Gamers are their Own Worst Enemy.... Heres My Proof.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
*Wall Of Text crits Godofnerdyness for 9999*
*Godofnerdyness faints!*
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to read all of that...:oops:
Godofnerdyness
Lame. Contribute to the conversation or go somewhere else.
...anyway, good read as always GME. I think it important to have games that deal with the issues. I think it is funny that the little blurb for the Army of To review says that 'you shouldn't think about the subject matter'... that is just such a peculiar attitude. I hope the reviewer wasn't looking forward to MGS4, because it will be all about PMCs and the morality/immorailty of war.
Blog it!
Nah, seriously great post. In fact I don't think I can remember a single game with a politcal agenda or "deeper meaning" where most high profile reviews have not ridiculed it for containg such a thing.
One of the best and most powerful games I've played was a simple point and click flash game about post natal depression. You just clicked on photos and what not (though there is interactivity). It was genuinely upsetting when she was eventually subjected to EST. :(
So much potential we have as a relativley new medium. We can grow and explore in many ways that other forms of entertainment have already conquered. Growing away from the childish pretext of being toys for chldren, videogames can offer us interactive art unatainable in other mediums. It seems there are some of us though that would want to hold the entire industry back, "games should be about killing aliens and racing cars!" they cry. "Leave any political or religious references that keep you thinking at the door." Games need to grow, we have hit a stale point. And I dont mean they need to grow graphically or in terms of presentation but in terms of offering meaningfull adult content. Sex, religion, politics... there is no issue a book or movie cant tackle, so there is nothing a game cant do either. It seems everytime a game is made that has refrence to real world events or commentary on the human condition there is this large backlash from us the community! "Stop that!" we yell. "We dont want to think or feel things while playing games! Let me collect trophys and shoot aliens!" You're probably wondering what im getting at with all of this, well this train of thought was driven by our recent Army Of Two review, in perhaps what is the most hideously biased and pretentious videogame review I have ever read the reviewer seems fit to base his game score and whole opinion on the game based on his disagreement with the games vision and opinion. The whole review has a context of fear, like we should be afraid with games that contain such things in them. Some sample exerpts: Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy, part of which takes place in the modern-day Iraq war. It mostly plays fine. The Aggro system works well (whereby your partner can hold your enemies' attention while you flank), and the online multiplayer is hectic fun. But the way it broaches and then mishandles such a controversial modern day issue is far from army strong Maybe thats the point though. The message isnt supposed to be go army, yay America! It seems to me the game is meant to set a much darker tone involving the use of PMCS in a political disaster area full of war. Its a touchy subject, and I certainly understand if you're offended by a game that dosent present America as the hero and the great everything... but not everyone feels the same way. That a game is tackling these things in the first place seems like a step in the right direction to me. Neither Rios nor Salem engages in any dishonorable behavior, aside from making fun of the Army for being so slow and ill-equipped. That would be fine if the Army they were making fun of were the Venusian Army. So its ok to make fun of foreigners...but not America? Or conversely, if Blackwater mercenaries in the real world hadn't been asked to leave Iraq for flipping out and massacring its civilians. But in Army of Two, there's no such thing as a civilian. If they aren't good guys, they're terrorists. Sounds like a legitimate complaint to me, but I cant think of other war like games that have civilians runnng around. GRAW dosent... R6V dosent..... Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield So every game with guns should be set in the future and versus aliens? This statement makes my blood boil but I wont say anything inflammatory. But even its title mocks the Army, literally one-upping its slogan while glamorizing a sector that, if anything, deserves scrutiny--not macho fantasy. We NEED these kind of games, games that dare to do what others wont or this industry is doomed to failure. Well thats my 2 cents folks. I fully expect this topic to be deleted because the moderators dont want anything that can stir the pot around here. I am personal friends with more than one mod that I know will agree with me but probably not publicly. I tried my best to present this argument in an intelligent and uninflammatory manner. I wait now for big brother.GodModeEnabled
A+
I agree with everything you said and I NEVER agree with everything someone says on these boards. For games to really mature as an art form they have to address things (that's being intentionally vague) that matter to the players. One way to get at this is satirical over the top commentary on real events like what we get in Army of Two.
There are reviewers of all forms of commercial art willing to beat up movies which they feel don't tow a certain political line. Happily (at least among media that targets itself at the mainstream) they are a small minority. I've seen five other Army of Two reviews and no one else saw fit to spend time whining about the plot, though it was often mentioned.
To prove my point that self appointed defenders of political position X exist in other media, I can remember a Washington Times film critic beating up Saving Private Ryan (a movie most everyone else praised regardless of their politics, as a quality movie) as a liberal anti-war film. According to that same critic, most others, including his conservative buddies, told him 'You are an idiot'. An MSNBC critic recently beat up Rambo in part because he felt that it endorsed Bush's politics (which he dislikes). "Just in time for the final days of the Bush regime comes "Rambo," a movie with its heart in Reagan-era ham-fisted foreign policy and its brain looking for new geopolitical evil that can be reduced to its most simplistic form." Many other critics just kind of regarded it as an unambitious action movie starring a guy who was is a lot older than the norm.
On a related note, as I've said for months, GS doesn't have much credibility as a reviewer and this latest review only solidies my opinion.
So much potential we have as a relativley new medium. We can grow and explore in many ways that other forms of entertainment have already conquered. Growing away from the childish pretext of being toys for chldren, videogames can offer us interactive art unatainable in other mediums. It seems there are some of us though that would want to hold the entire industry back, "games should be about killing aliens and racing cars!" they cry. "Leave any political or religious references that keep you thinking at the door." Games need to grow, we have hit a stale point. And I dont mean they need to grow graphically or in terms of presentation but in terms of offering meaningfull adult content. Sex, religion, politics... there is no issue a book or movie cant tackle, so there is nothing a game cant do either. It seems everytime a game is made that has refrence to real world events or commentary on the human condition there is this large backlash from us the community! "Stop that!" we yell. "We dont want to think or feel things while playing games! Let me collect trophys and shoot aliens!" You're probably wondering what im getting at with all of this, well this train of thought was driven by our recent Army Of Two review, in perhaps what is the most hideously biased and pretentious videogame review I have ever read the reviewer seems fit to base his game score and whole opinion on the game based on his disagreement with the games vision and opinion. The whole review has a context of fear, like we should be afraid with games that contain such things in them. Some sample exerpts: Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy, part of which takes place in the modern-day Iraq war. It mostly plays fine. The Aggro system works well (whereby your partner can hold your enemies' attention while you flank), and the online multiplayer is hectic fun. But the way it broaches and then mishandles such a controversial modern day issue is far from army strong Maybe thats the point though. The message isnt supposed to be go army, yay America! It seems to me the game is meant to set a much darker tone involving the use of PMCS in a political disaster area full of war. Its a touchy subject, and I certainly understand if you're offended by a game that dosent present America as the hero and the great everything... but not everyone feels the same way. That a game is tackling these things in the first place seems like a step in the right direction to me. Neither Rios nor Salem engages in any dishonorable behavior, aside from making fun of the Army for being so slow and ill-equipped. That would be fine if the Army they were making fun of were the Venusian Army. So its ok to make fun of foreigners...but not America? Or conversely, if Blackwater mercenaries in the real world hadn't been asked to leave Iraq for flipping out and massacring its civilians. But in Army of Two, there's no such thing as a civilian. If they aren't good guys, they're terrorists. Sounds like a legitimate complaint to me, but I cant think of other war like games that have civilians runnng around. GRAW dosent... R6V dosent..... Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield So every game with guns should be set in the future and versus aliens? This statement makes my blood boil but I wont say anything inflammatory. But even its title mocks the Army, literally one-upping its slogan while glamorizing a sector that, if anything, deserves scrutiny--not macho fantasy. We NEED these kind of games, games that dare to do what others wont or this industry is doomed to failure. Well thats my 2 cents folks. I fully expect this topic to be deleted because the moderators dont want anything that can stir the pot around here. I am personal friends with more than one mod that I know will agree with me but probably not publicly. I tried my best to present this argument in an intelligent and uninflammatory manner. I wait now for big brother.GodModeEnabled
Well spoken, and i completely agree with you. Sadly, as long as there are more people than not who WANT Halo-...Uh..Alien shooter type games, i don't think we will see much of a change.
I don't mind shooting aliens, I don't mind shooting terrorists, I don't mind massive amounts of well-written dialogue in my game (MGS, Mass Effect). I try to view all games on the fact that they're entertainment.
Unfortunately, the reviewer had a previous agenda that he wanted to spew and he happened to think that this game was a good catalyst. But, that's the thing with games that deal with "adult issues" like politics, war and peace, etc. If the devs don't make the politics or the agenda subtle then they risk sounding preachy and distancing some gamers. I applaud Ao2 for taking the route that they did, but when you have such mature and divisive content, then you're going to risk alienating some gamers. Like Green Day for example...decent music, if you can get past the clear leftist agenda the singer's trying to push on you.
It sucks, but that's how it goes. I applaud games that try to incorporate something meaningful into the story or gameplay. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be surprised when a consumer doesn't agree with their poorly veiled views.
I was in the PS3 forum when I first saw a thread about people complaining about the review, my first thought was WTF are we complaining about now. That's until I read the review and my jaw dropped. I was shocked that this made publish.
I'm sure we'll all be told that reviews are opinion and suck it up (or whatever the standard GS response is these days), but I guess the question here is should the reviewers opinion on the real world topic the game is covering make a difference to his final review of the game? I have no problem with the review mentioning that the topics being covered by the game might be a little much for some people, but I personally don't believe that it should effect the actual review scores. I haven't read a review here since last fall, and it was nice to be reminded that I haven't missed anything (besides frustration).
Great OP, enjoyed the read. Once again I'm shocked by another GS review, I'm really starting to think that there really is a consipiracy and GS are trying to really make their reviews stand out from other sites by publishing drivel like this.
Oh and one last thing, the last paragraph stated that "Army of Two is a better than average shooter" yet still scored 6.5. Is 5 the score for an average shooter because I'm sure Halo 3 got like a 9 or something (yes I went there!).
Although I am pro war, and support our troops, I don't mind about this. the fact is that every troop in war-any war, WWI, WWII ect, ect...-complains about not having enough of everything. You can ask anyone. SO that point he made was bad, I really don't care if this game has it's own political views. It should not effect the score of the game. I thought it was wrong the he expressed his own political views in the review. Hickamie14
It would have been much better if he explained that the game featured political views that some may disagree with. It's pretty clear that he personally disagreed with the political views featured in the game. If I'm reading a review, I don't care about the reviewer's political opinion. Leave it out of the review.
I somehow doubt you'll hear much issue with mgs4. Kojima has been inclined to lift ideologies straight from cheesy 80's action flicks. It's obvious Kojima was a big fan of First Blood and Escape from New York because that is basically the extent of where his political views come from. I can't help but crack a smirk when I see people spouting off words like 'visionary' or 'genius' to describe him and his regurgitation of American pop culture. Which should, by all means, be new and fresh to a Japanese audience and laughable to an American one.Lame. Contribute to the conversation or go somewhere else.
...anyway, good read as always GME. I think it important to have games that deal with the issues. I think it is funny that the little blurb for the Army of To review says that 'you shouldn't think about the subject matter'... that is just such a peculiar attitude. I hope the reviewer wasn't looking forward to MGS4, because it will be all about PMCs and the morality/immorailty of war.
rragnaar
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the original MGS for the Rambo/Escape from New York homage it was, but after that, it got to the point where even he was taking himself seriously, and probably even began to believe that he was the first to introduce the whole "soldiers used and abused by the government" shtick. Basically it stopped being fun and I think a lot of fans of the original saw that and stopped buying them.
When you rip into the military and call them slow and such then you need to make the player deal with the same shi*. Hickamie14
I don't get what you're trying to say here at all, care to elaborate? Also I have no interest in getting into debate about the US army and what they are and aren't capable of, but at the same time being an extreemly large government organization they are bound to move slower than a small non-government operation. I don't see how this can be argued and I don't see why saying so is a big deal, especially to a game reviewer.
Well spoken, and i completely agree with you. Sadly, as long as there are more people than not who WANT Halo-...Uh..Alien shooter type games, i don't think we will see much of a change.FoodThing00
But didn't CoD4 sell about as much as Halo 3?
I believe most gamers would agree with you or at least be indifferent so I don't see why you think this is such a delicate matter. As long as you don't argue every game should try to be "art", that is. Variety is ALWAYS a good thing.
I think some games crossed the border into art territory a long time ago myself. Bungie, Irrational, Valve, Black Isle and Bioware all have made games with clear political, religious and sexual undertones and have also gotten recognised because of this, to name a few.
This AO2 review in question does sound quite stupid but I've found game reviews in general often miss underlying messages unless they're completely exaggerated like in for example Bioshock.
The worst ideas in the world become highly successful when a slight hint of controversy is added. The more the industry rocks the boat the more it will flourish. The greatest movies and novels are ones that had people asking "Can they really do that?". A lot of people will argue that games are an artform and as such they should be utilized as tools of expression. Not to say all games should be a social allegory. A nice insipid boomfest like Smash Bros(what I am currently addicted too.) is great to have too. But if gamers and the industry want to be taken seriously and really leave a mark then you've got to make people think. But we must keep in mind that while pushing the envelope is a good practice developers should make sure not to do something purely for shock value.
The end half of Metal Gear Solid two really made me think a lot about our society and how people interact and treat each other, and that's part of why I loved it so much.
Excellent job GME. I read the review and was actually shocked by some of the opinions that were stated which for me, bring the validity of the score given to AOT into question. Was the 6.5 given based on the actual quality of the game, or because it dared to fly in the face of the reviewers personally held beliefs and convictions.
It seemed pretty clear he was trying to steer us away from the game because of them.
Army of Two came off as a light-hearted game that didn't take itself too seriously which is refreshing, in my opinion. So it's based on real-world issues, so what? I wasn't aware that making fun of the American Army (or any army, or anything, really) makes it a bad thing by default. What about all those movies in which the Marines always put down the Navy, for example? Considering that the game is played out from the point of view of the mercenary sector (which doesn't immediately make it pro-mercenary itself), what else can you really expect - especially considering Army of Two never advertised itself as a serious take on the issue, just the opposite. If the jokes themselves are bad, then we have a legitimate problem, but this really comes off as pushing an agenda. I'm really surprised that the reviewer suggested what setting the game should've used.
[QUOTE="Hickamie14"]When you rip into the military and call them slow and such then you need to make the player deal with the same shi*. KoolEmpty
I don't get what you're trying to say here at all, care to elaborate? Also I have no interest in getting into debate about the US army and what they are and aren't capable of, but at the same time being an extreemly large government organization they are bound to move slower than a small non-government operation. I don't see how this can be argued and I don't see why saying so is a big deal, especially to a game reviewer.
I'm saying that when TC said that the reviewe had no point when saying there is no civilians that he was wrong. He had no point. If you're gonna make a game tthat takes place in modern Iraq, and rip into the army throughout then you need to have civilians. The fact that there is no civilians is bad. Like TC said games need to be more real and not be afraid to hit the sensative issues. Yea that would be good, but then you need everything in it, the easy stuff and the tough unfair stuff I.E terrorists hiding among civilians for cover, and then the soldier who accidently shot a civilian gets punished. Was it his fault that the guy who was trying to kill him and his men went behind civilians for cover? No, he had to save his, and his men's lives.Blog it!
Nah, seriously great post. In fact I don't think I can remember a single game with a politcal agenda or "deeper meaning" where most high profile reviews have not ridiculed it for containg such a thing.One of the best and most powerful games I've played was a simple point and click flash game about post natal depression. You just clicked on photos and what not (though there is interactivity). It was genuinely upsetting when she was eventually subjected to EST. :(
Foolz3h
What about Grim Fandango? That had deep meaning.
I support tons of games. And I refuse to support what I dislike.
You presume, that because a few wackos are arguing online, it changes the industry?
Last I check, the only part of the industry who pretend to cares about online comments on forums, it is the MMOs makers...and usually, it is only a nice parade.
Put your ideas (whatever they are) to the test and stop arguing. I will purchase what I like, and I won't purchase what I don't like. Quite simple, isn't it? Don't try to make me ask for whatever weird concept is in your mind, I won't (I am still busy crying over SSI & Black Isle(who died making ACTION games)). Make it; and if it is cool, peoples will support it. I am not in the business of developping anything, so convincing me, is irrelevant.
Im not trying to convince you of anything, im merely stating my opinion and backing it up with this review. The overall thread topic is games should push boundaries and include real life events and things, games should have no boundaries just as books and movies have none. The review is the pudding of my point. To be honest I dont give a hoot if you agree with me or disagree with me, im stating my personal opinion and creating some discussion. If you dont want to discuss games and the industry than why are you here? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyways great responses from pretty much everyone. Im pleasently surprised this thread wasnt shutdown and glad so many of you see my point, and understand what im getting at. And to reiterate its not so much about the score and wether the game is good or bad. It can be a horrible game, broken AI, crappy online, bad gameplay thats all legit. However, thats not even the point of this discussion, wether it deserves a 6.5 or not there is a much bigger issue at hand both within this review and in the industry as a whole.I support tons of games. And I refuse to support what I dislike.
You presume, that because a few wackos are arguing online, it changes the industry?
Last I check, the only part of the industry who pretend to cares about online comments on forums, it is the MMOs makers...and usually, it is only a nice parade.
Put your ideas (whatever they are) to the test and stop arguing. I will purchase what I like, and I won't purchase what I don't like. Quite simple, isn't it? Don't try to make me ask for whatever weird concept is in your mind, I won't (I am still busy crying over SSI & Black Isle(who died making ACTION games)). Make it; and if it is cool, peoples will support it. I am not in the business of developping anything, so convincing me, is irrelevant.
Anofalye
[QUOTE="Anofalye"]Im not trying to convince you of anything, im merely stating my opinion and backing it up with this review. The overall thread topic is games should push boundaries and include real life events and things, games should have no boundaries just as books and movies have none. The review is the pudding of my point. To be honest I dont give a hoot if you agree with me or disagree with me, im stating my personal opinion and creating some discussion. If you dont want to discuss games and the industry than why are you here? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyways great responses from pretty much everyone. Im pleasently surprised this thread wasnt shutdown and glad so many of you see my point, and understand what im getting at. And to reiterate its not so much about the score and wether the game is good or bad. It can be a horrible game, broken AI, crappy online, bad gameplay thats all legit. However, thats not even the point of this discussion, wether it deserves a 6.5 or not there is a much bigger issue at hand both within this review and in the industry as a whole.I support tons of games. And I refuse to support what I dislike.
You presume, that because a few wackos are arguing online, it changes the industry?
Last I check, the only part of the industry who pretend to cares about online comments on forums, it is the MMOs makers...and usually, it is only a nice parade.
Put your ideas (whatever they are) to the test and stop arguing. I will purchase what I like, and I won't purchase what I don't like. Quite simple, isn't it? Don't try to make me ask for whatever weird concept is in your mind, I won't (I am still busy crying over SSI & Black Isle(who died making ACTION games)). Make it; and if it is cool, peoples will support it. I am not in the business of developping anything, so convincing me, is irrelevant.
GodModeEnabled
Good job. It's a nice topic. It really is unfortunate that people have to bring their political views into a game review. It's uncalled for. But, politics are so mainstream right now, it's popular to spout your views to everyone that doesn't care.
[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="Anofalye"]Im not trying to convince you of anything, im merely stating my opinion and backing it up with this review. The overall thread topic is games should push boundaries and include real life events and things, games should have no boundaries just as books and movies have none. The review is the pudding of my point. To be honest I dont give a hoot if you agree with me or disagree with me, im stating my personal opinion and creating some discussion. If you dont want to discuss games and the industry than why are you here? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyways great responses from pretty much everyone. Im pleasently surprised this thread wasnt shutdown and glad so many of you see my point, and understand what im getting at. And to reiterate its not so much about the score and wether the game is good or bad. It can be a horrible game, broken AI, crappy online, bad gameplay thats all legit. However, thats not even the point of this discussion, wether it deserves a 6.5 or not there is a much bigger issue at hand both within this review and in the industry as a whole.I support tons of games. And I refuse to support what I dislike.
You presume, that because a few wackos are arguing online, it changes the industry?
Last I check, the only part of the industry who pretend to cares about online comments on forums, it is the MMOs makers...and usually, it is only a nice parade.
Put your ideas (whatever they are) to the test and stop arguing. I will purchase what I like, and I won't purchase what I don't like. Quite simple, isn't it? Don't try to make me ask for whatever weird concept is in your mind, I won't (I am still busy crying over SSI & Black Isle(who died making ACTION games)). Make it; and if it is cool, peoples will support it. I am not in the business of developping anything, so convincing me, is irrelevant.
Canvas_Of_Flesh
Good job. It's a nice topic. It really is unfortunate that people have to bring their political views into a game review. It's uncalled for. But, politics are so mainstream right now, it's popular to spout your views to everyone that doesn't care.
Why? Aren't game developers doing the same by expressing their opinion in a medium as videogames? Why can't reviewers do the same thing?
Why? Aren't game developers doing the same by expressing their opinion in a medium as videogames? Why can't reviewers do the same thing? gamingqueen
Because game reviewers are thought of as people who "review games" NOT give a social commentary, or try to sway other people beliefs about the world. Those people are called bloggers etc. There is/should be a very clear line between the two. I'm already sick of celebs voicing their s**t opinions, I don't care to hear some no-name game reviewer doing the same. Comparing gamespot reviewers to people who actually have talent probably isn't the best way to go about making whatever point you thought you had.
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]Why? Aren't game developers doing the same by expressing their opinion in a medium as videogames? Why can't reviewers do the same thing? KoolEmpty
Because game reviewers are thought of as people who "review games" NOT give a social commentary, or try to sway other people beliefs about the world. Those people are called bloggers etc. There is/should be a very clear line between the two. I'm already sick of celebs voicing their s**t opinions, I don't care to hear some no-name game reviewer doing the same. Comparing gamespot reviewers to people who actually have talent probably isn't the best way to go about making whatever point you thought you had.
I was going to reply but you beat me to it. So, thank you.
But, yea, last I checked video games were an art medium whereas reviews are more of an information medium. One is creative while the other is supposed to be dealing in objective fact.
Actually, yeah, I have no objections to games being political, as long as they're mature and clever about it. I have no problem whatosever with videogames trying their hand at opinion or satire, as long as the gameplay doesn't suffer.
I think the reviewer has a right to criticise games based on its political message, however this can only be true if that opposition is representative of Gamespot, and not just the indvidual reviewer at hand.
Saying that, I agree with the TC that games should definitely not be criticised for being political, however I do not fell that this certain reviewer was criticising this game for that reason, rather because he disagreed with the politics being presented in that game. For example, it always infuriates me when I hear seasoned professional game reviewers criticising MGS2 because it got too political or philosophical.
[QUOTE="rragnaar"]I somehow doubt you'll hear much issue with mgs4. Kojima has been inclined to lift ideologies straight from cheesy 80's action flicks. It's obvious Kojima was a big fan of First Blood and Escape from New York because that is basically the extent of where his political views come from. I can't help but crack a smirk when I see people spouting off words like 'visionary' or 'genius' to describe him and his regurgitation of American pop culture. Which should, by all means, be new and fresh to a Japanese audience and laughable to an American one.Lame. Contribute to the conversation or go somewhere else.
...anyway, good read as always GME. I think it important to have games that deal with the issues. I think it is funny that the little blurb for the Army of To review says that 'you shouldn't think about the subject matter'... that is just such a peculiar attitude. I hope the reviewer wasn't looking forward to MGS4, because it will be all about PMCs and the morality/immorailty of war.
Mash_Affect
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the original MGS for the Rambo/Escape from New York homage it was, but after that, it got to the point where even he was taking himself seriously, and probably even began to believe that he was the first to introduce the whole "soldiers used and abused by the government" shtick. Basically it stopped being fun and I think a lot of fans of the original saw that and stopped buying them.
I think Kojima's philsopophies extend much further then the 'soldier being abused by the government storyline', however, I think MGS1 was by far the worst in the series politically and philosophically, and in the subsequent games his messages have grew stronger and hold more resonance.
And I hate when people say 'taking himself too seriously' would you even dare to say that about any writer or movie developer, yet when a game developer dares to implement politics into a game, he somehow takes himself too seriously.
[QUOTE="KoolEmpty"][QUOTE="gamingqueen"]Why? Aren't game developers doing the same by expressing their opinion in a medium as videogames? Why can't reviewers do the same thing? Canvas_Of_Flesh
Because game reviewers are thought of as people who "review games" NOT give a social commentary, or try to sway other people beliefs about the world. Those people are called bloggers etc. There is/should be a very clear line between the two. I'm already sick of celebs voicing their s**t opinions, I don't care to hear some no-name game reviewer doing the same. Comparing gamespot reviewers to people who actually have talent probably isn't the best way to go about making whatever point you thought you had.
I was going to reply but you beat me to it. So, thank you.
But, yea, last I checked video games were an art medium whereas reviews are more of an information medium. One is creative while the other is supposed to be dealing in objective fact.
Nope. Since you and the poster above you are smartassing on me, let me correct you here buddy... Reviews aren't only supposed to be informative no. The point of the review is to know someone's opinion on a medium first and last and not to get a full description on a product hence you see many game websites with many reviews of the same game, or 3 and sometimes 4 reviewers who review the same game as in EGM and other magazines. Does this mean one person can't "describe" a product?
A review has to include three or sometimes two main type of speeches, the first is informative; where you describe the game and the second is expressive, where you say your opinion about a game. The third kind of speech used in the review is persuasive which is used incase you want to convince people to buy this game. And they're called RE-view for a reason. The word view means an opinion.
And don't try to change the definition of something just because it works for you that way... politicians do that all the time...
[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]Why? Aren't game developers doing the same by expressing their opinion in a medium as videogames? Why can't reviewers do the same thing? KoolEmpty
Because game reviewers are thought of as people who "review games" NOT give a social commentary, or try to sway other people beliefs about the world. Those people are called bloggers etc. There is/should be a very clear line between the two. I'm already sick of celebs voicing their s**t opinions, I don't care to hear some no-name game reviewer doing the same. Comparing gamespot reviewers to people who actually have talent probably isn't the best way to go about making whatever point you thought you had.
I agree. I don't care what these people think about current/world affairs. I come here to get game reviews, not some guys opinion of the Iraq war. If he doesn't like the game, fine. But I'd like it to be for reasons other than his conflicting political views.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]Wait, was this an editorial or taken from an actual game review? If this was from an actual game review, then Gamespot's game reviews are turning into a bigger disaster than the now (thankfully) defunct GMR magazine.HiResDes
It was a review, sadly
Unreal. :roll:
I wasn't entirely sure if this was someone's Soapbox entry or whatever that feature is on Gamespot. But for social/political commentary to be used in an actual game review is grossly unprofessional. I don't believe Greg Kasavin would have ever tolerated that mess to go to print.
Well, at least there's always gamerankings.com to read over several prospectives.
Nope. Since you and the poster above you are smartassing on me, let me correct you here buddy... Reviews aren't only supposed to be informative no. The point of the review is to know someone's opinion on a medium first and last and not to get a full description on a product hence you see many game websites with many reviews of the same game, or 3 and sometimes 4 reviewers who review the same game as in EGM and other magazines. Does this mean one person can't "describe" a product?A review has to include three or sometimes two main type of speeches, the first is informative; where you describe the game and the second is expressive, where you say your opinion about a game. The third kind of speech used in the review is persuasive which is used incase you want to convince people to buy this game. And they're called RE-view for a reason. The word view means an opinion.
And don't try to change the definition of something just because it works for you that way... politicians do that all the time...
gamingqueen
Ok I apologize for being an ass in that last post. At the same time, I don't seem room in the definition you posted for providing social commentary. Perhaps it was just a poorly written review and the author wasn't able to properly articulate his thoughts on the subject , but it came off as though he was more upset about the games satire than anything else. Maybe the reviewer has a right to pass off his opinion on the US army and the situation in Iraq etc, but if GS continue to publish this kind of drivel then they certainly won't get me back reading their reviews.
It is funny, I created a similar thread over at GAF and it got pretty heated. A lot of members over there are game journalists, and they defend the review pretty heavily. It was a pretty good discussion, but I was surprised at how many people in the press seemed to think that it is perfectly professional to reveal your own political biases in a game review...rragnaar
Actually I was lurking that thread for a bit earlier today and was shocked by how many people jumped to defend the review (after the standard lol @ GS).
I guess if you're the one making the the political statements then you're bound not to see an issue with it. =P
A lot of members over there are game journalists, and they defend the review pretty heavily..rragnaar
That's not surprising. These guys are going to overreact as they're most likely constantly having to defend their professions as well as gaming at large. Besides that, this is the sort of thing you do as a journalist, you always "stand by the story", that makes the journalist look like they're just totally hardcore and independent and all that bullcrap.
Blog it!
Nah, seriously great post. In fact I don't think I can remember a single game with a politcal agenda or "deeper meaning" where most high profile reviews have not ridiculed it for containg such a thing.One of the best and most powerful games I've played was a simple point and click flash game about post natal depression. You just clicked on photos and what not (though there is interactivity). It was genuinely upsetting when she was eventually subjected to EST. :(
Foolz3h
really? I thought Bioshock had a very good political theme. Socialism vs Capitalism. It was talked about throughout the game. I don't think i have even seen a review critizing it for that either.
I think that if the reviewer felt that the politics in the game detracted from their experience, and if the rest of the Gamespot team felt pretty similar, then the reviewer has a responsibility to mark the game down. I guess this brings us back to the old argument whether game reviewers are reviewing games (i.e. primarily gameplay) or an experience, if their reviewing an experience, then they are bound to mark down a game if its politics detracted from their experience.
Let's take a hypothetical scenario: A games developer releases an amazing game; it is up there with Gears of War, Zelda etc., however in the midst of the game's gameplay is a storyline that forcefully and aggressively promotes Nazi ideals, should it still score high?
Let's take a hypothetical scenario: A games developer releases an amazing game; it is up there with Gears of War, Zelda etc., however in the midst of the game's gameplay is a storyline that forcefully and aggressively promotes Nazi ideals, should it still score high?MetalGear_Ninty
Not a good analogy. I don't see Army of Two promoting anything. Just because a game is played out from a certain viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean that the game itself is pro or con whatever. Here's a question for you - American History X is a film from a neo-nazi point of view and contains content highly offensive to a lot of nations and races, but would you say that the film itself promotes Nazi ideals?
I could perhaps get the reviewer if the game addressed and pushed some sort of view in a serious manner, but it just seems that the reviewer took the game a hell of a lot more seriously than the game takes itself. Army of Two is supposed to be a light-hearted, humourous take on a serious subject matter, the only relevant question is - is it funny?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment