Geekscape Asks: Can Videogame Journalists Who Appear in Games Maintain Objectivity?

When some of the voice actors were announced for Mass Effect 3, a particular name caught many by surprise: Jessica Chobot. Yes, that Jessica Chobot of IGN and G4 fame (among others). I am not one of the many who are hating on Jessica due to her fame. That would just make me look like I was jealous that I wasn’t picked to be in a video game. The thing that is making me a little disappointed is that Jessica Chobot works in the field that reports on gaming and has influence on what people think about everything in the gaming industry on the consumer side.

It’s disingenuous to preview a game only to be announced a week later that your voice and likeness will be in that highly anticipated video game. It casts a grim shadow of doubt on anything you have to say about the game. Unfortunately, it also casts that same shadow on the publications you work for at no fault to them. One could argue that her employers had to have known that Jessica Chobot was going to be in Mass Effect 3 since she had to spend a lot of time in recording voice sessions and that type of thing is kind of hard to have go unnoticed.

Jessica Chobot went on Twitter to reassure people that she will not be involved in any of the review process for Mass Effect 3. As much as I think it’s a bit drastic, I think that IGN and G4 should refrain from reviewing the game and any DLC that will accompany Mass Effect 3. No matter what both companies do, no one will believe that they are not being paid off for their review scores or biased to give it a good score since one of their own is in the game. Most gamers already believe that gaming press gets paid off to begin with, even with no proof. Conflicts of interest like this, in my eyes, makes those far-fetched theories seem more of a reality.

It’s not like having someone from the gaming press in a video game hasn’t happened before. Dan Ryckert from Game Informer was asked by Team Bondi and Rockstar to be a character in L.A. Noire when Dan and fellow editor Matt Helgeson went to do a cover story for Game Informer magazine. Dan Ryckert never participated in any of the review process for L.A. Noire but did give his impressions on the DLC “Nicholson Electroplating” for the game. Although it was a pixilated version of Jim Sterling, he was a playable character in The Blocks Cometh alongside Destructoid’s mascot, Mr. Destructoid. From what I gathered, Destructoid did not review the game.

When it comes to journalistic integrity, I like how Giant Bomb handled Bastion. They took a stance of not reviewing Bastion due to how close they were to the production process and the team. I know that is different than actually appearing as a character in a video game but it still shows how much thought they put into how this would all be perceived by the public and they took the proper steps to distance their outlet.

Do conflicts like this occur in film and television? What about the world of publishing? I keep asking myself, “how can anyone see this as being okay to begin with?” and I impose the same question to you. Can you still trust an independent outlet or company’s objectivity in reporting on a video game when they’re image is now in part synonymous with it? Do these sort of actions make erode their professional credibility in the public eye?