DarkLordMalik
Member
"Twitter"
Creating the best gaming related news and debacles since inception.
Creating the best gaming related news and debacles since inception.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly! Joe's just bashing IGN, without cause, because that's what gets him the hits.
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.
I've I had to guess, I'd say I disagree with approximately 89% of what you've stated here.
FTFYUnfortunately 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.
The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.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.
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.
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.
Exactly! Joe's just bashing IGN, without cause, because that's what gets him the hits.
There's a tongue partially in cheek here.
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.
Stapleton could have began the discussion in a better way, but Joe's reaction is totally over-the-top.
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.
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.He must be very naive if he doesn't notice what's wrong with his review.
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.
Isn't IGN about a decade too late to start worrying about their rep?
This. Dan is so oblivious to the fact that he's making himself seem like such an idiot.IGN earned this reputation.
Arguing over 0.1 is insane.
Why ? it's from IGN themself o_o
Look at the first page.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.
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.
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.
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.
The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.
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.
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?
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."
The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.
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.
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.
The IGN preview and review of Titanfall were written by the same person.
*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.