If they gave the game a good review, it's not like they would be the only one. It seems to be universally liked. If all other media outlets except for IGN pooped on the game, then that would be suspect. Also, I don't think they got Chobot herself to review the game, I doubt she will even play it.

I've never really understood the whole hatred for IGN some people have. All of these sites (GiantBomb included) are news/opinion sites. Some may do things a little differently or more commercially, but they aren't hurting anyone.

They can't not review ME3. It's one of the biggest games of the year. Also it's not like she is a reviewer herself. She's just a pretty face for video segments. To me it's no more of a conflict of interest as the GB guys reviewing double fine games given their close relationship with them. And by that I mean it's a non issue.

@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.

    

It's IGN. Even without this or Chobot they are, and always will be, a garbage ass website.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@JasonR86 said:

@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.

Giantbomb:
For 649 reviews, this publication has graded:

30% higher than the average critic

3% same as the average critic

67% lower than the average critic

IGN:
For 11,300 reviews, this publication has graded:

60% higher than the average critic

7% same as the average critic

33% lower than the average critic

Where is your god now!?

How is the average critic defined?

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@JasonR86 said:

@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.

Giantbomb:
For 649 reviews, this publication has graded:

30% higher than the average critic

3% same as the average critic

67% lower than the average critic

IGN:
For 11,300 reviews, this publication has graded:

60% higher than the average critic

7% same as the average critic

33% lower than the average critic

Where is your god now!?

Just to the right of that (for IGN);

On average, this publication grades 4.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)

Average review score; 69.

WHAT?!?!?!?

(also, IGN reviews everything and other sites don't so using averages and stats to compare them to other sites is kind of foolhardy but I thought this thread needed an opposing voice).

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@JasonR86 said:

@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.

Giantbomb:
For 649 reviews, this publication has graded: 30% higher than the average critic
3% same as the average critic
67% lower than the average critic

IGN:
For 11,300 reviews, this publication has graded: 60% higher than the average critic
7% same as the average critic
33% lower than the average critic

Where is your god now!?

Just to the right of that (for IGN);

On average, this publication grades 4.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)

Average review score; 69.

WHAT?!?!?!?

(also, IGN reviews everything and other sites don't sousing averages and stats to compare them to other sites is kind of foolhardybut I thought this thread needed an opposing voice).

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

@JasonR86 said:

@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.

Giantbomb:
For 649 reviews, this publication has graded:

30% higher than the average critic

3% same as the average critic

67% lower than the average critic

IGN:
For 11,300 reviews, this publication has graded:

60% higher than the average critic

7% same as the average critic

33% lower than the average critic

Where is your god now!?

Just to the right of that (for IGN);

On average, this publication grades 4.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)

Average review score; 69.

WHAT?!?!?!?

(also, IGN reviews everything and other sites don't so using averages and stats to compare them to other sites is kind of foolhardy but I thought this thread needed an opposing voice).

That's sort of my point.

Regardless, my point still holds that the guy I was speaking to is wrong for a number of reasons but I also decided to give him as much proof as he gave the rest of us.

...glad we got that out of the way then.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish:

It's the internet I'll do and act how I want!!!

I'm so fucking glad I said 'fuck no' to her in the citadel. God damn, she annoys me enough just by being mentioned. I cannot imagine seeing a 'likeness' of here potentially every time I play, unless I can throw her out of the airlock. Or into the tantalus core. Or onto the thanix cannons. Or somewhere that ensures death of that abysmal 'character'.

Other than being 'hot' why is she in the game in the first place, I mean she's not a trained actor is she?

@hughesman said:

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

I don't HATE their reviews, but I don't have the 3 hours to read the novellas that pass as game reviews there. They often mistake word count and quality.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: Those Giant Bomb statistics can't really be put up against most other review sites. IGN uses a 10 point scale, while Giant bomb uses a 5 point scale. A 4 star game is still pretty good, but that translates to a 80 out of 100. Of course their reviews are going to be lower than most critics. The Giant Bomb review scale means something much different.

I don't really like IGN all that much, but this is still valid.

Jessica Chobot is a prominant face at IGN. Her celebrity reflects positively on that website and probably directs internet traffic to it. Having her in very popular and very well reviewed game is not only good for her career it is also very good for IGN. It could seem that may be a influencing factor of the games high score. IGN couldn't have avoided reviewing the game, it's too big of a game for a website like that not to review it. In order to maintain transparency they should have had mention at the beginning of their review that one of their employees was in the game, but that it no way would reflect the review of it.

I think she's also a part of G4tv, and I think they should have done the same.

Didn't Giantbomb not review Bastion because they are close friends with one of the developers? That's the safest route to go.

She's not a journalist or anything, more of an entertainer or something. I think she just does the videos and maybe a podcast or two. There's no conflict of interest if she's not involved in the review.

Put simply: IGN have an ongoing relationship with Jessica Chobot.

As of now, Bioware have an ongoing relationship with Jessica Chobot.

I see a conflict of interest there, however vague, but that's not to say that IGN's ad campaign doesn't give them a direct relationship with Bioware anyway...

There is no conflict of interest because IGN would have given it a high score regardless of Chobot's inclusion. IGN rarely goes against the grain for any high profile game. At least new Gamespot has the balls to give Skyward Sword a 7.5, for as much as it rightfully seems like a way to attract attention.

@Akeldama: Why the hell not, she isn't doing the review now is she?

IGN gives inflated reviews to all popular games anyways.

I believe if IGN had made a documentary about Bioware or even had ex co-workers of IGN working (not just V.O) the probably would back off a little bit. Then again Mass Effect is a AAA title so I highly doubt it, funny thing they reviewed the PS3 version, the more buggy and glitchy version of all of them.

IGN is fine as long as CHobot doesn't review the game(she didn't) or have the reviewer work for her(he didn't).

@SuperCycle: Giant Bomb didn't review Bastion not because they are friends with Greg Kasavin but because they were covering the game for several months with their "Building the Bastion" feature. It was because they were covering the development of the game so closely that they chose not to do a review.

I'm so fucking glad I said 'fuck no' to her in the citadel. God damn, she annoys me enough just by being mentioned. I cannot imagine seeing a 'likeness' of here potentially every time I play, unless I can throw her out of the airlock. Or into the tantalus core. Or onto the thanix cannons. Or somewhere that ensures death of that abysmal 'character'.