Jessica Chobot's bit role in Mass Effect 3 as potential love interest Diana Allers seems a little suspect to me. Should IGN be rendering a verdict on the game with a major staff member having been in it?

Full disclosure, I have myself NOT played ME3 yet. I just find this to be a tad greasy. IGN I guess, right?

I don't see how BioWare could get away with putting anything positive said by IGN on their box cover (not to say they have). Not if they're paying one of the IGN employees to be in their game. Seems to be a conflict of interest.

She doesn't really work at IGN anymore and certainly isn't a major staff member. The only thing she does is the IGN strategize videos, if I'm not mistaken.

I also love how you refer to her as potential love interest.

The fact IGN was fucking covered in advertisements on the review makes it suspect.

@Zacagawea: Pretty sure I saw her on the frontpage of their website not long ago.

EDIT: She is a love interest... you can bang her. I guess maybe love wouldn't be the right word. Prostitution? Seems more appropriate.

You are the first person on the Internet to raise this topic

@BadOrcLDR said:

@Zacagawea: Pretty sure I saw her on the frontpage of their website not long ago.

She hosts a show or two. Doesn't mean shit as she certainly isn't anywhere near the review process.

@Zacagawea said:

She doesn't really work at IGN anymore

Jessica doesn't really work for IGN? I guess this image of her standing in front of ME3 background on the front page means she doesn't work there much.

@Zacagawea: Does NOT matter. If she works for the company that reviews a game, as well as working for the game studio, there is an obvious conflict of interest. Chobot, as it would seem, is somebody of some value to both sides, otherwise neither would have her face in their content.

It has universal acclaim on Meta Critic. In fact Giant Bomb and VideoGamer gave the game its two lowest scores. IGN score of 95 was high, but by no means was it even one of the ten highest scores the game received. There review wasn't really bias and Chobot's role in Mass Effect 3 is supposedly the equivalent of Olivia Mun in Iron Man 2 (I haven't played it though so I could have been lied to).

Edit:

@BadOrcLDR said:

She is a love interest... you can bang her. I guess maybe love wouldn't be the right word. Prostitution? Seems more appropriate.

If you can bang her I guess I was lied to.

IGN is one giant conflict of interest.

@DarthOrange: It doesn't matter how other people review the game. It might be a good game, but if a company essentially owns the image of somebody who is in a product they are reviewing, there is, as it would seem, an obvious flippin issue. The review put up is moot, no matter how valid it might be.

It's a less direct relationship than advertising a game on a website that also reviews it. And that happens all the time on loads of gaming websites, including Giant Bomb. I can understand people wishing to disregard IGN's review because of the relationship, and anyone is free to do that. But I don't see any reason for them to altogether not review the game. If you think it could lead to bias, ignore the review. Simple. And people who disagree with that view are free to read and take in the review. Everyone is happy. Or they should be, anyway.

@MattyFTM said:

It's a less direct relationship than advertising a game on a website that also reviews it. And that happens all the time on loads of gaming websites, including Giant Bomb. I can understand people wishing to disregard IGN's review because of the relationship, and anyone is free to do that. But I don't see any reason for them to altogether not review the game. If you think it could lead to bias, ignore the review. Simple. And people who disagree with that view are free to read and take in the review. Everyone is happy. Or they should be, anyway.

You really see nothing wrong with this?

I'm posting this because it is  

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: Well done, sir. Well done.

@Akeldama said:

@Zacagawea said:

She doesn't really work at IGN anymore

Jessica doesn't really work for IGN? I guess this image of her standing in front of ME3 background on the front page means she doesn't work there much.

Reading off a script for a two minute video a week is definitely what I would consider not working there much.

IGN has every right to review a major game that features an employee in a small roll who has nothing to do with the review of the game. IGN is huge. Just because somebody who works there is in it they aren't going to say, "Oh, Jess is in it, better give it a better score because I've talked to her before." Or are you trying to say that it was some sort of a trade-off that if they would allow an employee in the game they would give it a better score? I don't know what kind of fucking business that would be on IGN's part. They have no reason to be swayed. Maybe if it was a smaller company, but even then yes they should be able to render a verdict on the game.

@Zacagawea said:

@Akeldama

Reading off a script for a two minute video a week is definitely what I would consider not working there much.

IGN has every right to review a major game that features an employee in a small roll who has nothing to do with the review of the game. IGN is huge. Just because somebody who works there is in it they aren't going to say, "Oh, Jess is in it, better give it a better score because I've talked to her before." Or are you trying to say that it was some sort of a trade-off that if they would allow an employee in the game they would give it a better score? I don't know what kind of fucking business that would be on IGN's part. They have no reason to be swayed. Maybe if it was a smaller company, but even then yes they should be able to render a verdict on the game.

I beg to differ with everything you said.

The only reason why her appearance in the game doesn't mean a lot is: IGN was already a shitty review site that works way too closely with publishers before.

@Akeldama said:

@MattyFTM said:

It's a less direct relationship than advertising a game on a website that also reviews it. And that happens all the time on loads of gaming websites, including Giant Bomb. I can understand people wishing to disregard IGN's review because of the relationship, and anyone is free to do that. But I don't see any reason for them to altogether not review the game. If you think it could lead to bias, ignore the review. Simple. And people who disagree with that view are free to read and take in the review. Everyone is happy. Or they should be, anyway.

You really see nothing wrong with this?

I personally wouldn't read nor trust that IGN review (but then I haven't read IGN in years, so the point is pretty moot). But not everyone feels that way. If someone else wants to read and listen to IGN's review on the subject, it's up to them. I don't see anything wrong with the review existing.

@Zacagawea: I must admit, I am a not a Business Major, but I'm pretty sure that BioWare benefits from putting a person who is, for all intents and purposes, owned by a company (the people who hires Ms. Chobot and thus fuel her image) that reviews their newest blockbuster. It does not matter whether or not the reviewer personally knows Ms. Chobot. If her company, IGN, is reviewing a product that she is in (and thus will get money for being in), then there is a conflict of interest.

Both sides will ultimately benefit from this. In most aspects of business, two companies coming together to benefit one another is a clever way to keep sales steady and increase profit. In journalism it is a far bit less than ethical. If your company reviews a product that you are in, it makes their opinions, at the least, biased as all hell.

Honestly, I am reminded of how Giant Bomb responded to being so involved in showing off Bastion and then deciding not to review it because of it. Nobody from Giant Bomb was in Bastion, they do not work for SuperGiant Games. They still decided not to review it, and rightfully so. IGN is reviewing a game one of their major personalities is in. This goes beyond simple advertising.

@MattyFTM: I see where you are coming from. I guess it was foolish of me to expect honesty from a site like IGN.

not to sound like a dick or anything, sure this is gross buisness practice. i agree, but why complain about it to us? why not complain on the IGN site?

@Akeldama said:

Jessica Chobot's bit role in Mass Effect 3 as potential love interest Diana Allers seems a little suspect to me. Should IGN be rendering a verdict on the game with a major staff member having been in it?

Full disclosure, I have myself NOT played ME3 yet. I just find this to be a tad greasy. IGN I guess, right?

Considering that the game has gotten near universal praise I'm not sure how IGN's review of the game could be questioned. Also Chobot's role in the game is kind of small. Yea she's a love interest and everything but so are a lot of other characters. Look at it this way, if Brad got a voice over role in this game does that mean GB shouldn't review it. No, it just means Brad shouldn't review it.

I would say so, but on the other hand it's not like they had any credibility to loose.

IGN is one giant conflict of interest.

Not sure if it's been brought up but IGN Staff in a recent podcast I listened to were opposed to her being in the game in both likeness in voice. To sum it up, they would of not liked her to be in game. (Pretty sure it was GameScoop but could of been Podcast Beyond)

I told her to f* ck off the moment I saw her. Her face annoys me. hope I dont see her again.

The real question here is: why would anyone read an IGN review?

People would complain even if it is Morgan Webb or something doing the voice. Jessica Chobot doing a fucking voice doesn't magically create a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is like when Roger Evert refused to review Beyond the Valley of the Dolls because he wrote that movie. Jessica Chobot was not involved with the creation of the game and just because she is associated with a company (a company that the internet loves to bitch about at any given opportunity) does not mean IGN shouldn't review it. The fact that this is an issue is stupid. The problem with Chobot isn't that she is from IGN. The problem is that she is a fucking terrible actress.

@DarthOrange said:

There review wasn't really bias

biasED

bias is a noun. how did this become such a major thing? and of course it's "their review" but I'm trying not to lose my shit every time I see a there/their/they're mix up...

on topic: seriously, who cares? she doesn't review games, she mainly serves as a video host and appeared on podcasts. she's a self-proclaimed mass effect/dragon age/bioware-in-general fan-girl and that's not a secret. she happens to be in the game as a character. does anyone seriously think that IGN is gonna praise the game to the high heavens because she's in it? no, they're gonna do it because it's a mass effect game and people love those. if EVERYBODY else said the game was trash and then IGN gave it a 9+ score, that might be different... but still. it's not like you're uncovering some sort of conspiracy or shady dealings here.

@DonChipotle: if morgan webb did a voice I would trust her and the Sess to not review it honestly

@Animasta said:

@DonChipotle: if morgan webb did a voice I would trust her and the Sess to not review it honestly

Would it help if I said Olivia Munn then? The point is that people are flipping their shit because of Chobot's employer and that whole "epic for the win" crap.

@DonChipotle: You are wrong. It is clearly a conflict of interest ... you seem to not understand this concept.

@DonChipotle said:

@Animasta said:

@DonChipotle: if morgan webb did a voice I would trust her and the Sess to not review it honestly

Would it help if I said Olivia Munn then? The point is that people are flipping their shit because of Chobot's employer and that whole "epic for the win" crap.

flipping their shit sounds a little extreme, just that it is a conflict of interest regardless of the parties involved.

@Animasta said:

@DonChipotle said:

@Animasta said:

@DonChipotle: if morgan webb did a voice I would trust her and the Sess to not review it honestly

Would it help if I said Olivia Munn then? The point is that people are flipping their shit because of Chobot's employer and that whole "epic for the win" crap.

flipping their shit sounds a little extreme, just that it is a conflict of interest regardless of the parties involved.

Flipping their shit is exactly what they did. And continue to do.

@CptBedlam said:

@DonChipotle: You are wrong. It is clearly a conflict of interest ... you seem to not understand this concept.

It's not a conflict of interest. Chobot's involvement didn't change the reasoning and motivation of the reviewer or the company.

@DeF said:

@DarthOrange said:

There review wasn't really bias

biasED

bias is a noun. how did this become such a major thing? and of course it's "their review" but I'm trying not to lose my shit every time I see a there/their/they're mix up...

on topic: seriously, who cares? she doesn't review games, she mainly serves as a video host and appeared on podcasts. she's a self-proclaimed mass effect/dragon age/bioware-in-general fan-girl and that's not a secret. she happens to be in the game as a character. does anyone seriously think that IGN is gonna praise the game to the high heavens because she's in it? no, they're gonna do it because it's a mass effect game and people love those. if EVERYBODY else said the game was trash and then IGN gave it a 9+ score, that might be different... but still. it's not like you're uncovering some sort of conspiracy or shady dealings here.

because the internet likes to make out that video games are serious business and shit like this actually matters. don't like it don't read it.

Most reviews are positive, so no. IGN would probably give it the same score regardless of this Chobot fiasco. Now, I agree that getting her was a mistake. She's not a good actor and I'm always reminded of who I'm talking to. Plus, she isn't that big of a deal to me/ She's a D-list celebrity at best that got popular for licking a PSP. I don't get the appeal.

The real question here is why do you give a shit? At the end of the day, reviews are opinions, not scientific or legal analysis. Every single review and critique that has ever been written comes from a place of bias because entertainment does not exist in a vacuum. Someone who got 100% completion in ME 1 and 2 will review ME 3 in a completely different way than someone who just burned through the critical path to see the main storyline. Also, unless all reviewers are kept in a bubble and never meet anyone from the game industry, there is little chance of major sites ever escaping your conflict of interest.

Look at Giant Bomb. How many videos have they done of them hanging out with the dudes from Double Fine? Does that mean they should recuse themselves from ever reviewing a DF game? No, because they aren't taking part in the creation of the game. Are we to trust that they'll be honest and fair when reviewing games made my people they are obviously friends with? Yea, because it's still just an opinion and it should be given appropriate weight as such.

Chobot being in ME3 probably amounts to her spending a day in a studio somewhere recording all her dialogue. I doubt she had any creative input into how the game was created, whatsoever. Truth be told, IGN gave ME 3 a 9.5 as soon as it was announced and so did a lot of other sites. In their heads, they decided this was going to be a great game before they had ever touched it.

What I am trying to say here is get over yourselves. The notion of "credibility" in subjective writing is laughable, at best. Critics are people with opinions and their opinion is no more or less valid than my own or yours. Play the game, yourself, and stop worrying what people whom you've never met think of it.

Not sure if it's been brought up but IGN Staff in a recent podcast I listened to were opposed to her being in the game in both likeness in voice. To sum it up, they would of not liked her to be in game. (Pretty sure it was GameScoop but could of been Podcast Beyond)

@BadOrcLDR said:

@Zacagawea: I must admit, I am a not a Business Major, but I'm pretty sure that BioWare benefits from putting a person who is, for all intents and purposes, owned by a company (the people who hires Ms. Chobot and thus fuel her image) that reviews their newest blockbuster. It does not matter whether or not the reviewer personally knows Ms. Chobot. If her company, IGN, is reviewing a product that she is in (and thus will get money for being in), then there is a conflict of interest.

Both sides will ultimately benefit from this. In most aspects of business, two companies coming together to benefit one another is a clever way to keep sales steady and increase profit. In journalism it is a far bit less than ethical. If your company reviews a product that you are in, it makes their opinions, at the least, biased as all hell.

Honestly, I am reminded of how Giant Bomb responded to being so involved in showing off Bastion and then deciding not to review it because of it. Nobody from Giant Bomb was in Bastion, they do not work for SuperGiant Games. They still decided not to review it, and rightfully so. IGN is reviewing a game one of their major personalities is in. This goes beyond simple advertising.

Well said sir. I tip my glass to you.

@Akeldama:

I think the evidence suggests that IGN is not far off from the average review score. According to metacritic, IGN gave ME3 a score that correlates to 95 on their scale. That is directly in the middle of the reviews on there. Over 10 editors rated the game 100 and 4 editors rated it below 90. If there was a conflict of interest, IGN's score would be dramatically lower or higher then the average. But it isn't so this is a non-issue.

@selbie said:

IGN is one giant conflict of interest.

IGN is a positive review factory. Chobot's involvement with Mass Effect does not make IGN's review any more of a conflict of interest, because IGN don't give no fucks about Chobot, they care about the advertising money they have gotten and continue to get from publishers like EA.

I don't really care. If somebody gets tricked by trusting an IGN review into buying Mass Effect 3, that's a pretty good way to get ripped off. I'd like it if more sacrifices of integrity worked out well like that.

@Cretaceous_Bob said:

@selbie said:

IGN is one giant conflict of interest.

IGN is a positive review factory. Chobot's involvement with Mass Effect does not make IGN's review any more of a conflict of interest, because IGN don't give no fucks about Chobot, they care about the advertising money they have gotten and continue to get from publishers like EA.

I don't really care. If somebody gets tricked by trusting an IGN review into buying Mass Effect 3, that's a pretty good way to get ripped off. I'd like it if more sacrifices of integrity worked out well like that.

Hey check this out!!!! http://www.metacritic.com/publication/ign?filter=games

It's an overview of IGN's reviews on metacritic. You're argument states that they should have nearly all positive reviews and that they are dramatically more positive then other review outlets. They have had 5,347 positive reviews, 4,460 mixed reviews, and 1,493 negative reviews. They rate games, on average, 4.3 points lower then other review outlets. By comparison, Giant Bomb has 362 positive reviews, 199 mixed reviews, and 88 negative reviews and rate games, on average, 2.6 points lower then other review outlets. Worth Playing rates games 1.2 points lower then other outlets and has had 2,039 positive, 1,514 mixed, and 299 negative reviews.

...just saying.

I don't understand how IGN reviewed this game so highly, the story stinks and the game completed its transformation to being a mindless third person shooter, the amount of wave combat towards the end is horrible.

@Sooty said:

I don't understand how IGN reviewed this game so highly, the story stinks and the game completed its transformation to being a mindless third person shooter, the amount of wave combat towards the end is horrible.

So how did you really feel about the game?

It's a triple-A title, it's BioWare. And there ain't no professional reviewer on this God given earth that has the balls to say the game sucks (if the reviewer really feels that way). So uh, what conflict of interest?

@JasonR86 said:

@Sooty said:

I don't understand how IGN reviewed this game so highly, the story stinks and the game completed its transformation to being a mindless third person shooter, the amount of wave combat towards the end is horrible.

So how did you really feel about the game?

I wasn't that impressed really, it didn't start as strong as the second game and I felt there was less exploration on foot, you could do that stuff if you really wanted but the story requires almost none of it, you're just warping from location to location. The missions felt like they were just go here shoot these dudes press this terminal and move on, towards the end it turns into wave based combat over and over again and sometimes you'll have to defend a point or just "survive". Let's not get into how lame the endings are.

And yet, IGN didn't even give the game a perfect score, unlike Eurogamer and Game Informer. Keep uncovering this conspiracy, guys. The truth is out there.

Seeing as how the editors there have expressed a certain amount of displeasure with her (as someone they know personally) being in the game they want to immerse themselves in, I wouldn't count on it inflating the review scores.  On top of that, I would think that IGN as a company has very little to gain or lose from her appearance in the game.