Game Reviews and Political Correctness

Before I ask the obvious question I want to expand on this a little for everyone to be on the same page.

What is political correctness? The definition from a Google search:

"the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

So I found this video through the #gamergate hashtag on Roger Ebert's stance on political correctness in Film Criticism. Ebert believes that when you push political correctness in a review you're doing ventriloquism. Because films from an artistic perspective are supposed to break boundaries and not stay within the margins of what's socially acceptable just for the sake of not being offensive.

So with the recent raise of social criticism in games like for example: Bayonetta 2's 7.5/10 review on Polygon because they think the game objectifies women due to the "male gaze" and stuff. Then we have the former game reviewers at Gamespot, Carolyn Petit and Tom MCshea, known for rating games based on their believes on what is "socially" right and wrong within it... What is your stance in all of this?

-----------------

From my point of view games are art and as an artistic expression they shouldn't be censored. Not even games like Hatred for its mindblowing violence or the sexual elements in God of War. I believe in game developers making the games they want to make and not on what is being pushed on them by social justice warriors and narrow minded reviewers.

@Gue1: don't bother, this is going to get locked dude. They don't want us to talk about this here

In before lock.

Just to make this clear: reviewers are not censoring videogames, neither are they avoiding the arguably controversial topics (which is what the stated definition suggests). The way I see it, this has nothing to do with reviewers being politically correct (in this particular context it seems that being politically correct actually means avoiding the discussion of sexism or whatever, because the moment it is discussed a lot of gamers feel attacked and offended). This seems to be about reviewers implementing an arguably strong personal opinion in a review. For me that's not a problem, because I like personal views on games (if they're illustrated by clear examples and eloquently written). There are more than enough reviews out there to compensate for whatever lack of more general information there might be in such a review (and frankly, most of those reviews still provide plenty of general information). Besides, when placed in the right perspective and considering the proper context a strong personal opinion can actually be very informative (to me, at least).

I agree that art shouldn't be censored, but criticism should also not be censored. When you make art publicly available you've got to accept that everybody might have an opinion on it. Also, not being critical or limiting when it comes to art might result in a blatant expression of some -ism being labeled art by the creator, which would make it instantly untouchable. The line between what is art and what is not is very, very, very vague, so we'll have these discussions as long as humanity exists. Saying art shouldn't be censored is a bit of an empty statement in that regard, but well...

I have no problem with reviewers stating their opinions on these kinds of things in their reviews. I'll use my own personal judgment on if these things affect my experience with the game and to what degree.

Reviewers can use editorials for their political views.

A review is a review and should be rid of any personal political bias and should be a neutral view on the game itself, not a political piece where you learn about the critics world opinions.

Its not really that hard.

A review should tell us gamers about the story, gameplay and graphics of the game, reviewers should keep their opinions on sex and violence in a game to themselves.

@Gue1: put your own personal bias in an editorial or blog. Don't put it in the review

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

In a review the writer opinion is the least important part of the review. Their justification is important. Those justification should done for the the game.

That's why crap like feminism, poltics or religious crap should not be included in the review

-

You can not just remove your viewpoint but you should be more reasonable with it.

what are you people looking for in a review if not an opinion on the game?

You can not remove it from yourself, but you can remove it from the review

^ This exactly...reviewer is there to inform me about the game..not their own personal bias/moral standard.

@Silverbond Tell me what the game entails..what you do in the game..etc They don't need to tell me whether it disgust them or they agree or don't agree with it & put a label on it by their own moral standards. I will decide that for myself. :P

What if they are uncomfortable with something and it hurts their enjoyment game? Should they lie about it?

What I am saying they need to rate the game (their opinion) and they use what is apart of the game in a reasonable way to explain why the score is as it is. A review should not be their soapbox but they can point out think they feel within a reasonable way.

@wiouds: Too fucking bad, if you're christian should you deny to treat people because you are against them or it offends your beliefs? Hell fucking no. You do your job and let your bias not effect your job

So they are not to give a honesty opinion about the game but instead go by some social stander as you expect them too?

Kinda reminds me a of few years back when a major review site gave a relatively lackluster score to Command & Conquer: Generals (CCG) because the reviewer found the use of suicide bombers (the GLA) and the killing of civilians distasteful.

It didn't stop me from buying and liking the game.

If the reviewer seriously disagree with the game that he/she cannot write without moral bias get someone else to review it. :P

@superbuuman: Well that's my point mate. If they can not stand somehow neutral and justify their reasoning behind the review without bias, then they shouldn't be reviewing games. Polygon did not do a good job with that with the Bayonetta 2 review. Now i might not give it a 10 or 9 personally. But they basicly just pull down the score drastically just because of their objection of the main character. That's bullshit

The purpose of a review is to explain why the reviewer enjoyed or disliked the game. If they felt that the game was sexist and that made them not enjoy the game then of course they should mention it.

there is no such thing as a neutral or biasless review. The entire point of a review is the bias.

I read reviews because i want the personal opinion of the person reviewing it. If a reviewer thinks a game is sexist, then that's cool - i may not agree, but i want to hear their reasoning for the claim. For the most part, the reviewer should remove themselves from the review, but when i read a review I read it because I want to hear the opinion of a specific journalist.

I think a lot of it comes down to actually reading the review as opposed to looking at a score. Kevin Van Ord's review of Far Cry 4, for example. I was pretty disappointed when I saw the score, but after reading the review I recognised that the reasons he had for not loving it were not something that would concern me (i dont play a Far Cry game for the Bergmanesque story). It's fine for reviewers to express their reasons for disliking a game. If those reasons dont concern you, it's easy to make a judgement

When you add the word 'political' to the word correct, then correct is no longer correct.

If there's ever an incident involving a black man and a white man or police officer, the black man is always innocent and the white guy is also always guilty no matter what.

So they must have guidelines on how they must write a review. Let call these guidelines something. I know lets talk about what you are talking about something like political correctness.

Ebert was right. A review is supposed to be relevant to the largest number of readers possible. If you allow it to be influenced by your own personal political, moral or religious views, it only becomes relevant to people who share your very particular set of morals. In that case you are not a reviewer, you're a blogger.

Honestly I don't have a problem with it. I think in, say the original GTAV review, the criticism about its portrayal of women was completely justified.

Yeah, people call it "bias" when they don't agree with the stated opinion, but when they -do- agree with the opinion then that opinion is fair game.

-Byshop

Yup I've noticed that too. I do think that sometimes reviewers get way too out of hand with the PC stuff but you shouldn't immediately dismiss a criticism because you happen to disagree with it.

Such awful logic that is devoid of reality. ALL reviews are opinion based. If you don't like that person's opinion look elsewhere. What it really boils down to is that the people who are making a big uproar about this political correctness are offended by the fact that someone views does not align with theirs. In the real world you will simply learn to get over it. :)

That's what happened with the Caroline review of GTA5. I discussed that review with a -lot- of people on this forum, and I didn't encounter a single person who was upset about the review who didn't also basically not give a crap if the game was sexist or not. I didn't meet a single person who was of the opinion "yeah, I agree with Caroline's point of view but I don't think that kind of information belongs in a review". Every detractor I met were males who made it clear that they don't care if games are sexist, and ironically these are the people who complain about too much "personal bias".

-Byshop

Ah shut up. Politics, feminism and religion are already rooted in games. You can pretend that games don't dive into that area but you would be lying. If you don't like the review don't freaking read it. You are never obligated to read said reviews. You are just pissy that some reviews bring up topics that you disagree with or make you feel uncomfortable.

A reviewers jobs is to state their take/perspective on the game. So they are doing their job. In your opinion; like theirs, you believe they are not doing their job correctly but in reality you simply don't understand the nature of reviews.

@Pedro: They have the right to their opinion but they need to be reasonable about it. There is a different between I am uncomfortable with how she is shown and the game objectifies women due to the "male gaze".

@Pedro: what the hell are you talking about? I never stated games had not those parts, but a review should not. Learn the difference if you're going to tell me to shut up... No i am not pissy, i am frustrated that some reviewers don't do their job... Make some good arguments before you dismiss me...

Just watch the GTA V review from Petit, there's not need for that pc crap

What a post of utter nonsense. In fact what is happening is that you as the spectator suddenly decide that you know better than the artist. And want your interpretation of the artists work to be the only one valid.

And that is also what Carolyn did and many other reviewers do, They are disregarding what the "artist" ie the developer wanted to show with their work and substituting it with their own and in a way taking ownership of the game. Like the video says they are doing ventriloquism.

@Jacanuk: exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself

I hate it when someone tries to claim what the developer intended is important. It put it as on of the most stupid comment someone can make.

Yes your comment is one of the stupidest things i have heard on gamespot.

First of all you not only disregard that video games can be art and hold it back, but you also belittle the developers and what they wanted to show with their work.

So infact you are the reason games have such a hard time growing up and becoming accepted, its kinda sad to witness.

I am not the one that allow poor games to get away with being that way because an artist intended something. I refuse to allow myself to be bias by what the developers wanted to show. I am going to judge games for what they are. I am not going to give a game a pass because it has artistic. Adding what they intended into the review is no different than adding political view into the game.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this. The big disagreement is always "Leave politics out of this!" But it's honestly a legitimate criticism to me and should belong in a review because the game almost prides itself on being a satire. The issue is that it doesn't quite satirize so much as it mocks, so I think it's entirely appropriate.

Exactly. I want to know these aspects of the game and how they made the reviewer feel while playing the game. This is very important to me because I may or may not feel the same way. I'd be very upset if I bought a game that contain elements that repulsed me enough to the point where I didn't enjoy the game and no reviewer mentioned it.

I disagree. The purpose of a review isn't for the reviewer to tell you if he liked the game; anyone can do that. The purpose of a professional review is to help you know if you will like the game. Ebert put it well in the video above... that even if the reviewer gave the subject a bad rating, the point is that the reader could still tell from the description if he will like it.

This could defend the Polygon review. I didn't read it myself as I'm boycotting Polygon, but if the review itself could allow the reader to understand that he'll like the game more than the reviewer because he (the reader) has no aversion to sexualized females, then the review has done its job. Even if the game didn't get as great an overall score, if the person reading it can tell from the description if he will like it, that's all that's necessary.

Yes, I may be defending Polygon, I know. But I have to be fair. The game got tons of great scores on its own, so a few marginally good scores to represent the minority of gamers that don't like hyper-sexual female protagonists isn't going to hurt anyone... and may in fact help the aggregate scores be more representative of overall reception.

There may not be such thing as a neutral review, alright, but the reviewer has the obligation to try to allow the reader to decide for himself.

So because you don't like a game , games should not be considered art? That is some statement.

Also i am not saying that a game shouldn't be pointed out as bad, what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it and also not try to make the game theirs but disregarding the developers intent.

A critic has no right to take ownership of a game, the game is that developers artistic view and should be respected as such. After all if you dont like Mona Lisa, you dont run up and paint a huge red nose on it, if you felt that would improve the painting.

And how does a reviewer know what you would like? The point in a review is that we can tell whether we will like the game by comparing our views to the reviewers. If a reviews main complaint is the art style, but you don't much care for art then even though the review may be negative you can still tell from it that you may enjoy the game. So yes a review is just explaining why they liked a game, however it is done in enough detail that you can form your own opinion from it.

I used to be one of the many people that were upset with Carolyn's mention of GTA V's misogyny... until I realized how easy it was to ignore that bit of criticism, and that's what it all boils down to. She can say "The world is massive... the gameplay is fantastic.... the characters awesome... the graphics are impressive...." but when she mentions "the game is misogynistic", if that doesn't matter to you, ignore it.

Also, it is her right to state that if that's how she feels about the game. As much as I don't want to say it, it's even Arthur Gies' right to slam Bayonetta 2 for the supposed "sexism", if that's what he really thought the game was about. The very essence of a review is subjectivity, because no one will agree on everything said in reviews. That's why we have SO MANY different reviews out there. We know what we want to hear about from reviews regarding games that we're interested in, so we shouldn't let the PC BS bother us. I can guarantee you that there won't be a reviewer alive that won't mention how sick the subject of Hatred makes them feel, yet they're still going to talk about how good or bad the actual game is. If playing a game where all you do is slaughter innocents doesn't affect, then someone's criticism of that subject matter shouldn't affect you either.

By the way, Mark Walton reviewed the Xbox One and PS4 versions of GTA V and gave it a 9, same as Caroyln, without a single mention of misogyny, so whether or not Carolyn's score was affected by the content is somewhat of a moot point.

Of course we can ignore it but Carolyns GTA V review isn't the problem its just a symptom on a much bigger problem with the way some critics particular american critics seem to think that its ok to play ventriloquists and take ownership of other peoples work. And also use their status as a way of pushing the ultra-left wing propaganda.