1393 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

(Snipped pyramid quote)

Tazz thats not what Jreezy was saying - it was in regards to being ignorant about the conflict of interest that may arise from this.

Its the metacritic equal of a kick back.

If we use media and advertisements to base our opinion about wether or not we should buy the game, which is the whole point of advertising and reporting on products, but the person doing the reporting is in the game - they're not going to slag their own game and tell people to not buy it. It becomes a biased report without fair commentary.

Jreezy wasn't implying you were ignorant or anything about feminism or what not - just that you missed the conflict of interest that has arisen now.

It seems to me this entire question centers around Chobot's role at G4 and IGN.  Has she ever been employed as a "game reviewer" by either entity?  Correct me if I am wrong, but she has always been employed in a commentator role. So, by putting her in a video game that both outlets will review does it create a conflict of intrest if she isn't being paid to review ME3 by said outlets? 

I could see how some people might think this creates an ethical problem for both networks, but if all she does is talk about the game in a general way I don't think anyone could really say EA "bought" a good score by employing her as a VA.  Besides, does anyone think that the official reviewers at G4 or IGN are actually going to rate this game poorly?  

I believe she has done actual titled reviews. Regardless though, even if its called a preview, or blog or whatever, it is a very fine line to be walking. If you go to a registered gaming website that has paid employees to give people an idea about the games they're going to be spending their money on - you should have totally unbiased opinions.

Its one thing for advertising to feed us their unbiased opinions, but the whole point of reporting / journalism etc is to make sure we aren't only fed biased company lines.

[Tazzmission]

Icinix wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

(Snipped pyramid quote)

Tazz thats not what Jreezy was saying - it was in regards to being ignorant about the conflict of interest that may arise from this.

Its the metacritic equal of a kick back.

If we use media and advertisements to base our opinion about wether or not we should buy the game, which is the whole point of advertising and reporting on products, but the person doing the reporting is in the game - they're not going to slag their own game and tell people to not buy it. It becomes a biased report without fair commentary.

Jreezy wasn't implying you were ignorant or anything about feminism or what not - just that you missed the conflict of interest that has arisen now.

It seems to me this entire question centers around Chobot's role at G4 and IGN.  Has she ever been employed as a "game reviewer" by either entity?  Correct me if I am wrong, but she has always been employed in a commentator role. So, by putting her in a video game that both outlets will review does it create a conflict of intrest if she isn't being paid to review ME3 by said outlets? 

I could see how some people might think this creates an ethical problem for both networks, but if all she does is talk about the game in a general way I don't think anyone could really say EA "bought" a good score by employing her as a VA.  Besides, does anyone think that the official reviewers at G4 or IGN are actually going to rate this game poorly?  

I believe she has done actual titled reviews. Regardless though, even if its called a preview, or blog or whatever, it is a very fine line to be walking. If you go to a registered gaming website that has paid employees to give people an idea about the games they're going to be spending their money on - you should have totally unbiased opinions.

Its one thing for advertising to feed us their unbiased opinions, but the whole point of reporting / journalism etc is to make sure we aren't only fed biased company lines.

how are you sure its anything like that at all?

regardless of what she does career wise your always going to have bias people when it comes to reviews wether they work for them or not.

are people that anti ea to where there willing to call everything just pure lie now?

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

[SpectreSaren]

Anybody else upset that certain key voice actors (Male Shepard, Garrus, Thane, Grunt) among others, were absent from this trailer? Look, I love Martin Sheen and the Illusive Man, but he's not AS interesting of a character as the aforementioned four guys.

[mereck7980]

Icinix wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

(Snipped pyramid quote)

Tazz thats not what Jreezy was saying - it was in regards to being ignorant about the conflict of interest that may arise from this.

Its the metacritic equal of a kick back.

If we use media and advertisements to base our opinion about wether or not we should buy the game, which is the whole point of advertising and reporting on products, but the person doing the reporting is in the game - they're not going to slag their own game and tell people to not buy it. It becomes a biased report without fair commentary.

Jreezy wasn't implying you were ignorant or anything about feminism or what not - just that you missed the conflict of interest that has arisen now.

It seems to me this entire question centers around Chobot's role at G4 and IGN.  Has she ever been employed as a "game reviewer" by either entity?  Correct me if I am wrong, but she has always been employed in a commentator role. So, by putting her in a video game that both outlets will review does it create a conflict of intrest if she isn't being paid to review ME3 by said outlets? 

I could see how some people might think this creates an ethical problem for both networks, but if all she does is talk about the game in a general way I don't think anyone could really say EA "bought" a good score by employing her as a VA.  Besides, does anyone think that the official reviewers at G4 or IGN are actually going to rate this game poorly?  

I believe she has done actual titled reviews. Regardless though, even if its called a preview, or blog or whatever, it is a very fine line to be walking. If you go to a registered gaming website that has paid employees to give people an idea about the games they're going to be spending their money on - you should have totally unbiased opinions.

Its one thing for advertising to feed us their unbiased opinions, but the whole point of reporting / journalism etc is to make sure we aren't only fed biased company lines.

You are correct about it being a fine line.  I think if EA had hired anyone else from either network you could say they crossed an ethical line.  IMHO Jessica Chobot is in a slightly different position.  She has been used to market the ME franchise for years.  She was included in the first Sci vs Fi special for ME1 (and this was before she really became "famous").  

If Adam Sessler or Casey Lynch were given VA roles in ME3 I would completely agree with your assessment, but given her affiliation with the franchise I don't think the hiring of Chobot creates an ethical problem for EA, IGN, or G4.   

[Icinix]

Tazzmission wrote...

how are you sure its anything like that at all?

regardless of what she does career wise your always going to have bias people when it comes to reviews wether they work for them or not.

are people that anti ea to where there willing to call everything just pure lie now?

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

...

Don't over exageratte with cries we're calling this all big lies and we're obsessed with it.

I work with a company where conflict of interest is drilled into us every second.

This is very much a borderline conflict of interest. I'm not saying it is - but it certainly does raise a few eyebrows into the validity of opinions that can be held by affiliated groups, especially those where Jessica Chobot is employed.

Once again, I'm not saying it is, but I would be very annoyed if I read a review from a game reviewer telling me to buy a game because it was awesome, then I got it and found out the reviewer did paid work in the game or for the game - where she now has a contract with the makers of the game, I might just be a little annoyed.

Modifié par Icinix, 03 février 2012 - 06:03 .

[mereck7980]

SpectreSaren wrote...

Anybody else upset that certain key voice actors (Male Shepard, Garrus, Thane, Grunt) among others, were absent from this trailer? Look, I love Martin Sheen and the Illusive Man, but he's not AS interesting of a character as the aforementioned four guys.

Aside from not featuring Yvonne Strahovski, the two VA actors I really missed were Brandon Keener (Garrus) and Liz Sroka (Tali).  

[Tazzmission]

Icinix wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

how are you sure its anything like that at all?

regardless of what she does career wise your always going to have bias people when it comes to reviews wether they work for them or not.

are people that anti ea to where there willing to call everything just pure lie now?

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

...

Don't over exageratte with cries we're calling this all big lies and we're obsessed with it.

I work with a company where conflict of interest is drilled into us every second.

This is very much a borderline conflict of interest. I'm not saying it is - but it certainly does raise a few eyebrows into the validity of opinions that can be held by affiliated groups, especially those were Jessica Chobot is employed.

Once again, I'm not saying it is, but I would be very annoyed if I read a review from a game reviewer telling me to buy a game because it was awesome, then I got it and found out the reviewer did paid work in the game or for the game - where she now has a contract with the makers of the game, I might just be a little annoyed.

have you actually read what ign stated on the matter? she isnt reviewing the game when it drops and also there not going to favor her and no offence but ign isnt the only gaming site thatll review the game.



ok the place you work at may suck i get that but you cant just go around and just assume everything is the same.

[Icinix]

Tazzmission wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

how are you sure its anything like that at all?

regardless of what she does career wise your always going to have bias people when it comes to reviews wether they work for them or not.

are people that anti ea to where there willing to call everything just pure lie now?

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

...

Don't over exageratte with cries we're calling this all big lies and we're obsessed with it.

I work with a company where conflict of interest is drilled into us every second.

This is very much a borderline conflict of interest. I'm not saying it is - but it certainly does raise a few eyebrows into the validity of opinions that can be held by affiliated groups, especially those were Jessica Chobot is employed.

Once again, I'm not saying it is, but I would be very annoyed if I read a review from a game reviewer telling me to buy a game because it was awesome, then I got it and found out the reviewer did paid work in the game or for the game - where she now has a contract with the makers of the game, I might just be a little annoyed.

have you actually read what ign stated on the matter? she isnt reviewing the game when it drops and also there not going to favor her and no offence but ign isnt the only gaming site thatll review the game.


ok the place you work at may suck i get that but you cant just go around and just assume everything is the same.

*sigh*

The internet is still a new frontier, a global frontier, so there is always a can of worms being opened somewhere and sometimes there is nothing and sometimes it is a big something.

You missed the initial concern the first time around, I tried to explain it to you why it COULD be an concern - not that it WAS a concern.

I don't know what you mean by me assuming everything is the same..but..if you're going to throw petty insults at my work for...well I'm not even sure there is any reason for it..good luck to you.

[AerisBru]

So...correct me if I'm wrong...Mordin's VA is really not coming back or you guys are just assuming this is the truth since he doesn't make an appearance in this video?

Just asking =)

[Gabey5]

AerisBru wrote...

So...correct me if I'm wrong...Mordin's VA is really not coming back or you guys are just assuming this is the truth since he doesn't make an appearance in this video?

Just asking =)

he is not listed as being in the game and the actor said he was not in it

[AerisBru]

Gabey5 wrote...


he is not listed as being in the game and the actor said he was not in it

How sad T-T Thanks for the information =)

[Poison_Berrie]

SpectreSaren wrote...

Anybody else upset that certain key voice actors (Male Shepard, Garrus, Thane, Grunt) among others, were absent from this trailer? Look, I love Martin Sheen and the Illusive Man, but he's not AS interesting of a character as the aforementioned four guys.

It might be dependent on where this video was taped. I believe there are two places where voice work is recorded. 
Also since this is an advertisment you want to place the familiar names in it. 

[Varen Spectre]

Tazzmission wrote...

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

Fair enough, but, maybe you, as someone who according to that line seems to be more concerned about the way or tone of some critical posts than about the matter itself, could help tone the conflict down by showing the "critics" some examples of what would be the appropriate or tollerable ways of voicing the concerns and discontent with... 

... the fact that an employee of a gaming magazine / show, who has also worked for another gaming magazine for years, is now a part of the videogame's cast and are worried, that her involvement in the game may influence the reviewers of those magazines either because of the fact, that the magazine(s) would only benefit from Mass Effect 3's and thus their employee's success (G4) and therefore it would not be in its interest to undertake any actions that could undermine this success or because of very probable strong personal ties between that (former) employee and the staff of the magazine (IGN, maybe G4 too?), which may influence the magazine's ability to voice potential criticism of ME3 properly...

... and who wish to discourage gaming companies from such activities in the future.

Simply put, it's impossible to discourage or force people to stop complaining about this and I would not wish them to stop completely myself (since I have a fair share of those concerns too), but I agree that the criticism should be polite, accurate and with as little negative emotions and content as possible.

So by all means, if you have any ideas how to improve the situation without changing the original message of the critics too much, I am all for it, because there's enough drama on the internet already.

[DayusMakhina]

Why is this such a big deal? Even if there is bias it'd lead only lead to a review on a website not being impartial. In the grand scheme of things that makes absolutely no difference to anything. Sure, I'd get people discussing conflicts of interest if it was in an area which could affect us (like say politics), but this... won't.

[DDG4005]

I have to say I'm pleased to see the voice cast line-up (Keith David looks like the king of everything).  The addition of the Diana Allers character is a surprise to me; I wasn't aware BioWare had planned to include another news reporter.  It should make things interesting.

[Xeranx]

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

(Snipped pyramid quote)

Tazz thats not what Jreezy was saying - it was in regards to being ignorant about the conflict of interest that may arise from this.

Its the metacritic equal of a kick back.

If we use media and advertisements to base our opinion about wether or not we should buy the game, which is the whole point of advertising and reporting on products, but the person doing the reporting is in the game - they're not going to slag their own game and tell people to not buy it. It becomes a biased report without fair commentary.

Jreezy wasn't implying you were ignorant or anything about feminism or what not - just that you missed the conflict of interest that has arisen now.

It seems to me this entire question centers around Chobot's role at G4 and IGN.  Has she ever been employed as a "game reviewer" by either entity?  Correct me if I am wrong, but she has always been employed in a commentator role. So, by putting her in a video game that both outlets will review does it create a conflict of intrest if she isn't being paid to review ME3 by said outlets? 

I could see how some people might think this creates an ethical problem for both networks, but if all she does is talk about the game in a general way I don't think anyone could really say EA "bought" a good score by employing her as a VA.  Besides, does anyone think that the official reviewers at G4 or IGN are actually going to rate this game poorly?  

I believe she has done actual titled reviews. Regardless though, even if its called a preview, or blog or whatever, it is a very fine line to be walking. If you go to a registered gaming website that has paid employees to give people an idea about the games they're going to be spending their money on - you should have totally unbiased opinions.

Its one thing for advertising to feed us their unbiased opinions, but the whole point of reporting / journalism etc is to make sure we aren't only fed biased company lines.

You are correct about it being a fine line.  I think if EA had hired anyone else from either network you could say they crossed an ethical line.  IMHO Jessica Chobot is in a slightly different position.  She has been used to market the ME franchise for years.  She was included in the first Sci vs Fi special for ME1 (and this was before she really became "famous").  

If Adam Sessler or Casey Lynch were given VA roles in ME3 I would completely agree with your assessment, but given her affiliation with the franchise I don't think the hiring of Chobot creates an ethical problem for EA, IGN, or G4.   

It doesn't have to be just Sessler or Lynch being involved.  One issue existst that if IGN or G4 get exclusive rights to review the game first or give in-depth reviews before anyone else, it helps their bottom line by drawing a crowd to their respective sites or network (in G4's case).  

Going back to the video I linked that was initially linked by someone else (sorry didn't mean to take credit for it before), Chobot mentioned the "boomstick" easter egg.  Out of all the videos I've seen (I may have missed a few), that was the only one that featured that easter egg.

[Troller79]

Mordins VA is very easy to replace

[LilyasAvalon]

Troller79 wrote...

Mordins VA is very easy to replace

That doesn't mean you SHOULD though! It's the principle! 

I mean, don't get me wrong, Meer does a GREAT job replicating Mordin, but that's just it. It's a replication. Why would I want the basic when I could have the deluxe version complete with Alien Biology song?

[GnusmasTHX]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Why is this such a big deal? Even if there is bias it'd lead only lead to a review on a website not being impartial. In the grand scheme of things that makes absolutely no difference to anything. Sure, I'd get people discussing conflicts of interest if it was in an area which could affect us (like say politics), but this... won't.

Because some people actually read reviews.

Weird, I know.

[Gabey5]

mereck7980 wrote...

SpectreSaren wrote...

Anybody else upset that certain key voice actors (Male Shepard, Garrus, Thane, Grunt) among others, were absent from this trailer? Look, I love Martin Sheen and the Illusive Man, but he's not AS interesting of a character as the aforementioned four guys.

Aside from not featuring Yvonne Strahovski, the two VA actors I really missed were Brandon Keener (Garrus) and Liz Sroka (Tali).  

That is because they could be dead. All 12. They are promoting the ones protected by plot armour from me 1 and 2.

Modifié par Gabey5, 03 février 2012 - 06:55 .

[Tazzmission]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

being concerned is one thing but being obsessed and blind about it is a whole nother ball game

Fair enough, but, maybe you, as someone who according to that line seems to be more concerned about the way or tone of some critical posts than about the matter itself, could help tone the conflict down by showing the "critics" some examples of what would be the appropriate or tollerable ways of voicing the concerns and discontent with... 

... the fact that an employee of a gaming magazine / show, who has also worked for another gaming magazine for years, is now a part of the videogame's cast and are worried, that her involvement in the game may influence the reviewers of those magazines either because of the fact, that the magazine(s) would only benefit from Mass Effect 3's and thus their employee's success (G4) and therefore it would not be in its interest to undertake any actions that could undermine this success or because of very probable strong personal ties between that (former) employee and the staff of the magazine (IGN, maybe G4 too?), which may influence the magazine's ability to voice potential criticism of ME3 properly...

... and who wish to discourage gaming companies from such activities in the future.

Simply put, it's impossible to discourage or force people to stop complaining about this and I would not wish them to stop completely myself (since I have a fair share of those concerns too), but I agree that the criticism should be polite, accurate and with as little negative emotions and content as possible.

So by all means, if you have any ideas how to improve the situation without changing the original message of the critics too much, I am all for it, because there's enough drama on the internet already.

the thing is you dont get the message. it isnt just about the ign thing. i understand this is the internet but am i the only one on this board who is tired of the complaining on things that no one knows about ( yet)?


people just assume omg mp is in so hey lets blame ea

or hey everyone jessica chobots in the game and ign will oviously rig the review.

seriuosly thats how it is on the board now a days.


face it posters are getting to the point to where all they do is complain.

have i complained? yes in the past but people are to quick to jump to conclusions  and its getting out of controll

[mereck7980]

Gabey5 wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

SpectreSaren wrote...

Anybody else upset that certain key voice actors (Male Shepard, Garrus, Thane, Grunt) among others, were absent from this trailer? Look, I love Martin Sheen and the Illusive Man, but he's not AS interesting of a character as the aforementioned four guys.

Aside from not featuring Yvonne Strahovski, the two VA actors I really missed were Brandon Keener (Garrus) and Liz Sroka (Tali).  

That is because they could be dead. All 12. They are promoting the ones protected by plot armour from me 1 and 2.

That could be true, but seeing as they have already confirmed that Garrus and Tali will be squadmates (provided they survived the SM) I don't see why they wouldn't be included in a VA video.  It was probably a scheduling issue or something like that.  They also didn't include Adam Baldwin (I really hope he returns) and Carrie Ann Moss.  Kal'Regar may have died on Haestrom, but Aria has plot armor.  Both of these VAs are legit stars and were included in ME2's VA cast reveal.  It would have been nice to see them again too.    

Given BW's "behind the scences" marketing strategy for ME3 I wish they would have a more in depth VA segment.  It would be really interesting to see more about this facet of the game's design.   

[mereck7980]

Xeranx wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

mereck7980 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

(Snipped pyramid quote)

Tazz thats not what Jreezy was saying - it was in regards to being ignorant about the conflict of interest that may arise from this.

Its the metacritic equal of a kick back.

If we use media and advertisements to base our opinion about wether or not we should buy the game, which is the whole point of advertising and reporting on products, but the person doing the reporting is in the game - they're not going to slag their own game and tell people to not buy it. It becomes a biased report without fair commentary.

Jreezy wasn't implying you were ignorant or anything about feminism or what not - just that you missed the conflict of interest that has arisen now.

It seems to me this entire question centers around Chobot's role at G4 and IGN.  Has she ever been employed as a "game reviewer" by either entity?  Correct me if I am wrong, but she has always been employed in a commentator role. So, by putting her in a video game that both outlets will review does it create a conflict of intrest if she isn't being paid to review ME3 by said outlets? 

I could see how some people might think this creates an ethical problem for both networks, but if all she does is talk about the game in a general way I don't think anyone could really say EA "bought" a good score by employing her as a VA.  Besides, does anyone think that the official reviewers at G4 or IGN are actually going to rate this game poorly?  

I believe she has done actual titled reviews. Regardless though, even if its called a preview, or blog or whatever, it is a very fine line to be walking. If you go to a registered gaming website that has paid employees to give people an idea about the games they're going to be spending their money on - you should have totally unbiased opinions.

Its one thing for advertising to feed us their unbiased opinions, but the whole point of reporting / journalism etc is to make sure we aren't only fed biased company lines.

You are correct about it being a fine line.  I think if EA had hired anyone else from either network you could say they crossed an ethical line.  IMHO Jessica Chobot is in a slightly different position.  She has been used to market the ME franchise for years.  She was included in the first Sci vs Fi special for ME1 (and this was before she really became "famous").  

If Adam Sessler or Casey Lynch were given VA roles in ME3 I would completely agree with your assessment, but given her affiliation with the franchise I don't think the hiring of Chobot creates an ethical problem for EA, IGN, or G4.   

It doesn't have to be just Sessler or Lynch being involved.  One issue existst that if IGN or G4 get exclusive rights to review the game first or give in-depth reviews before anyone else, it helps their bottom line by drawing a crowd to their respective sites or network (in G4's case).  

Going back to the video I linked that was initially linked by someone else (sorry didn't mean to take credit for it before), Chobot mentioned the "boomstick" easter egg.  Out of all the videos I've seen (I may have missed a few), that was the only one that featured that easter egg.

I don't think EA would give any site exclusive rights to an early review for ME3.  This is going to be one of their biggest titles of the year, and they want it reviewed as widley as possible so they can establish a strong Metacritic rating for the game's launch.  If they limit early access to just a couple of outlets it hurts their ability to accomplish this goal.  

I really do see why some posters are slightly put off by Chobot's inclusion in the game, I just don't think that it will sway any reviewers at G4 or IGN.  It is almost a given that this game will get a 5/5 at G4 and a 9+ at IGN based on the performance of the last two games in the franchise.  BW would have to SERIOUSLY drop the ball for the reviews to be any lower than this.  

[Nexis7]

ITT: chobot