film "The Wizard" he did not clear that shit in an hour, so many of those side ops require so much trial and error to get through them the first time. It took me over an hour to clear Intel Operative Rescue OP because you have to learn the enemy patterns each time you play through that mission.
Angry Joe is a liar plain and simple.
Maybe he should put an asterisk next to the "Under one hour!" claim with (*as long as you're speedrunning and using a guide). Playing the game organically you will NOT finish all the side ops in an hour.
I'm not surprised Angry Joe is misrepresenting the truth again on his Titanfall review, because I've already seen him do it, in my aforementioned example.
and who the fuck calls out other gaming outlets when doing a review? What the hell do the scores that other outlets give a game have to do with his own review? This guy is our alternative to the mainstream gaming media? No thank you. Can you imagine AO Scott of the New York Times saying "WHAT IS OWEN GLEIBERMAN TALKING ABOUT IN HIS REVIEW OF SPIDERMAN 2!"
Angry Joe is incredibly unprofessional in everything he does, even less so than the mainstream gaming outlets GAF criticizes.
Moon_frogger
Member
I don't understand the significance of the the preview and review being written by the same guy?
LBTRecords
Banned
Have you finished them in less then an hour? If not then stop talking.
Natureboy99
Banned
This. I don't go there for reviews anymore, and warn as many people as I can to avoid them as well. If they're not dirty, they're immature. IGN is definitely wanting a console war. More raged fanboys = more clicks = more money.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Dan is upset because Joe quoted a preview in the context of talking about reviews. IGN considers previews to be so different from reviews that confusing the two (whether purposely or not) is the same as lying. Of course, with a review you have more time to get into a game and really pick apart the details. You don't even know if what you play in a preview setting will be completely representative of the final game. But even so, you would imagine the point of a preview is to give gamers a balanced look at how a game is shaping up. What is the point of one otherwise?
Oh right. IGN previews are written to get fans hyped for games so they'll keep coming back to IGN for coverage. It's all BS and fluff. Really, look at that quote, it's all BS. And Dan believes they can wash their hands of it because it says "Preview" at the top instead of "Review".
AngryJoe was technically in the wrong, but the only reason he was called on it was because Dan was embarrassed that an IGN preview was held up as something to be considered real journalism.
Oh right. IGN previews are written to get fans hyped for games so they'll keep coming back to IGN for coverage. It's all BS and fluff. Really, look at that quote, it's all BS. And Dan believes they can wash their hands of it because it says "Preview" at the top instead of "Review".
AngryJoe was technically in the wrong, but the only reason he was called on it was because Dan was embarrassed that an IGN preview was held up as something to be considered real journalism.
He didn't say 9.0...
mr teaspoon
Member
Your analogy doesn't work - Stephen Colbert performs satire of current events, Dan Rather reports on current events. They both do something with current events, but their aims are different.
I don't think the same can be said of Joe. I really don't think he does these videos with the end goal of us thinking 'that guy knows jack shit about how to report on games, but he sure is funny!' Joe doesn't work for any gaming news outlet and therefore can do things his way and be responsible to no one, but he puts his voice out there so that people will listen. Don't mistake not acting serious with not wanting to be taken seriously.
Joe wasn't doing a character or going for laughs when he interviewed Major Nelson - he was asking the sorts of questions that any gaming journalist would. That's because that's how he wants to be seen.
Oyashrio-Sama
Member
This is why 100 point reviewing scales are stupid.
8.9 is gramazing it's totally different
I personally don't hold IGN to a high standard no, but they're the professional business in this. Angry Joe is a dude in front of a green screen. His reviews are his opinion filtered through jokes and amusing points he could make to please his audience, he's not thinking about journalistic integrity so much as he's thinking about his fanbase. The fact that IGN are nitpicking his review for factuality makes them not only looks foolish, but lends him credibility, in the same way that #CancelColbert only made Stephen look like a million bucks for stirring up the same groups he was satirizing.
And for the record, I don't champion anyone in gaming media outside of Giant Bomb. I'm entertained by quite a few more of the smaller guys, and I sometimes agree with their opinions, but I certainly don't go to them as a source of information.
I disagree with that, I assume he's in character whenever he's in front of a camera.
This is greatest description of Angry Joe I've ever seen. Holy shit.
Fbh
Member
IGN being IGN are we really surprised by this ?
Their MGS4 reviews ends with: "Is it possible to give a game an 11? If so, this would be the game that would merit that score".
It scored 10/10.
A few years later and It didn't even make it into their top 100 games of the decade, it's also not even part of their Top 25 Ps3 games list.
I don't really get how such a site can be taken seriously.
I can sort of see Stapleton's main point.
Watch the video. Angry Joe complains about major outlets overpraising the game in reviews and not criticizing stuff like the campaign, which is fair. The problem is that screenshots of IGN's website (and ONLY IGN's website) are clearly being shown while he is making these complaints. It gives the viewer an impression that IGN is is guilty of these things.
Joe's three main points against "overhyped reviews" (said while showing IGN screenshots):
1) "Believe the hype" - technically a misrepresentation since it's not in the IGN review
2) "9/10, 10/10" - 8.9 is a 9 as far as most are concerned, but IGN disagrees.
3) Not criticizing the campaign. - definitely a misrepresentation as IGN did criticize the campagin
So to be fair Joe did indirectly misrepresent IGN on 1 and 3, while 2 is debatable (but who really cares about 2).
Watch the video. Angry Joe complains about major outlets overpraising the game in reviews and not criticizing stuff like the campaign, which is fair. The problem is that screenshots of IGN's website (and ONLY IGN's website) are clearly being shown while he is making these complaints. It gives the viewer an impression that IGN is is guilty of these things.
Joe's three main points against "overhyped reviews" (said while showing IGN screenshots):
1) "Believe the hype" - technically a misrepresentation since it's not in the IGN review
2) "9/10, 10/10" - 8.9 is a 9 as far as most are concerned, but IGN disagrees.
3) Not criticizing the campaign. - definitely a misrepresentation as IGN did criticize the campagin
So to be fair Joe did indirectly misrepresent IGN on 1 and 3, while 2 is debatable (but who really cares about 2).
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Despite all that, Angry Joe does have a tendency to mindlessly demand content even if it's wholly unsuited to the game. Every game he reviews must have single player content or it's a rip off etc.
That mode of thinking is why we get worthless tacked on multi player and half assed single player in games that are clearly designed with only one focus in mind.
Thinking like that is why the budgets keep boating and corporate guys have so much influence vs creativity.
That mode of thinking is why we get worthless tacked on multi player and half assed single player in games that are clearly designed with only one focus in mind.
Thinking like that is why the budgets keep boating and corporate guys have so much influence vs creativity.
mr teaspoon
Member
Why do people keep using Colbert incorrectly? The person/movement of #CancelColbert was absolutely not the sort of group he satirizes. He was satirizing the a-holes who run the Red Skins. A group who also are against he a-holes who run the Red Skins took issue with how Colbert went about things.
Well that's fine, but the point is that his character seems to be a pretty good impression of an amateur who wants to be a presence and voice in the gaming community first, comedian second.
fvng
Member
The same reason why you'll listen to an album you liked 6 years ago and no longer you don't enjoy it as much as you used to?
You guys have absurd expectations of publications. It's a 10 at the time, and overtime it might not hold up as well as it used to. I'm replaying MGS4 right now and the controls are a fucking NIGHTMARE, but when it was released I was fine with it. That shit happens.
You're also forgetting that there is staff turnover and the same guys that reviewed a game may no longer be there when they do those top 25 lists. Those lists are done by committee (a group of people getting together to discuss things), it's not a science, so they're argued and debated over before settling on a final list. I guarantee you it was colin moriarity that made sure MGS4 didn't the top 25 list, he makes it no secret that he hates MGS.
He said he finished the main story in an hour. Angry Joe is amazing, he's not afraid to point out flaws with games, and his reviews are just really entertaining. You want accuracy? His point that Ground Zeroes is an overpriced demo is the most accurate review. And I don't think he's amateur as he gets paid for doing it... Maybe try boosting your post's accuracy.
grosvenor_92
Member
Dan made a big deal out of nothing and made himself look stupid in the process
Now I finally understand why all the controversy over Twilight Princess' 8.8 from gamespot. There is indeed a sea of difference in every decimal point a game earns.
:/
Not a good example. I still listen to albums I liked 10+ years ago. Partly because they're really good, and partly because they instantly bring back the essence of who I was back then.
Yes.
This highlights what I've been saying for years - there is no such thing as game journalism. The people who cover this industry are not journalists and to label them as such is an insult to the profession. Real journalists are ruled by a code of ethics and standards known as journalistic integrity and there's a severe consequence to their career if, and when, they break it. What we see in gaming is an utter joke. Just look at the number of "gaming journalists" who've jumped from a magazine/website to working for a developer and/or publisher. There has never been, nor will there ever be, objective reporting when the reporters have a yearning to work in the very industry they're covering. That's a conflict of interest.
Not familiar with either of these guys, but judging from just the OP, it seems like a case of dumb versus stupid. Angry Joe presenting a preview as a review is legitimately deceptive - he could have gone after the review instead of the outdated preview - but the 0.1 thing is not. And Angry Joe's starts acting like a child from his second tweet.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
That could work..
MisterArrogant
Neo Member
I originally remember McCaffrey from those Inside Xbox videos they used to show on Xbox Live. They never struck me as being very independent and I thought they were basically just straight MS promotion. So I was really surprised when IGN hired him as a reviewer. It seemed a little too close to MS PR and I questioned how objective he would end up being. So I'm really not surprised when I see him embarrassingly gushing over Xbox software. To be honest, I really can't take him seriously as a reviewer. But yeah, he was the guy fishing for MS E3 hosting work on Twitter. Not exactly very professional and doesn't really help his questionable credibility as an objective reviewer.
fvng
Member
Oh he's so fearless! Not afraid to step to the man!
No, he said all the side ops can be cleared in under an hour, WATCH HIS REVIEW. Your adoration of Angry Joe is preventing you from admitting that he's a disingenuous guy. You prefer entertaining to accurate.
Even if that isn't true in your particular case the analogy still holds up. Sometimes you don't have the same feelings for a particular product that you did years earlier. There's nothing wrong with some games or movies not holding up years later.
fvng
Member
Angry Joe gets found out to be a small time unprofessional "journolist" and has a meltdown on twitter when he's called out.
Guy from IGN is within his rights to call out Angry Joe for lying, but people here prefer to side with small time Angry Joe because he's not a corporation (even though his show is owned by Disney)
I can see where .1 matters. Obsidian missed a massive bonus opportunity because they only got an 84 metacritic instead of an 85, so while they are practically the same as far as we're concerned, publishers seem to care about this stuff.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/
Joe comes out of this looking really bad and this is coming from someone who enjoys his videos. He's not understanding what Stapleton is mad about: using a quote from a preview and then passing it off as something IGN supposedly said in their review. He also goes into name calling territory and comes off as a petulant child. I thought Joe was better then that.
BabyFaceKillah
Member
A few thousand bucks I'd assume
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
You are really upset about this, aren't you?
Japanmanx3
Member
Wow. Spot on. His Xbox One rants were superb.
Xplatformer
Member
Lol...you saw that video. It was awesome.
I love AngryJoe's stuff. (reviews and his more serious twitch streams) He can be a dick, and he's more wrong than right in this instance, but I watch him for entertainment, not accuracy. And his "reviews" have tended to lean in the direction of my own personal opinion.
Keep in going Joe. You got another $5 coming.
Me. jess.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Agreed.
He could have just made a token apology and made a small correction on the video.
I'm not even sure why he has to attack other people's opinions of the game in the first place tbh. But if he does, he can at least be factually correct or take a minute to correct himself when he makes a mistake.
LBTRecords
Junior Member
(Today, 09:33 PM)
Thanks for the great rebuttal there, dude.
Yes you can. I beat EACH of the side missions in under an hour. 30-58 mins is still under an hour, blind. Did I get a "good grade"/A-S rank? No. But if you don't give a shit about that, you CAN beat each of the missions in under an hour.
Portal is a horrible example because the levels themselves can or can not be beaten in minutes due to player ability. Meanwhile, Ground Zeroes LETS you use/abuse Reflex and run through levels with spotting and a silenced killing gun. Anyone sees you? Shoot them in the head with the killing gun, grab the two VIPs in Ground Zeroes or the mission objectives and run like hell to the extract.
No you don't. VIP Assassinate is only tricky blind to that fake-out. If you run to VIP A. You get the mission update. If you Rush B, he doesn't change at all and even then he's where he says he's supposed to be. Which then leaves you with scanning with the binocs for A.
We'll have to catagorize the time. I'm going with Joe saying "beat each one in under an hour." He may be classifying it as you are with "beat them all in under an hour" which is still true based on player ability and going for the main mission objectives and having everyone alerted in high-alert mode (outside of ONE mission where that hinders you) and abusing Reflex.
And I say this as someone that got their $20 value out of the "demo." The missions are short and the length SHOULD be criticized by anyone.
Mushroomer25
Member
Even The Daily Show & Colbert get taken to task by the standard media for showing clips out of context. Satire or not, they are making an opinionated statement and claim to make a fair argument in favor of it. I'm not saying they need to be held to the same standard as an actual journalistic outlet, but when you're intentionally misleading an audience - expect to get some shit. Joe's in the same league. He is a part of the larger games media, whether he likes it or not. People watch him, and take his opinion seriously. With that carries a responsibility to be accurate. He doesn't need to be objective or even fair - but being knowingly inaccurate is irresponsible.
BouncyFrag
Member
You know that getting angry at Angry Joe only makes him more powerful? It's like the force, but not.
fvng
Member
Lol...you saw that video. It was awesome.
I love AngryJoe's stuff. (reviews and his more serious twitch streams) He can be a dick, and he's more wrong than right in this instance, but I watch him for entertainment, not accuracy. And his "reviews" have tended to lean in the direction of my own personal opinion.
Keep in going Joe. You got another $5 coming.
Me. jess.
Disney is buying Maker Studios which owns the Angry Joe show, that's wasn't a lie on his part. At which point is accuracy valued over entertainment value? When we're talking about IGN and Kotaku?
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Ign editor is a douche. Wtf @ calling him out over .1???