This is always a good video whenever this topic arises.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review
Game Reviews and Political Correctness
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@JustPlainLucas said:
This is always a good video whenever this topic arises.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review
Note worthy point to get though is that noone is asking for objective reviews.
What people is asking for is less amateour reviews made by people like Carolyn who dont have the talent or skill to remove their own personal agenda and more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pciGmXmE3uk
Where a critic can review the game without ever letting you the viewer or reader know if they are for Obama or Bush.
@SaintsRowLA said:
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.
Irrelevant to the topic
@cooolio said:
@SaintsRowLA said:
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.
Irrelevant to the topic
Well not true didn't you check out the rap video on piratebay the other day?
Loading Video...
See plenty white ppl in that vid :)
@notorious1234na: @notorious1234na: But if you want to be politically correct, the white guy is guilty and the black guy is always an angel..
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
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.
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.
I like well crafted games.
The political ideal that "games are art" is allow poorly crafted games to get high praise because they so-called art.
"what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it" Critics focus on the game should not put the developer's agenda into the game as well. I am using the same working because for the same reason you can not allow the developer view point be a factor in how you judge the game.
Critics should look at what the game is while minimizing outside influences. That includes the developers intent. Unless you are saying the developers have the right to have sway over the critics.
Where is this whole Mona Lisa thing coming from? It is like you are screaming about not scoring a touchdown during a baseball game.
@toast_burner said:
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.
The reviewer doesn't have to know what the reader would like. He just has to be detailed about the subject and descriptive about why the subject got the score it did, and the reader can then figure out how it'll be for him based off of that. Toast, we're saying the same thing, basically, but I disagree with you that the reviewer's main job is too tell you how he liked the game as if this isn't intended for the reader.
@JustPlainLucas said:
This is always a good video whenever this topic arises.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9860-Final-Fantasy-XIII-A-Completely-Objective-Review
Because that's satire, you can however try to be as objective as possible
@cooolio said:
@notorious1234na: Sigh........I really do not give a ****
Neither do I lol, but I was just pointing out that white ppl and black ppl get beat the shit out of too :)
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
I like well crafted games.
The political ideal that "games are art" is allow poorly crafted games to get high praise because they so-called art.
"what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it" Critics focus on the game should not put the developer's agenda into the game as well. I am using the same working because for the same reason you can not allow the developer view point be a factor in how you judge the game.
Critics should look at what the game is while minimizing outside influences. That includes the developers intent. Unless you are saying the developers have the right to have sway over the critics.
Where is this whole Mona Lisa thing coming from? It is like you are screaming about not scoring a touchdown during a baseball game.
Who doesn´t like a well-crafted game, the key here is though that we have different standards and opinions on what is a well-crafted game.
And yes critics should look at the game, look at what the developers want to tell with teh game and then give their opinion on that, their own personal opinion. But that wasn't what Carolyn did in the GTA V review or what Polygon did in the Bayonetta 2 review. Here the reviewers instantly made it about their own personal beliefs on how the world should be, they didn´t look at the game from a neutral pov, they went in from the start with a clear personal agenda and put the game up against that, and disregarded everything the developer was trying to tell with their game. And that is certainly not how a review should be. Try to look at Rev3´s review of GTA V and then go and read/watch Carolyns. Hopefully you can see the difference between what is a good review and what is a bad review.
Oh, it has to be said that its a bit more understanding why Polygon did a review like that, they have never hid the fact that they are a ultra feminist liberal gaming magazine and they judge games on that. So you know what you get. That however certainly not the case with gamespot,
And the Mona Lisa was a hyperbole which i used to describe what you and carolyn and other critics seems to suggest is ok to do when it comes to other peoples artwork ie their games.
Just talking in relation to Bayonetta: I've played both Bayonetta games and I genuinely don't see what all the fuss is about in relation to sexism. She is portrayed as a strong adult aged character with a very strong set of fighting skills who can handle any situation thrown at her. Yes she flirts and acts in a sexual provocative way, though I would point out the reality that some women act in this way in the real world.
Now if you take some of the Japenese anime based shows that feature young somewhat underage girls with massive breasts, permanently erect nipples, underwear usually on show and when they fight usually results in the removal of said outfit; I could see that a reviewer may question the content but if the show was well produced should it get a 2/10?
To me a video game review should consist on reviewing the mechanics of a game, do it control well, what's the graphics like, framerate issues, sound issues, any game breaking bugs and so on. It should only focus the score on those parts, as the story is subjective and that part of a review is personal opinion. An example of a personal opinion is; I do not like the Nathan Drake character, yet others adore him. Who's to say I'm right and they're wrong? Should I take one, two or three points off for it? A personal opinion should be the part at the end of a review that a reviewer gives his/her opinion on the story/sexisim/misogyny and it shouldn't have effect on the games score.
@The_Last_Ride said:
@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...
My point is that they have those elements in them and to expect a reviewer to escape the topic is irrational at best. In your OPINION they are not doing their jobs but when your OPINION is based on you simply not liking their perspective it does not factually equate to the reviewer not doing their jobs. Reviews are NOT objective and you read one expecting it to be is silly. Stop being childish and move on. If you don't like a reviewers opinion move on. Claiming that they are not doing their jobs because your opinion is different is juvenile.
@Jacanuk said:
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.
Your statement encompasses mass arrogance and ignorance Sir Jacunuk. It is the player who decides whether a game is good or not base on ANY criteria that is important to the player. Like every other art medium it is criticized by the public and games would and can be ridiculed in the same manner. Claiming something is art DOES NOT exempt it from critique such a notion is ridiculous. The problem is not the reviewer but people like yourself who believe they can dictate what reviewers can and cannot say in their review. Using your logic reviewers should be free to write what they think of a game in the same manner the game devs are allowed to make the game they want.
@yukushi said:
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.
What if the major themes in the story revolve around sex and violence?
@Pedro said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
Your statement encompasses mass arrogance and ignorance Sir Jacunuk. It is the player who decides whether a game is good or not base on ANY criteria that is important to the player. Like every other art medium it is criticized by the public and games would and can be ridiculed in the same manner. Claiming something is art DOES NOT exempt it from critique such a notion is ridiculous. The problem is not the reviewer but people like yourself who believe they can dictate what reviewers can and cannot say in their review. Using your logic reviewers should be free to write what they think of a game in the same manner the game devs are allowed to make the game they want.
Again you seem to miss the boat and this time you also seem to have missed the pier and the road leading to the pier. It is and never will be a critic's job to put motives into a game that isn't there from the developers side, Its their job to review and critic. Meaning that they are to review the content of the game. Like with art, because of course art isn´t exempt from critic but you don´t say that the Mona Lisa has a red nose when it does not.
But go watch Rev3games GTA V review and watch how a review should be.
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
I like well crafted games.
The political ideal that "games are art" is allow poorly crafted games to get high praise because they so-called art.
"what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it" Critics focus on the game should not put the developer's agenda into the game as well. I am using the same working because for the same reason you can not allow the developer view point be a factor in how you judge the game.
Critics should look at what the game is while minimizing outside influences. That includes the developers intent. Unless you are saying the developers have the right to have sway over the critics.
Where is this whole Mona Lisa thing coming from? It is like you are screaming about not scoring a touchdown during a baseball game.
Who doesn´t like a well-crafted game, the key here is though that we have different standards and opinions on what is a well-crafted game.
And yes critics should look at the game, look at what the developers want to tell with teh game and then give their opinion on that, their own personal opinion. But that wasn't what Carolyn did in the GTA V review or what Polygon did in the Bayonetta 2 review. Here the reviewers instantly made it about their own personal beliefs on how the world should be, they didn´t look at the game from a neutral pov, they went in from the start with a clear personal agenda and put the game up against that, and disregarded everything the developer was trying to tell with their game. And that is certainly not how a review should be. Try to look at Rev3´s review of GTA V and then go and read/watch Carolyns. Hopefully you can see the difference between what is a good review and what is a bad review.
Oh, it has to be said that its a bit more understanding why Polygon did a review like that, they have never hid the fact that they are a ultra feminist liberal gaming magazine and they judge games on that. So you know what you get. That however certainly not the case with gamespot,
And the Mona Lisa was a hyperbole which i used to describe what you and carolyn and other critics seems to suggest is ok to do when it comes to other peoples artwork ie their games.
<sarcasm> Right, the developers' opinion is such neutral pov. </sarcasm>
From what I am getting you saying that outside thinking should not as little impact on your review as possible but the outside thinking from the developers should have an impact on your review. Any other double stander you think is acceptable in reviews?
It is a pointless statement that has nothing to do with this talk. My guess you are trying to see something or think of something that is not in the talk. That is just like how developers can see more that what is in the game.
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
I like well crafted games.
The political ideal that "games are art" is allow poorly crafted games to get high praise because they so-called art.
"what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it" Critics focus on the game should not put the developer's agenda into the game as well. I am using the same working because for the same reason you can not allow the developer view point be a factor in how you judge the game.
Critics should look at what the game is while minimizing outside influences. That includes the developers intent. Unless you are saying the developers have the right to have sway over the critics.
Where is this whole Mona Lisa thing coming from? It is like you are screaming about not scoring a touchdown during a baseball game.
Who doesn´t like a well-crafted game, the key here is though that we have different standards and opinions on what is a well-crafted game.
And yes critics should look at the game, look at what the developers want to tell with teh game and then give their opinion on that, their own personal opinion. But that wasn't what Carolyn did in the GTA V review or what Polygon did in the Bayonetta 2 review. Here the reviewers instantly made it about their own personal beliefs on how the world should be, they didn´t look at the game from a neutral pov, they went in from the start with a clear personal agenda and put the game up against that, and disregarded everything the developer was trying to tell with their game. And that is certainly not how a review should be. Try to look at Rev3´s review of GTA V and then go and read/watch Carolyns. Hopefully you can see the difference between what is a good review and what is a bad review.
Oh, it has to be said that its a bit more understanding why Polygon did a review like that, they have never hid the fact that they are a ultra feminist liberal gaming magazine and they judge games on that. So you know what you get. That however certainly not the case with gamespot,
And the Mona Lisa was a hyperbole which i used to describe what you and carolyn and other critics seems to suggest is ok to do when it comes to other peoples artwork ie their games.
<sarcasm> Right, the developers' opinion is such neutral pov. </sarcasm>
From what I am getting you saying that outside thinking should not as little impact on your review as possible but the outside thinking from the developers should have an impact on your review. Any other double stander you think is acceptable in reviews?
It is a pointless statement that has nothing to do with this talk. My guess you are trying to see something or think of something that is not in the talk. That is just like how developers can see more that what is in the game.
What are you talking about? of course the developer will have an impact on the review, after all the review is about their work so how can they not? If you mean that the developers will dictate what the critic writes specifically then are you crazy of course they don't, well at least not unless your name is Zoe Quinn and can hand out sex.
@Jacanuk said:
Again you seem to miss the boat and this time you also seem to have missed the pier and the road leading to the pier. It is and never will be a critic's job to put motives into a game that isn't there from the developers side, Its their job to review and critic. Meaning that they are to review the content of the game. Like with art, because of course art isn´t exempt from critic but you don´t say that the Mona Lisa has a red nose when it does not.
But go watch Rev3games GTA V review and watch how a review should be.
Again you seem to missing the core fact that because you don't like a review it should not exist or its inherently wrong. Since you like Rev3games reviews , stick with that. You didn't like the fact that Carolyn mention aspects of the game you did not see or refuse to acknowledge and it offends you in the same manner the content in the game offended her. Except you believe your opinion is somehow better. Is it so hard to accept that different people see different things and interpret things differently? All of this is independent of the devs intention. You act as if the dev's intentions are the only thing that matters when in reality it does not. What may not offend you may offend another. What may seem great to you can be trash to another. You don't like someone's opinion then find one that fits you instead of claiming injustice.
@Pedro said:
@Jacanuk said:
Again you seem to miss the boat and this time you also seem to have missed the pier and the road leading to the pier. It is and never will be a critic's job to put motives into a game that isn't there from the developers side, Its their job to review and critic. Meaning that they are to review the content of the game. Like with art, because of course art isn´t exempt from critic but you don´t say that the Mona Lisa has a red nose when it does not.
But go watch Rev3games GTA V review and watch how a review should be.
Again you seem to missing the core fact that because you don't like a review it should not exist or its inherently wrong. Since you like Rev3games reviews , stick with that. You didn't like the fact that Carolyn mention aspects of the game you did not see or refuse to acknowledge and it offends you in the same manner the content in the game offended her. Except you believe your opinion is somehow better. Is it so hard to accept that different people see different things and interpret things differently? All of this is independent of the devs intention. You act as if the dev's intentions are the only thing that matters when in reality it does not. What may not offend you may offend another. What may seem great to you can be trash to another. You don't like someone's opinion then find one that fits you instead of claiming injustice.
You seem to get a bit angry now so perhaps take a bit of a break?
But you have misunderstood something here, i never said that Carolyn or polygon shouldn´t be allowed to do whatever they want, i am simply stating an opinion about their work and work-ethic. Also what i said again was that the problem here is that Carolyns GTA review from the start was a political piece on how Carolyn thinks women are treated in gaming, the review wasn't about the game, it was about carolyn´s personal political agenda and that is not a review, thats why you have editorials. Because what Carolyn is doing is taking ownership of the game , like i said carolyn is painting a red nose on Mona Lisa because that is how caro sees it.
Games are the developers work, and yes their work can be reviewed and criticized but it should never be made to be anything but their work.
@Jacanuk said:
@Pedro said:
Again you seem to missing the core fact that because you don't like a review it should not exist or its inherently wrong. Since you like Rev3games reviews , stick with that. You didn't like the fact that Carolyn mention aspects of the game you did not see or refuse to acknowledge and it offends you in the same manner the content in the game offended her. Except you believe your opinion is somehow better. Is it so hard to accept that different people see different things and interpret things differently? All of this is independent of the devs intention. You act as if the dev's intentions are the only thing that matters when in reality it does not. What may not offend you may offend another. What may seem great to you can be trash to another. You don't like someone's opinion then find one that fits you instead of claiming injustice.
You seem to get a bit angry now so perhaps take a bit of a break?
But you have misunderstood something here, i never said that Carolyn or polygon shouldn´t be allowed to do whatever they want, i am simply stating an opinion about their work and work-ethic. Also what i said again was that the problem here is that Carolyns GTA review from the start was a political piece on how Carolyn thinks women are treated in gaming, the review wasn't about the game, it was about carolyn´s personal political agenda and that is not a review, thats why you have editorials. Because what Carolyn is doing is taking ownership of the game , like i said carolyn is painting a red nose on Mona Lisa because that is how caro sees it.
Games are the developers work, and yes their work can be reviewed and criticized but it should never be made to be anything but their work.
Again, to my earlier point, people like to say they want "objective" reviews but then when they describe what "objective" means it almost always sounds a lot more like "reviews they agree with". You use terms like journalistic ethics and personal agenda as it applies to bias in a review, and then with zero sense of irony you accuse reviewers of pushing an "ultra left wing agenda". Whether you can step outside your own perspective enough to realize it, a game being sexist or not isn't a fringe political opinion not worthy of anyone's time. It's a valid point that can effect the enjoyment of a game by nearly half of the gaming population. It's just not something that directly affects the group -you- are a part of, and if it were I'm guessing you would have an entirely different opinion on the topic. You're even still hapring on Quinn with the perpetually increasing fish story of how many guys she slept with for favorable media coverage (and I'll ask you again as I did in the gamergate thread, where are all the positive media articles that Zoe ostensibly traded sex for?).
-Byshop
Personal opinion should be included in a review. If it's not- then it's not a review, it's a summary. I want to know, did YOU think this mechanic worked, why or why not? How did YOU react to the things in this game? That's what a critique is. If you thought Bayonetta was too sexualized, and that was a negative quality, thats totally fine. Support your opinions and do what you think. I honestly agree more with the 7.5/10 Bayonetta review than the perfect scores. Bayonetta 2 is not a perfect video game at all.
@Pedro said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@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...
My point is that they have those elements in them and to expect a reviewer to escape the topic is irrational at best. In your OPINION they are not doing their jobs but when your OPINION is based on you simply not liking their perspective it does not factually equate to the reviewer not doing their jobs. Reviews are NOT objective and you read one expecting it to be is silly. Stop being childish and move on. If you don't like a reviewers opinion move on. Claiming that they are not doing their jobs because your opinion is different is juvenile.
No, they're not doing their jobs. Because they are not pundits nor are they political commentators. They're game journalists... That is not opinion, that is fact dude. Reviews aren't objective, but they should not use that as a platform to spew poltical or religous crap that have nothing to with gaming...
"Stop being childish and move on"
ok... Now i know you're ignorant mate. "If you don't agree with me or my views, shut up and something else." There was a reason there was outrage for Carolyn's GTA V review...
@Archangel3371 said:
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.
This for me. It's always interesting to read opinions from different viewpoints. But not until...
@yukushi said:
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.
...they forget the essential stuff that readers need to know about the game. I find it quite annoying when a reviewer mostly talked about objectification, excessive fanservice and whatnot throughout the review, focusing on the smallest things they could find in the game just to further their arguments and make the game seem worse than it is. As a result, readers barely learned anything about the game itself other than 'This game has fanservice, and I hate it'.
What about the gameplay? Does it have multiplayer? How does it compare to other games in the genre? What about the soundtrack? I think it's good (helpful, even) to know how someone feels about a particular game, but leaving the meaty details out is a huge oversight. If said meaty detail tackles controversial stuff as the game's forefront, only then I can expect reviews focusing more on that aspect.
Furthermore, what's up with some reviewers setting up a dismissive and condescending voice in their review? I mean, sure the game has its flaws and execution of some themes could use some fine tuning, but you don't have to subtly sneer at its audience for liking it.
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
@wiouds said:
@Jacanuk said:
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.
I like well crafted games.
The political ideal that "games are art" is allow poorly crafted games to get high praise because they so-called art.
"what i am saying is that critics should focus on the game and not put their own personal agenda into it" Critics focus on the game should not put the developer's agenda into the game as well. I am using the same working because for the same reason you can not allow the developer view point be a factor in how you judge the game.
Critics should look at what the game is while minimizing outside influences. That includes the developers intent. Unless you are saying the developers have the right to have sway over the critics.
Where is this whole Mona Lisa thing coming from? It is like you are screaming about not scoring a touchdown during a baseball game.
Who doesn´t like a well-crafted game, the key here is though that we have different standards and opinions on what is a well-crafted game.
And yes critics should look at the game, look at what the developers want to tell with teh game and then give their opinion on that, their own personal opinion. But that wasn't what Carolyn did in the GTA V review or what Polygon did in the Bayonetta 2 review. Here the reviewers instantly made it about their own personal beliefs on how the world should be, they didn´t look at the game from a neutral pov, they went in from the start with a clear personal agenda and put the game up against that, and disregarded everything the developer was trying to tell with their game. And that is certainly not how a review should be. Try to look at Rev3´s review of GTA V and then go and read/watch Carolyns. Hopefully you can see the difference between what is a good review and what is a bad review.
Oh, it has to be said that its a bit more understanding why Polygon did a review like that, they have never hid the fact that they are a ultra feminist liberal gaming magazine and they judge games on that. So you know what you get. That however certainly not the case with gamespot,
And the Mona Lisa was a hyperbole which i used to describe what you and carolyn and other critics seems to suggest is ok to do when it comes to other peoples artwork ie their games.
<sarcasm> Right, the developers' opinion is such neutral pov. </sarcasm>
From what I am getting you saying that outside thinking should not as little impact on your review as possible but the outside thinking from the developers should have an impact on your review. Any other double stander you think is acceptable in reviews?
It is a pointless statement that has nothing to do with this talk. My guess you are trying to see something or think of something that is not in the talk. That is just like how developers can see more that what is in the game.
What are you talking about? of course the developer will have an impact on the review, after all the review is about their work so how can they not? If you mean that the developers will dictate what the critic writes specifically then are you crazy of course they don't, well at least not unless your name is Zoe Quinn and can hand out sex.
Many times the developers intention or artistic vision does not come from the game. I seen many use what the developer said to affect the way they see the game because the developer said that was their intention or the artistic vision. If it does not come from the game then it just another outside force.
@The_Last_Ride said:
@Pedro said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@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...
My point is that they have those elements in them and to expect a reviewer to escape the topic is irrational at best. In your OPINION they are not doing their jobs but when your OPINION is based on you simply not liking their perspective it does not factually equate to the reviewer not doing their jobs. Reviews are NOT objective and you read one expecting it to be is silly. Stop being childish and move on. If you don't like a reviewers opinion move on. Claiming that they are not doing their jobs because your opinion is different is juvenile.
No, they're not doing their jobs. Because they are not pundits nor are they political commentators. They're game journalists... That is not opinion, that is fact dude. Reviews aren't objective, but they should not use that as a platform to spew poltical or religous crap that have nothing to with gaming...
"Stop being childish and move on"
ok... Now i know you're ignorant mate. "If you don't agree with me or my views, shut up and something else." There was a reason there was outrage for Carolyn's GTA V review...
If a game's story revolves around Jehovah's Witnesses and they either get many things wrong with the religion, or I feel they are being too mocking of them (my mom's one), I will call the game out on it. If I think a game's sexuality becomes too distracting, I will call the game out for it. In the case of Carolyn, being a feminist, the excessive misogyny in GTA V (it's a misogynistic game. There is no question about that. The only question is whether you're bothered by it or not) bothered her enough to point it out, which she only did a handful of times. And this is the part of the entire debate that I'm getting sick of hearing about. She did NOT use this opportunity as a platform to push her political agenda. I say this because like I said, she mentions it only a handful of times. The review is STILL a review. It still READS like a review. It only has a few mentions of misogyny, which you and a few people here are so hung up on. Let me also put it in perspective that she did speak highly of the game, giving it a 9, which was also matched by Mark Walton when he reviewed the PS4/Xbox One versions, and Brett Todd's Other Take review mentioned no misogyny and he gave the game an 8. So really, Carolyn's mention of misogyny in the game had no bearing on the game's score and actual quality.
If video games are art, then they need to be criticized regardless of what the artist's intent was. There's this thing called interpretation. Not everyone views art in the same way, and if a piece of art affects you to a certain degree, then you need to be honest and say exactly why that is. Carolyn did that.
@JustPlainLucas said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@Pedro said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@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...
My point is that they have those elements in them and to expect a reviewer to escape the topic is irrational at best. In your OPINION they are not doing their jobs but when your OPINION is based on you simply not liking their perspective it does not factually equate to the reviewer not doing their jobs. Reviews are NOT objective and you read one expecting it to be is silly. Stop being childish and move on. If you don't like a reviewers opinion move on. Claiming that they are not doing their jobs because your opinion is different is juvenile.
No, they're not doing their jobs. Because they are not pundits nor are they political commentators. They're game journalists... That is not opinion, that is fact dude. Reviews aren't objective, but they should not use that as a platform to spew poltical or religous crap that have nothing to with gaming...
"Stop being childish and move on"
ok... Now i know you're ignorant mate. "If you don't agree with me or my views, shut up and something else." There was a reason there was outrage for Carolyn's GTA V review...
If a game's story revolves around Jehovah's Witnesses and they either get many things wrong with the religion, or I feel they are being too mocking of them (my mom's one), I will call the game out on it. If I think a game's sexuality becomes too distracting, I will call the game out for it. In the case of Carolyn, being a feminist, the excessive misogyny in GTA V (it's a misogynistic game. There is no question about that. The only question is whether you're bothered by it or not) bothered her enough to point it out, which she only did a handful of times. And this is the part of the entire debate that I'm getting sick of hearing about. She did NOT use this opportunity as a platform to push her political agenda. I say this because like I said, she mentions it only a handful of times. The review is STILL a review. It still READS like a review. It only has a few mentions of misogyny, which you and a few people here are so hung up on. Let me also put it in perspective that she did speak highly of the game, giving it a 9, which was also matched by Mark Walton when he reviewed the PS4/Xbox One versions, and Brett Todd's Other Take review mentioned no misogyny and he gave the game an 8. So really, Carolyn's mention of misogyny in the game had no bearing on the game's score and actual quality.
If video games are art, then they need to be criticized regardless of what the artist's intent was. There's this thing called interpretation. Not everyone views art in the same way, and if a piece of art affects you to a certain degree, then you need to be honest and say exactly why that is. Carolyn did that.
You can point it out, but without coming from a certain poiunt of view. Yes Carolyn used the review as platform. Because no on in that game is a stand up guy. Everyone's a stereotype, and she forgot about that or worse ignored it. There were more than a few people that were hung up on it mate. Yeah, but Mark still reviewed it better.
No, you review a game like it's always been. You don't put some political agenda or religious belief into it. You can do that in the blog or a seperate review. You don't put that crap into the game.
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
This.
-Byshop
@Byshop said:
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
This.
-Byshop
This again.
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years. When you're doing a review, the main review for a site, you should do it properly. But you can put anything you want in a seperate review or blog with points of view. But this is total bs to say we should have this because the industry is changing. No it's not, the only thing that's happening is that it's becoming bigger.
This is basicly just caving in, and i will fight against it.
@The_Last_Ride said:
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years. When you're doing a review, the main review for a site, you should do it properly. But you can put anything you want in a seperate review or blog with points of view. But this is total bs to say we should have this because the industry is changing. No it's not, the only thing that's happening is that it's becoming bigger.
This is basicly just caving in, and i will fight against it.
Let me go off on a tangent here. Would you fault a reviewer if he found a game to have too much swearing?
@The_Last_Ride said:
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years. When you're doing a review, the main review for a site, you should do it properly. But you can put anything you want in a seperate review or blog with points of view. But this is total bs to say we should have this because the industry is changing. No it's not, the only thing that's happening is that it's becoming bigger.
This is basicly just caving in, and i will fight against it.
I agree to some level.
You need to be reasonable with it. You can not get rid of your or other viewpoint but you must control that when you are reviewing a game. There is a different betweem "They way she look and act make be uncomfortable" and "She objectify female for the male gaze."
You also need to limit things like this story have a deep message. That is a reason I have see I seen a number of stories being praise even-though they have horribly made characters, poorly written dialog, and a lazy plot.
@JustPlainLucas said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years. When you're doing a review, the main review for a site, you should do it properly. But you can put anything you want in a seperate review or blog with points of view. But this is total bs to say we should have this because the industry is changing. No it's not, the only thing that's happening is that it's becoming bigger.
This is basicly just caving in, and i will fight against it.
Let me go off on a tangent here. Would you fault a reviewer if he found a game to have too much swearing?
Yeah, if he has a problem with it. Maybe he shouldn't be reviewing it. If you have a problem with violence, you shouldn't be reviewing COD. It's the same thing
Question: How many of you complaining about reviews actually use them for buying advice on a regular basis? If so, then how many reviews do you typically read? How many of you read reviews at all, for that matter? And even if they did refrain from deeper critique, would that stop you from claiming them to be bad at their jobs for not agreeing with you?
Trying to get a sense if there's some intersection there. Because I feel like, on some level, these complaints are but an extension of the demand that reviews act as confirmation bias.
@The_Last_Ride said:
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years.
I don't follow. Elaborate, would you?
@c_rakestraw said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
No, because videogames reviews already have the issue of being taken legitimately with how it has looked in recent years.
I don't follow. Elaborate, would you?
Jeff Gerstman and Robert Florence
@The_Last_Ride said:
Yeah, if he has a problem with it. Maybe he shouldn't be reviewing it. If you have a problem with violence, you shouldn't be reviewing COD. It's the same thing
If you're given a game that you've never played before, how are you supposed to know what it contains until you actually play it? Once you've played it, if excessive swearing affected your experience, you have to be honest with your readers and state it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it actually is wrongful thinking to expect that reviewer to leave out a vital part of their experience. That bulletpoint regarding the swearing is useful information for people who are offended by excessive swearing. The same applies with misogyny. Carolyn was personally bothered by it, so she felt it noteworthy to state it so that readers who grow tired of misogyny in games can take that into consideration.
Maybe if you have a problem with someone's review... you shouldn't be reading it. As been advised by others, find someone else's review you like.
@The_Last_Ride said:
Jeff Gerstman and Robert Florence
They're completely irrelevant to this topic. We're talking about game reviews here, not old scandals in game journalism.
@JustPlainLucas said:
If you're given a game that you've never played before, how are you supposed to know what it contains until you actually play it? Once you've played it, if excessive swearing affected your experience, you have to be honest with your readers and state it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it actually is wrongful thinking to expect that reviewer to leave out a vital part of their experience. That bulletpoint regarding the swearing is useful information for people who are offended by excessive swearing. The same applies with misogyny. Carolyn was personally bothered by it, so she felt it noteworthy to state it so that readers who grow tired of misogyny in games can take that into consideration.
Maybe if you have a problem with someone's review... you shouldn't be reading it. As been advised by others, find someone else's review you like.
Precisely. Anything less is unreasonable.
@JustPlainLucas said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
Yeah, if he has a problem with it. Maybe he shouldn't be reviewing it. If you have a problem with violence, you shouldn't be reviewing COD. It's the same thing
If you're given a game that you've never played before, how are you supposed to know what it contains until you actually play it? Once you've played it, if excessive swearing affected your experience, you have to be honest with your readers and state it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it actually is wrongful thinking to expect that reviewer to leave out a vital part of their experience. That bulletpoint regarding the swearing is useful information for people who are offended by excessive swearing. The same applies with misogyny. Carolyn was personally bothered by it, so she felt it noteworthy to state it so that readers who grow tired of misogyny in games can take that into consideration.
Maybe if you have a problem with someone's review... you shouldn't be reading it. As been advised by others, find someone else's review you like.
You could go through the ESRB rating you know. I go to this site, because i trust the input this site has without any bias. That's why i look at them. I should not go to any other site when they aren't doing their job
@JustPlainLucas said:
If you're given a game that you've never played before, how are you supposed to know what it contains until you actually play it? Once you've played it, if excessive swearing affected your experience, you have to be honest with your readers and state it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it actually is wrongful thinking to expect that reviewer to leave out a vital part of their experience. That bulletpoint regarding the swearing is useful information for people who are offended by excessive swearing. The same applies with misogyny. Carolyn was personally bothered by it, so she felt it noteworthy to state it so that readers who grow tired of misogyny in games can take that into consideration.
To add to that: even if you disagree with Petit's opinion, her argument can still be useful information when considered in the relevant context. These days it takes less than 5 minutes to give a review a little context. It doesn't matter whether or not GTA V was intended to be misogynistic; what matters is that Petit illustrated her point with clear examples. The way she interpreted those examples tells me something about the level of satire (or whatever you want to call it) the game presents. Petit's viewpoint provides a level of detail that other reviews did not provide. It showed me how far GTA V was willing to go in its satire (or its idea of satire), and it showed me that in much more detail than anyone without Petit's particular personal viewpoint could ever provide. So even if she's been selective in what parts of the satire she chose to criticise, even if there was a strong personal opinion, whatever she said can still be very useful information (even if I disagree).
Also, the idea that reviews should be as descriptive and neutral as possible seems to completely disregard the most important element of enjoying a game: the experience. People read reviews to find out whether or not they'll like a game, not whether or not the game is good according to some vague universal standards (although some people seem to equate their own standards to universal standards). In the end it's not about the 'objective' quality of the game elements, but about the experience those elements provide. And to me, the only way to get some idea about whether or not it'll be a good experience for ME, is by collecting and comparing other experiences. I don't believe there's such a thing as a universal good/bad experience, an experience that can't be questioned. You need personal experiences and you need context in order to make a informed decision. A summary of aspects and characteristics can only partly help you with that, but in the end those aspects and characteristics need to be interpreted and experienced. And as I implied in the above paragraph, a seemingly oppossing or biased experience is not immediately a useless experience.
Also, as you said before, Petit's review was just a tiny little drop in an ocean of reviews. And it's the same with Bayonetta 2. I cannot help but think there is a strong feeling of entitlement when it comes to every single professional (as in: paid) review out there. If only Petit's review had been the only review out there, maybe I could have sympathised, but at this point in time (with the huge amount of reviews on offer and the myriad of ways to easily find additional information) the demands some of the people have in here are too extreme, in my opinion.
@c_rakestraw said:
If you all could please refrain from attacking one another, that would be great.
Anyways... I will never understand the fervent opposition to exploring the political and social aspects of games in reviews. Videogames aren't apolitical; never have, never will. As the medium evolves and begins to tackle these subjects more, so too should the reviews engage these issues. To ignore them is to ignore the progress of the medium, to dismiss it as the art form it is; which itself is an agenda of its own. Makes all the people demanding reviewers stop "pushing agendas" pretty damn ironic.
How about we all just, I don't know -- accept that reviews, like videogames, are changing? And instead of constantly making a fuss that one site's reviews aren't catering to your ideals of what a review should be, find a site that does cater to you and read that instead so we can finally move on from all this?
What opposition? because that is not the problem, the problem is when a critic like Carolyn, Danny, Tom, Kevin, Alexias starts to put their political views into a game and claim that is in a certain way. I don't think anyone is opposed to a critic taking a look at any political or social commentary the developers might have put into the game if its actually there. Taking GTA V again everyone know that it is takes the mick out of everything in today's society. So when Carolyn starts to pick on a certain point like females because carolyn has some feminist views, its no longer a review its a editorial and a soap box for Carolyn´s way of thinking, meaning that it moves away from the game and what the developers did, and over to Carolyn and how they might feel the game should be.
So how about if critics stick to reviewing the game for what the game is and not start to use it as soap box and again take ownership of the games.
@Jacanuk said:
So how about if critics stick to reviewing the game for what the game is
Agree. That is why they also need to the same with the developer intention or their artistic view. It is just as bad that forfeit their opinion of game because of what the the developers opinion of the game. Worse if they try to defend allowing the bias of the developers to affect the review by saying if you opinion does not match the developers then you trying to take ownership of the game.
@Jacanuk said:
So how about if critics stick to reviewing the game for what the game is and not start to use it as soap box and again take ownership of the games.
I don't really care about what the game is or what it is intended to be. I care about whether or not I will like the game. If a review tells me the game does exactly what the developers intended, then how does that help me make a decision? I want to know how all these game aspects are experienced, how they are appreciated. All (developer) intentions are useless when it comes to me buying and enjoying a game. I need experience reports, examples to illustrate those experiences and hopefully some additional information about the reviewer. If those aspects are present in several accounts, then I can make a pretty accurate assessment of whether or not I'll like a game.
In my experience, bias is harmless (and even useful) when it is substantiated by clear, illustrative examples and a proper context. Neutrally describing the quality of features offers only one perspective that has be adapted to my personal preferences. Any bias is simply an added perspective, leading to a more detailed idea of whether or not this game is good enough for me, and it's just as easily adapted to my personal preferences as any neutral quality assessment.
@The_Last_Ride said:
You could go through the ESRB rating you know. I go to this site, because i trust the input this site has without any bias. That's why i look at them. I should not go to any other site when they aren't doing their job
Really? All the ESRB will say is "Strong language". What constitutes strong language? Is it one "mother fucker" through the entire game? Is it four "mother fuckers" in a single line of dialogue? Is it a bunch of "shits" and "assholes" and "suck my dicks" through the entire game? The ESRB is not a good, informative source of what content is in the game. The REVIEW is. Like I said, you can't actually know to what DEGREE possible offending content is in a game until you actually play it.. I'll give you a good example. Kevin's Bulletstorm review criticized the game for its excessive profanity. He said that it got old quick, and became very unfunny. That obviously is subjective, because personally I found it to be one of the game's charming features. It bothered Kevin; it didn't bother me. GTA V's misogyny bothered Carolyn; it didn't bother me. These criticisms come from personal experiences that are informational to readers who think like them. Their reviews still work well, because those criticisms that don't matter to people who have no issue with said content are easily ignored.
And without any bias? Come on, dude... you've been around this site long enough to know this site's never been without bias. Don't start spouting things you don't believe in to try to prove a point.
@c_rakestraw said:
Question: How many of you complaining about reviews actually use them for buying advice on a regular basis? If so, then how many reviews do you typically read? How many of you read reviews at all, for that matter? And even if they did refrain from deeper critique, would that stop you from claiming them to be bad at their jobs for not agreeing with you?
Trying to get a sense if there's some intersection there. Because I feel like, on some level, these complaints are but an extension of the demand that reviews act as confirmation bias.
Why would i use a review when deciding to buy a game or not? unless the review was written by my mom or my twin brother, how would they ever know what i like or dont like.
But that doesnt mean i cant see something wrong when someone uses a review as a political soap box to help spread the word of a insane and wrong way of thinking.
@JustPlainLucas said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
Yeah, if he has a problem with it. Maybe he shouldn't be reviewing it. If you have a problem with violence, you shouldn't be reviewing COD. It's the same thing
If you're given a game that you've never played before, how are you supposed to know what it contains until you actually play it? Once you've played it, if excessive swearing affected your experience, you have to be honest with your readers and state it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it actually is wrongful thinking to expect that reviewer to leave out a vital part of their experience. That bulletpoint regarding the swearing is useful information for people who are offended by excessive swearing.
TRUE.
The same applies with misogyny. Carolyn was personally bothered by it, so she felt it noteworthy to state it so that readers who grow tired of misogyny in games can take that into consideration.
Maybe if you have a problem with someone's review... you shouldn't be reading it. As been advised by others, find someone else's review you like.
However, I am just so sick of these non issues pop up in gaming, from special interest groups who don't care about anything more than their own priveledges and quality of life instead of everyone's. Mostly feminism, and people talking about violence in games that translates to real life and things of that nature. Gaming just keeps getting attacked and used, and i'm sick of hearing this shit.
Carolyn's issues are completely asinine. Hookers exist irl and the main characters in that game are supposed to be unsavory.
--
Btw, go check out a thread about Bayonetta on Neogaf right now...
@JustPlainLucas said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
You could go through the ESRB rating you know. I go to this site, because i trust the input this site has without any bias. That's why i look at them. I should not go to any other site when they aren't doing their job
Really? All the ESRB will say is "Strong language". What constitutes strong language? Is it one "mother fucker" through the entire game? Is it four "mother fuckers" in a single line of dialogue? Is it a bunch of "shits" and "assholes" and "suck my dicks" through the entire game? The ESRB is not a good, informative source of what content is in the game. The REVIEW is. Like I said, you can't actually know to what DEGREE possible offending content is in a game until you actually play it.. I'll give you a good example. Kevin's Bulletstorm review criticized the game for its excessive profanity. He said that it got old quick, and became very unfunny. That obviously is subjective, because personally I found it to be one of the game's charming features. It bothered Kevin; it didn't bother me. GTA V's misogyny bothered Carolyn; it didn't bother me. These criticisms come from personal experiences that are informational to readers who think like them. Their reviews still work well, because those criticisms that don't matter to people who have no issue with said content are easily ignored.
And without any bias? Come on, dude... you've been around this site long enough to know this site's never been without bias. Don't start spouting things you don't believe in to try to prove a point.
Speaking of bias...
@Chozofication said:
However, I am just so sick of these non issues pop up in gaming, from special interest groups who don't care about anything more than their own priveledges and quality of life instead of everyone's. Mostly feminism, and people talking about violence in games that translates to real life and things of that nature. Gaming just keeps getting attacked and used, and i'm sick of hearing this shit.
Carolyn's issues are completely asinine. Hookers exist irl and the main characters in that game are supposed to be unsavory.
--
Btw, go check out a thread about Bayonetta on Neogaf right now...
It's not a non-issue if it affects someone personally. It affects Carolyn and others like her. There are problems in gaming, and it's not wrong to talk about them. It is wrong to try to suppress someone's voice. Let them speak their mind, and we as a society/community will choose ourselves to agree or disagree with what they have to say. Telling someone they can't talk about how a game impacts them is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA". It doesn't help progress discussion and understanding of these topics forward. You want to talk about non-issues? Lets talk about a non-issue. GTA V has a Metacritic score of 97. It has held seven world records in 2013.
1. Best-selling action-adventure videogame in 24 hours
2. Best-selling videogame in 24 hours
3. Fastest entertainment property to gross $1 billion
4. Fastest videogame to gross $1 billion
5. Highest grossing videogame in 24 hours
6. Highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours
7. Most viewed trailer for an action-adventure videogame
Carolyn's mention of misogyny in her review is really the only non-issue here.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment