By Kasey Hullett
Joe Vargas quit his cubicle job back in 2008 shortly after doing a review for the latest Madden franchise game. The video combined sketch and serious criticism. It showed football players tackling developers in the game studio. The video shortly went viral and soon enough the developer contacted Vargas and assured him that the points of criticism that he pointed out would be fixed for next year’s game.
Little did he know, he would become one of the loudest voices in gaming and movie criticism on the internet. With almost 2.5 million subscribers and over 485 million views today, the Angry Joe Show is a widely successful YouTube channel. It even spawned a gaming community known as the Angry Army.
Vargas is a YouTube gaming personality. However, his coverage of new movies and games would also classify him as an opinion journalist. He reviews works with realistic criticisms and previews games with developers. However, the companies he reviews do not pay him.
The giants in the industry frequently cover video game and movie journalism. Take for example the online entertainment media outlet Ign.
IGN claims in its reviewing policy that:
Under no circumstances are review scores influenced by anything other than our own opinions on the quality of the product in question. Scores cannot be bought, sold, traded for favors or promises of future favors, or any other form of exchange or manipulation. . . . Most reviews are conducted using publisher-, studio-, or developer-provided review copies and screenings.
They claim that by receiving free copies of these works, they are getting the review out in a timely manner–when in reality this skews their perception of the work. Look here at the extensive IGN gaming library provided by the publishers they review.
In my opinion, this clearly breaks the SPJ Code of Ethics. They do not act independently. I can understand generating revenue by having advertisements on their website from the publishers, but it should be up to the news organization to buy the products that they are reviewing. They should not generate good favor for what seem to be frequently generous reviews.
Take for example the recent release of EA’s Star Wars Battlefront game. IGN rates them an 8/10 for:
improving on the classic original Battlefront, developer DICE has made almost exactly the Star Wars multiplayer shooter I’ve always wanted.
Angry Joe gave it a 5/10 for an average game with a step in the wrong direction.
Let’s map out the changes of the previous battlefront games of 2004 and 2005 to the 2015 game.
Pros: The 1080p graphics are a clear improvement to the game. The sounds are fantastic and the online modes are massive and immersive.
Cons: There are only 13 maps. There is no single player campaign. You cannot mod it. There is no space combat. There is no galactic conquest. There are no classes. There are only a few vehicles. You can only play in the classic era. You have to pay for in-game purchases on top of a $60 game. It also costs $50 for the season pass and each DLC will cost as well.
Therefore, from 10 years, the game series suffered greatly. How could IGN rate a Star Wars game without space combat or a single player an 8/10?
The Spiral of Silence.
IGN does not want to give a game made by EA a bad rating. This game giant owns the rights to the Battlefront series, The Sims, Madden, and almost every sport game imaginable. They are a major source of game reviews and clearly, IGN doesn’t want to upset them with a negative review.
As a journalist, I understand not wanting to burn a source, but this is unacceptable. This is providing more money to producers and developers that continue to create bad products with money hungry in-game purchases. This not only continues down the spiral of silence, but it promotes unethical reviews.
Vargas, along with a score of other YouTube personalities, will continue to give reviews without being bought by the companies they critique. As these self-made journalists continue to produce ethical content, it is alarming to see larger companies selling out.
I can only hope that other companies will take standards that are more ethical.
Sources: