326 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Oh I agree. That is stuff that needs to stop.

But it is a lot different from payoffs because that actually has little control over the eventual outcome of the games performance. 

All this arguing and yet we actually seem to be in agreement.

Payoff can mean a lot of things, as in, this reviewer's deal with that publisher paid off for them.

for IGN perhaps, but that is at best a conflict of interest and it rests solely on IGN misbehaving, not the publisher. After all, IGN didn't recuse themselves from reviewing the game with an employee in it.

That shows IGN as a site as being unprofessional. That, however, is not emblematic of the industry as a whole. This is why its a thorny issue. 

Again, I never said it's the whole industry, that would be a huge claim. Indefensible without proof or at least indication of multiple instances.

I will not even categorically say that my opinion on the IGN thing is truth. I just think there's too much to chew on for the whole thing to be explained away by lack of professionalism. 

Fair point.  I am outright saying it though that IGN was unprofessional. For me it was clear the moment they had a review up. But thats me.

[ladyvader]

Alex Arterius wrote...

What's everyones thoughts in regards to this?

Deserving or non deserving?

More deserving than Skyrim which was out for a month and buggy as hell and crashed the PS3 system.

[clarkusdarkus]

billy the squid wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The fact that someone who works at IGN got a prominant spot in a video game?  DUH!  This means that there was a conscious decision made by a party at BioWare and a party at IGN to put Chobit in the game.  You can denie it because thats how business negotiations and contracts work.  They could have gone for someone with more acting skill and potential (say someone with a name).  But they didn't.  They took no-name chobit from IGN.

So IGN gets recognition from one of their cast being in a BioWare game.  What does BioWare get?  Revenue from reviews and payoffs from IGN.  Trust me bub, ive been in the corporate world a lot longer than you.  I know how these things work.

I've already told you that this isn't proof. Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make your failed point relevant.

Show. Me. Concrete. Proof.

If you have none why should I believe your claims? 

Because dismissing everything that isn't a big wad of cash as not proof is asinine and stupid and no lawyer in their right mind would let EA corporate do that.

So we're in the world of nudge, nudge wink, wink, secret corporate handshakes. Favours for favours because it's a technical loophole companies use to get round the anti corruption legislation. 

Thus, dismissing shady or odd practices which have little to no basis when everyone knows that this kind of thing has gone on before with other companies encouraging reviews with a bribe fund, sorry, I mean marketing and advertising budget running into the millions. *nudge nudge.

Just as dismissing these kind of goings on is as daft as acting like a ten year old, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la, la I can't hear you! It's not happening!" whilst pretending that politicians never lie and corporate world is a squeeky clean as Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Finally someone with some sense, well said and i agree to everything......im utterly in disbelief that people don't think such things go on in marketing/advertising

[in it for the lolz]

Not surprised by this. IGN would do anything for more of EA's monies.

[Malanek]

It was my favourite game of the year inspite of the ending and in fact the idea to base the overall plot around the crucible was weak as well. But the game was really emotionally stirring and the multiplayer has been superb.

[Mcfly616]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

First off, IGN....



Secondly, let me know when ME3 starts winning from gamer voted GOTY awards, like The Golden Joystick for example, and maybe then i'll give a s***.

last I checked the GI forums, a lot of people were voting either ME3 or Halo 4 for Reader's Choice GOTY.....with a few AC3's and Borderland 2's.


I can't decide if my vote is going to ME3 or Halo 4. I find them both deserving. Considering they're my 2 favorite gaming series its nice to see them getting recognition. Still, because they're my favorites I'm highly critical of them. 343 industries crushed a lot of criticism and worries, and delivered the best Halo since Combat Evolved. Bioware did something that has never been done in gaming history. Kudos to both. I may not even vote, simply because I can't decide.

In the end, the IAA's should be the only awards that matter, the rest is personal opinions while the IAA's are akin to the Oscars. 

I get what you're saying.....but I gotta tell you, I'm a huge movie buff. I watch the Oscars every year, and over the course of the past 10 years, the Academy has shown time and time again, what a bunch of political sellouts they are. Especially last year. Holy sh*t! I mean, a silent movie wins Film of the Year in 2012? What a joke.

[shepskisaac]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I get what you're saying.....but I gotta tell you, I'm a huge movie buff. I watch the Oscars every year, and over the course of the past 10 years, the Academy has shown time and time again, what a bunch of political sellouts they are. Especially last year. Holy sh*t! I mean, a silent movie wins Film of the Year in 2012? What a joke.

Yeah, it ain't like the Oscars are not about the politics/campaigns. However, at least they don't promote movies that don't need anymore promotion. Gaming awards, and that includes IAAs, BAFTAs and GDCs nominate and reward $50+ million blockbusters all the time. Do these games need awards to become hits/profitable? Hell no, they already have huge marketing budgets. It would be as if the Academy was nominating mostly Transformers, Avengers or Twilight movies.

At the very least, the Oscars promote smaller films that indeed do need awards to get larger recognition.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:33 .

[Ryoten]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The fact that someone who works at IGN got a prominant spot in a video game?  DUH!  This means that there was a conscious decision made by a party at BioWare and a party at IGN to put Chobit in the game.  You can denie it because thats how business negotiations and contracts work.  They could have gone for someone with more acting skill and potential (say someone with a name).  But they didn't.  They took no-name chobit from IGN.

So IGN gets recognition from one of their cast being in a BioWare game.  What does BioWare get?  Revenue from reviews and payoffs from IGN.  Trust me bub, ive been in the corporate world a lot longer than you.  I know how these things work.

I've already told you that this isn't proof. Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make your failed point relevant.

Show. Me. Concrete. Proof.

If you have none why should I believe your claims? 

The proof is in your face.  You are OUTRIGHT denieing how basic business works.  It's your counter logic that fails because all you keep doing to counter my evidence is state strawman arguements.  And all you do, is provide failed counter arguments by denieing anything i am saying with the same "one liners".   Get a damn educations.  Take some business classes and learn how the world works when it comes to business and corporations.

Actually, it seems like you need to be taught a lesson real quick.

Basic business practices in such a case would likely sign a contract to lease Chobot to BioWare for a voice recording session. I highly doubt an exchange of money or fees was made by Chobot or by IGN to EA or BioWare to give them a good grade, because such an exchange would then be on BioWare's fiscal year report back at the end of the 2011-2012 results.

Simply put, that did not happen and has little to do with business at all. Now IGN should recuse themselves from naming anything game of the year because of this, but its highly doubtful that money was exhanged to get a good grade, considering that would be a bribe and illegal, and then both EA and IGN would be under criminal investigation for laundering, bribery and other white collar crimes that would show up in a fiscal report when expenses are unexplained.

So yeah, shut up because that is not proof of anything but just IGN being ethically amoral. 

Really so i guess people just work for free now?  Gee, and people wonder why society is degrading.

"So yeah, shut up because that is not proof of anything but just IGN being ethically amoral. "

awwwww did hurt your delicate little feelings.  It's ok, you'll grow up and enter the real world someday.  Then you'll realize how capitalism and free markets work.  And realize the society isnt a utopia. 

Also, telling me to shut up!?! *monacle pops out of eye* How rude and a brute!

Considering you are no doubt a teenager who has no clue what the hell he is saying, someone needed to put you in your place. Might as well be the guy who taught kids for a living. 

And no, people don't work for free now. Likely Chobot was paid for her services. In the gaming world previews and interviews are usually when payment happens, reviews actually are rarely paid outside of a free copy of the game. The other payments include going to press junkets and events, free hotel rooms and parties and what not to impress people. 

That is more of an issue than bad review scores. That is also slowly changing, because the big companies are spending less on press junkets in Las Vegas and more time on junkets in actual meeting rooms. 

I'm actually 29 with a degree in Information Technology and working for the New York State Senate.  That's right, they put who people who don't have a clue in positions helping to run our governments.  Hows does that make you feel. =)

Sad because I live in New York. 

No wonder I can't get a job then, if you are part of the NYS Senate. 

so are you done trying to flex your e-penis or do you have anything relevant to say? Otherwise try to goad someone else into a fight. So far I am sitting here laughing at your immaturity.  

That's funny because what i have to say, says a lot.  I'm the one with the job, and you are not.  Which says levels on my knowledge.  You should listen to those who are wise, like myself.  Because....and ill put it in your words....So far i am sitting here laughing at your ignorance.  Not to mention all my cash from your taxes!

[Ryoten]

billy the squid wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

The fact that someone who works at IGN got a prominant spot in a video game?  DUH!  This means that there was a conscious decision made by a party at BioWare and a party at IGN to put Chobit in the game.  You can denie it because thats how business negotiations and contracts work.  They could have gone for someone with more acting skill and potential (say someone with a name).  But they didn't.  They took no-name chobit from IGN.

So IGN gets recognition from one of their cast being in a BioWare game.  What does BioWare get?  Revenue from reviews and payoffs from IGN.  Trust me bub, ive been in the corporate world a lot longer than you.  I know how these things work.

I've already told you that this isn't proof. Repeating the same thing over and over again won't make your failed point relevant.

Show. Me. Concrete. Proof.

If you have none why should I believe your claims? 

Because dismissing everything that isn't a big wad of cash as not proof is asinine and stupid and no lawyer in their right mind would let EA corporate do that.

So we're in the world of nudge, nudge wink, wink, secret corporate handshakes. Favours for favours because it's a technical loophole companies use to get round the anti corruption legislation. 

Thus, dismissing shady or odd practices which have little to no basis when everyone knows that this kind of thing has gone on before with other companies encouraging reviews with a bribe fund, sorry, I mean marketing and advertising budget running into the millions. *nudge nudge. Is daft.

Just as dismissing these kind of goings on is as daft as acting like a ten year old, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la, la I can't hear you! It's not happening!" whilst pretending that politicians never lie and the corporate world is as squeaky clean as Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Actually, we live in a world thats as shady as Obamas birth cirtificate.

Modifié par Ryoten, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[Animositisomina]

Ryoten wrote...

 You should listen to those who are wise, like myself.

I don't see much wisdom in being an arrogant ******. Just sayin'. :innocent:

[Ryoten]

Animositisomina wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

 You should listen to those who are wise, like myself.

I don't see much wisdom in being an arrogant ******. Just sayin'. :innocent:

ooohh ouch my feelings.  That all you got? 

[FlamingBoy]

Clivemax69 wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I don't see why a writer on a video game website shouldn't be allowed to defend a game he likes.

He's a journalist, not a knight defender. If he just likes it, why should he care that other people don't?

Plus, IGN pays him, they finance the videos. They're not going to let him get into a feud with fans just like that. Why would they damage their own popularity for just that one game?

That is not a sound business decision.

Your second sentence could be said about every single person on this site. Like for dislike the game, why should they care if other people have a different view about the game?

Edit: Also, IGN gave it a 9.5 not a 10.

every secound person on this site does not work for a news organisation, there are higher levels of expectations

[ShepnTali]

Probably top 3, but Walking Dead for me.

[Animositisomina]

Ryoten wrote...

Animositisomina wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

 You should listen to those who are wise, like myself.

I don't see much wisdom in being an arrogant ******. Just sayin'. :innocent:

ooohh ouch my feelings.  That all you got? 

Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. Just an observation. Carry on.

[Peranor]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

IGN´s credibility - vocal minority =/= common sense

Someone With Mass wrote...

Where's that gif of EA giving IGN money to get a higher score when you need it...

*ModEdit: Image removed per Site Rule #6*
Don´t worry, net time they will say that Mass Effect 3 is best game forever ...

When I saw this topic I knew that gif would be in here 

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 06 décembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Steve The Seal]

Eterna5 wrote...

Ryoten wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

"IGN disagrees with me, they're money grabbing EA ****s!"

You guys are fun.

Well, when people pay you off, you dont exactly become an un-bias party.

Show me proof, then I'll agree with you.

Until then stfu. 

Well of course there is no proof... You would have to have access to a pretty detailed financial report... which probably only EA has...

But what IGN is doing is somewhat shady, I would say... The reviewer from IGN who reviewed Dragon Age 2 (she apparently gave them a good review and a lot of people dislike the way DA2 turned out), shortly after she got a job at Bioware. Chobot, who works for IGN, suddenly got a role in ME3. Furthermore IGN decided to write an article with the title "Why do people 'hate' EA?".
As a company based on gaming news and reviews, it isn't the brightest idea to even create the slightest doubt, about them being unbiased. If you ask me, it is the worst thing for a company like IGN, to show, even if they are small, signs that you are biased.

Modifié par Steve The Seal, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:49 .

[Steve The Seal]

woops double post

Modifié par Steve The Seal, 05 décembre 2012 - 10:49 .

[Mcfly616]

IsaacShep wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I get what you're saying.....but I gotta tell you, I'm a huge movie buff. I watch the Oscars every year, and over the course of the past 10 years, the Academy has shown time and time again, what a bunch of political sellouts they are. Especially last year. Holy sh*t! I mean, a silent movie wins Film of the Year in 2012? What a joke.

Yeah, it ain't like the Oscars are not about the politics/campaigns. However, at least they don't promote movies that don't need anymore promotion. Gaming awards, and that includes IAAs, BAFTAs and GDCs nominate and reward $50+ million blockbusters all the time. Do these games need awards to become hits/profitable? Hell no, they already have huge marketing budgets. It would be as if the Academy was nominating mostly Transformers, Avengers or Twilight movies.

At the very least, the Oscars promote smaller films that indeed do need awards to get larger recognition.

I agree with you on that. I appreciate the Academy giving recognition to independent films. But there's also a lot wrong. Leonardo Dicaprio has been nominated for 3 or 4 Best Actor Oscars in the past decade. He definitely deserved it the year that Forrest Whitaker won for playing that Ethiopian dictator(Whitaker wasn't even the protagonist of the film lol....but it was great performance none the less)

The biggest robbery I've ever seen on they Oscars? Well, that has to be the Academy awarding the Best Actress Oscar to Halle Berry in Monsters Ball(for completely obvious political reasons), instead of giving it to Nicole Kidman for her impeccable performance in Moulin Rouge. Though, the academy awarded it to her the next year to make up for their gaff the year before....even though she wasn't even the main character of The Hours(the movie she won the award for)

[AlanC9]

Mcfly616 wrote...
 I get what you're saying.....but I gotta tell you, I'm a huge movie buff. I watch the Oscars every year, and over the course of the past 10 years, the Academy has shown time and time again, what a bunch of political sellouts they are. Especially last year. Holy sh*t! I mean, a silent movie wins Film of the Year in 2012? What a joke.

Silent = bad???

As for Kidman in Moulin Rouge, I never thought she had much of a chance. Baz Luhrman's style is just too trashy for many Academy voters. I'm kind of surprised the picture got nominated.

Edit: the title's actually Moulin Rouge! -- which sort of illustrates the problem.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 décembre 2012 - 11:00 .

[survivor_686]

I would be hesitant in believing IGN's ranking and/or review wrt to Mass Effect 3. Given the fact that one of their more prominent employees is in it, it would be hard to argue that they would be unbiased in their ranking.

[shepskisaac]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I agree with you on that. I appreciate the Academy giving recognition to independent films. But there's also a lot wrong. Leonardo Dicaprio has been nominated for 3 or 4 Best Actor Oscars in the past decade. He definitely deserved it the year that Forrest Whitaker won for playing that Ethiopian dictator(Whitaker wasn't even the protagonist of the film lol....but it was great performance none the less)

The biggest robbery I've ever seen on they Oscars? Well, that has to be the Academy awarding the Best Actress Oscar to Halle Berry in Monsters Ball(for completely obvious political reasons), instead of giving it to Nicole Kidman for her impeccable performance in Moulin Rouge. Though, the academy awarded it to her the next year to make up for their gaff the year before....even though she wasn't even the main character of The Hours(the movie she won the award for)

Nah, Kidman can totally do without an Oscar for Moulin Rouge, it was a great performance but let's not get crazy. And if Berry got her Oscar due to political reasons, well, not a single black actress got Best Actress before her exactly because political reasons so it doesn't even compare. In the end it helped, broke the barries, black actresses are being nominated and win a lot more now and for fully deserved performances so I don't see a problem.

[Mcfly616]

AlanC9 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...
 I get what you're saying.....but I gotta tell you, I'm a huge movie buff. I watch the Oscars every year, and over the course of the past 10 years, the Academy has shown time and time again, what a bunch of political sellouts they are. Especially last year. Holy sh*t! I mean, a silent movie wins Film of the Year in 2012? What a joke.

Silent = bad???

As for Kidman in Moulin Rouge, I never thought she had much of a chance. Baz Luhrman's style is just too trashy for many Academy voters. I'm kind of surprised the picture got nominated.

I didn't say "silent = bad"....but let's be real, it shouldn't have won. It was dofferent amd artsy, so they gave it to them.

I'm not a fan of Moulin Rouge, but I can recognize a great performance when I see one. And Ewan Mcgregor and Kidman both acted their ass' off, all while singing their ass' off. Speaking of trashy, that's exactly why Halle Berry won. She played out of character, instead of nice and pretty, she was a trashy drug fiend. The same reason Denzel won that very same year for Training Day(he was more deserving of his award that Halle was, but their were other actors that had better performances that year). Training Day is far from Denzel's best work. But he went out of character and snagged the award. Berry's was a joke though. Anybody who's seen Monster's Ball can attest to that.

[TheProtheans]

It appears they didn't just buy reviews, but media picks too.

[Mathias]

If Mass Effect wins GOTY or RPG of the year from ANY place, i wouldn't be able to take it seriously. I criticize the game a lot, but i never believed it was a truly bad game. However there are games that came out this year that were just better or way better overall. I mean ME3 received so much criticism and got made fun of by tons of gamers, youtube shows, and other forms of media. And that wasn't just for the ending.

But ME3 does bring in a lot of advertisement revenue to sites like IGN and Gameinformer for example, so yes i definitely think there's some biased decision making for reviews and awards.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 05 décembre 2012 - 11:09 .

[Obeded the 2nd]

Should've guessed everyone here would say they got payed off.

When someone doesn't agree with someone elses opinion like some people here it makes me sick, if you don't like ME 3 that's fine and in your GOTY's that would matter but on IGN's ship we entertain their preferences.
And I don't think it should have been nominated, I like ME 3 but there were too many other games I think desevered GOTY instead of ME 3, still a very enjoyable game IMO.