I want to go back to Huddersfield.
Carolyn's GTA V review was right
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
@Jag85 said:
9/10 is a great score, but as usual, fanboys will always be fanboys.
Actually it's not the score that's the subject of the discussion.
I dunno about that Carolyn... I bought Gone Home last week, finished it yesterday and wow what an atrocious game. Biggest waste of $20 and 9.5 my anus.
@WTA2k5 said:
There's a difference between flawed characters and worlds, and flawed writing. A flawed character may be objectionable, but good writing uses that potential offensiveness to make a strong point (see: anything from Taxi Driver, to Breaking Bad, to The Last of Us). Grand Theft Auto V has objectionable content and fails to use it in a way that makes a compelling statement. Surely if someone is offended by distasteful stuff that exists for no purpose, you can understand why (even if you don't take issue with it).
It's a video game, it's not trying to make any compelling statements because it's not a movie or tv show. Even if it was, there are many programs that glorify violence and bad behavior just for the sake of doing so, like The Sopranos or Pulp Fiction for instance.
Being that it is a GTA game, a house hold name for even non-gamers, everybody knows what kind of game it is even without a good or bad review.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethical issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
@silversix_: But politically, a game they loved. Not because of the game, but because of what it represented.
And this is the problem.
It would seem some people dont understand that a review is nothing more than an opinion of a game.
The review is right but I think she underplayed just how inconsistent the character behaviours are. Some of it is just ridiculous. It should have also been graded on the use of the 'N' word, which is so monotonous.
Its still baffling how people can throw in the old 'but its a satire!' line to defend GTA. Mudslinging everything you can is not satire. Its just mudslinging.
Be grateful it got a 9 because that was awfully generous for some of the lousy game play.
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating
why
. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things
ought
to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.
In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.
But why? A review means to look at and analyse the product. This doesn't imply objectiveness. Some reviews try to be (e.g Eurogamer's tech analysis), and some reviews are partial (Eurogamer's scored reviews - much like every other major website). But whose to say which is the right way? You? What's your reasoning?
Most reviews are partially objective. It's easier for humans to gauge it that way too and makes for a more interesting read.
On this specific case of GTA5, she observed a political issue in her analysis. This is still a review, it's not wrong. It's up to you, the reader, to judge whether or not it's worth your time. It doesn't mean she shouldn't do it altogether - other people may find this observation useful and worth considering when they want to purchase the game.
I want to know if a game is worth purchasing. If it's broken....how the graphics stack up. Not political commentary from a reviewer. I'm actually an intelligent adult and I know what to expect with GTA. It's not like this is the first game created. It's a series of games. It kind of insults my intelligence to read rants about the world created.
But even if it were the first game in the series....it's okay to say what kind of world it is...but NOT use a personal opinion of the content to rate the game. You're not a good reviewer if you can't keep personal opinion at least to a minimum.....though it should be object.
I don't really like racing games. They are boring. But if I were to be paid to review a game in that genre...then I have to look at how well it recreates that world...what works and what doesn't....and NOT base my score on my preference.
So you want reviews done by robots? Cause humans can only give a subjective review of art. Even graphics can be subjective when it comes to certain art styles used. So you're asking for something that cannot exist. You're basically just saying "only do it this way" which is absurd. If you don't like the review there's a million others you can read. She has every right to review it any which way she wants. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem, not hers. Shutting down personalities is never the way to go.
You want bland boring robot reviews? Create the robot and have it spew out reviews for you. The rest of us prefer a human take on art, whatever that opinion may be it's still more interesting than what you prefer. OH wait...that's just my opinion, huh?OPINIONS...crazy little things they are.
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
That's not it at all. They are meant to be objective. Issues you might find with the subject matter should be discussed elsewhere. It would be like reviewing Gone Home and discussing how homosexuality is a sin and they're all going to hell. Not the time, nor the place for that
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
That's not it at all. They are meant to be objective. Issues you might find with the subject matter should be discussed elsewhere. It would be like reviewing Gone Home and discussing how homosexuality is a sin and they're all going to hell. Not the time, nor the place for that
But Carolyn had a reason for bringing it up. People like to point out that the men are also portrayed as terrible people. But they're also the protagonist whom we root for because we play them and want to win. Despite all their faults we get a good three dimension view of them at times. Even trevor has that bizarre little love story that made me realize he's not all bad. Michael has a genuine love for his family. So even as bad as they are they are given redeeming qualities.
Every female in the game is sorta just tossed aside. We never get anything else about Franklin's aunt. And the only female that sorta mattered in Trevor's storyline get's horribly killed off screen. I almost wish one of the playable protagonist had been female.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
that's because in your narrow and dumb mind anything that doesn't support your ideas is offending you. People like you are the garbage that is destroying media and wants to shut down anything that doesn't fit the criteria you want.
@Krelian-co said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
that's because in your narrow and dumb mind anything that doesn't support your ideas is offending you. People like you are the garbage that is destroying media and wants to shut down anything that doesn't fit the criteria you want.
The attacks thrown at Carolyn for merely stating her opinion are the garbage that's destroying gaming. You're the one telling her how to do her job.
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
I see your point, but again, you're defining a review in terms of how you personally want the review. Which I don't think is fair. A review is helpful for someone like you if it talks about gameplay mechanics, design, etc. Other people might be interested in the social impact of the game, and would like a review on how a game communicates ethical issues. Videogames is a big industry and it's growing rapidly. These kinds of themes will only become more apparent as videogames come closer to reality. You stated yourself that a review is in relation to a specific critique - this is not an industry wide critique. This is an individual or group based (e.g Gamespot) standard. I personally think everyone has the right to review in their own style by their own standards - even if it's extremely biased. As a consumer, we should deal with that and read other reviews that we relate to closely. I don't think it's fair to tell that person to stop reviewing in that style because it doesn't agree with how we want to read the review.
@trugs26 said:
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
I see your point, but again, you're defining a review in terms of how you personally want the review. Which I don't think is fair. A review is helpful for someone like you if it talks about gameplay mechanics, design, etc. Other people might be interested in the social impact of the game, and would like a review on how a game communicates ethical issues. Videogames is a big industry and it's growing rapidly. These kinds of themes will only become more apparent as videogames come closer to reality. You stated yourself that a review is in relation to a specific critique - this is not an industry wide critique. This is an individual or group based (e.g Gamespot) standard. I personally think everyone has the right to review in their own style by their own standards - even if it's extremely biased. As a consumer, we should deal with that and read other reviews that we relate to closely. I don't think it's fair to tell that person to stop reviewing in that style because it doesn't agree with how we want to read the review.
What you are talking about isn't a review. You want opinion pieces on effects on games...that's fine. But that Is NOT a review.
No the review was a gimmick review to get hits to a dying website and forum.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
I see your point, but again, you're defining a review in terms of how you personally want the review. Which I don't think is fair. A review is helpful for someone like you if it talks about gameplay mechanics, design, etc. Other people might be interested in the social impact of the game, and would like a review on how a game communicates ethical issues. Videogames is a big industry and it's growing rapidly. These kinds of themes will only become more apparent as videogames come closer to reality. You stated yourself that a review is in relation to a specific critique - this is not an industry wide critique. This is an individual or group based (e.g Gamespot) standard. I personally think everyone has the right to review in their own style by their own standards - even if it's extremely biased. As a consumer, we should deal with that and read other reviews that we relate to closely. I don't think it's fair to tell that person to stop reviewing in that style because it doesn't agree with how we want to read the review.
What you are talking about isn't a review. You want opinion pieces on effects on games...that's fine. But that Is NOT a review.
While it's well suited to opinion pieces, that does not mean it should also restrict the reviewer.
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
What you are talking about isn't a review. You want opinion pieces on effects on games...that's fine. But that Is NOT a review.
While it's well suited to opinion pieces, that does not mean it should also restrict the reviewer.
I don't know if you are just trying to be edgy and PC or what....but I can't see why you think people that are interested in knowing if the new GTA game is well developed and worth the investment or not....are interested in personal agendas by reviewers.
The series is filled with bad people. From the start. Damn even the name shows you this isn't a kid friendly game. The rating shows you this. The description shows you this.
And what stuns me is that I've yet to meet any women/girls that play this game that take offense to the game. They accept it for what it is.
Anyway.....the point of review is never the same as blogs/opinions about societal impact on games.
@drekula2 said:
After the hype dies down, it looks like her review was right.
1. GTA V is not a 10/10.
2. The game does treat women like crap (yes she did make that a big part of her review, but the game has problems beyond that)
3. The characters do behave inconsistently (and it does cripple the narrative, which struggles between silly and serious)
4. It is politically muddled (it's a game that tries to be political every single minute but still has no specific message it wants to send)
GTA V is 9/10 - I don't see the point of your first point.
In regards to the rest - its GTA...what exactly where you expecting? Some don't consider that an excuse, but it is what it is. GTA is a political shit-storm and depressing and exciting and an expansive all encompassing romp through the world in which the game is set: One that over exaggerates and over inflates every minute detail into something that while not incorrect sure as shit isn't how things actually are.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
What you are talking about isn't a review. You want opinion pieces on effects on games...that's fine. But that Is NOT a review.
While it's well suited to opinion pieces, that does not mean it should also restrict the reviewer.
I don't know if you are just trying to be edgy and PC or what....but I can't see why you think people that are interested in knowing if the new GTA game is well developed and worth the investment or not....are interested in personal agendas by reviewers.
The series is filled with bad people. From the start. Damn even the name shows you this isn't a kid friendly game. The rating shows you this. The description shows you this.
And what stuns me is that I've yet to meet any women/girls that play this game that take offense to the game. They accept it for what it is.
Anyway.....the point of review is never the same as blogs/opinions about societal impact on games.
I'm saying that because I don't think reviews should be taken so seriously. Humans are full of bias and expecting anything other than is silly, especially if you're trying to make it a "rule" to do so (ie "it's wrong to write a review in this style"). People like different things in the world, so let the reviewers do what they want, and let the people who like to listen to them, listen. "I like GTA because of the pretty colours, 10/10". This is legitimate. No one's forcing you to listen to an "objective" review. I accept that you can reject or object to the claims made by the review, but the fundemental question of whether it's a legit format for reviewing is still justified. If you don't like how the reviewer puts emphasis on political/ethical messages, then you don't like the reviewing style - move onto another review. There are plenty of tech analysis reviews out there, and that's the beauty of it. In fact, that's why we have so many different places which have reviews - the reviews can be different due to personal bias, preference, and emphasis on certain matters: Graphics, sound, level design, scariness, prettiness, beauty, political messages, ethical messages, length of the game, historic influence, revolutionary influence. Whatever they think is important can go into their review of why they think it's a good or bad game.
Also, I've personally met a lot of parents and teachers who are offended by this game. In fact, the reviewer of said game is one such person. Again, just because you haven't met them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
@trugs26 said:
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
I see your point, but again, you're defining a review in terms of how you personally want the review. Which I don't think is fair. A review is helpful for someone like you if it talks about gameplay mechanics, design, etc. Other people might be interested in the social impact of the game, and would like a review on how a game communicates ethical issues. Videogames is a big industry and it's growing rapidly. These kinds of themes will only become more apparent as videogames come closer to reality. You stated yourself that a review is in relation to a specific critique - this is not an industry wide critique. This is an individual or group based (e.g Gamespot) standard. I personally think everyone has the right to review in their own style by their own standards - even if it's extremely biased. As a consumer, we should deal with that and read other reviews that we relate to closely. I don't think it's fair to tell that person to stop reviewing in that style because it doesn't agree with how we want to read the review.
then you are alienating literally everyone else who simply wants to know if it is a GOOD or BAD PRODUCT.
there are many other different opinion pieces that promote discourse and that's cool, i'd watch/read/listen to that stuff because that's great but it is different from reviews.
and while you're right about anyone having the right to review in their own style, you are doing the exact same mistake that you accuse me or LJS of; that is wanting to see a review how an individual would want
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@lostrib said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Krelian-co said:
@organic_machine said:
See here's the thing and here's why I think Carolyn is great:
There's no pretense of "This is objective truth." She simply says "This is my experience playing the game. This is how I felt about it." There's no nonsense, to silly attempts at impossible impartiality. Just raw and honest opinion.
she shouldn't be reviewing, it's obvious her experience is largely affected by a feminist point of view even when the game is a satire about everything, not just superficial women. Why bring that political point of view to games and reviews?
I don't think you should be posting in forums. Your experience is largely affected by...blah blah blah.
The minute you start shutting down peoples rights to say whatever they want you are instantly wrong. There's millions of reviewers online. Go find the one that you prefer. But who the hell are you to tell anyone what and how to do something? Who the hell are you?
Well the review is meant to be somewhat objective. But it should be the responsibility of the editors to point out when she is using her reviews to expand her personal political views. Detailing ones personal political/social views in relation to a video game would be better suited for an opinion piece
Reviewers...ARE OPINIONS. I translate this talk as, "shut up stupid female with an opinion. shut up and go back to the kitchen where you belong."
that's because in your narrow and dumb mind anything that doesn't support your ideas is offending you. People like you are the garbage that is destroying media and wants to shut down anything that doesn't fit the criteria you want.
The attacks thrown at Carolyn for merely stating her opinion are the garbage that's destroying gaming. You're the one telling her how to do her job.
what a waste of forum space, people make legitimate complains about her review and you come with some random bs that has anything to do with the point being discussed here. I don't think anyone had even mentioned that in this thread because that's another topic completely
At the end of the day this site is disappearing up its own arse. I have about as much respect for it's opinions on games as I do a random youtuber.
The Beyond Two Souls review. They're complaining about the prominence of women in games, next they give Beyond Two Souls a huge score and Gone Home their biggest score of the year. Objectively, these games don't deserve that. It's an agenda, and it's dishonest reviewing. And you have GTA V being criticised for it's portrayal of women, despite also attacking working class people, rich people, white men, black men, hispanics, hipsters, liberals, conservatives, foreigners, the law, the government, the list goes on.
It's just bullcrap.
@DocSanchez said:
At the end of the day this site is disappearing up its own arse. I have about as much respect for it's opinions on games as I do a random youtuber.
The Beyond Two Souls review. They're complaining about the prominence of women in games, next they give Beyond Two Souls a huge score and Gone Home their biggest score of the year. Objectively, these games don't deserve that. It's an agenda, and it's dishonest reviewing. And you have GTA V being criticised for it's portrayal of women, despite also attacking working class people, rich people, white men, black men, hispanics, hipsters, liberals, conservatives, foreigners, the law, the government, the list goes on.
It's just bullcrap.
So true
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@supa_badman said:
@trugs26 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@trugs26 said:
1. Okay.
2.
*Parent goes into store, looks at games*
*Reads back of box*
"Oh hey, this game says that it devalues women and portrays racism in a discriminating way! I better not get this game for my kid"
No. Blurbs on the back of the box often don't tell you enough information. I could say the same back to you about every review in general. This is a silly suggestion to make.
3. Just because you've never met them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you want me to link to a parents blog or something? Another silly suggestion.
Bottom line: Reviews are rarely factual. Reviewers cannot part way with their biases. For example, how "scary" a survival/horror is useful to know, but impossible to convey without opinion. Same for almost every other aspect of "gameplay". This is the same in most industries: music, movies, theatre. Reviewers rarely part ways with their opinions. Videogames is not an exception. A review is defined by the reviewer, the only guideline is to give an overlook and analysis on the game. This includes facts and opinions, whether you like it or not.
Good day to you sir.
Oh for fucks sake. The ESRB rating on the box is 100% better than that review will ever be.
| : Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol | ||
| Are you telling me the above descriptor confuses you about the game content? |
A review is supposed to focus on how the game plays. Not force feed you someone's agenda.
The ESRB rating tells me it's a game with a lot of content to be concerned about. But what of specific ethic issues? Does it talk about racism, homophobia, womanizing, slavery, terrorism, etc.? No. It's a brief summary. A reviewer can shed light on these issues. If you don't want this kind of information, read another review. This may seem redundant to you, but this isn't a reason to outlaw reviewers from trying to shed more light on the matter. A reviewer is free to give an overview and analysis, why should you restrict them?
Also, you're constantly saying the same thing: Nothing but your opinion without basis. I've constantly given you reason. There is no point conversing with you on the matter. The last 5 posts you've posited nothing but "It should be this!" without stating why. Some people care about this information. Just because you don't doesn't mean it should be your way. Just read another review and move on with your life. That's the nature of reviews, and it won't be changing any time soon. So now tell me why should all reviewers focus on how the game plays? What's your basis? Your personal preference is not a good enough response here. This time, give me an actual answer on why things ought to be your way, or just don't respond at all.
Edit: Also, I've also noticed that you've begun to swear in the last couple of posts. Relax, we're just talking and informing each other on differing views.
video games are reviewed in relation to other video games and gameplay
not necessarily in relation to a specific critique
if the critique is the main focus of the game then it is essentially BEGGING to be discussed, however, in this case there is no real critique in so far as it makes caricature's of several different things. the point of the game is not an introspective on racism, or feminism, or class per se; it is a game about three people robbing other people and learning to trust each other.
but picking one caricature and ignoring all others is having your own cake and wanting to eat it.
carolyn is a transgender, and that is fine. but also taking into consideration that she and other transgender still face issues, it's obvious why she'd take offense with different aspects of the game. but bringing that critique when the game does not necessarily invoke it is effectively bringing your own agenda
a review is very different from analyzation and using a theory to critique it; there are different elements that MAKE a game and seeing if it works well is what matters primarily in making a review, NOT whether or not it is an effective commentary.
I see your point, but again, you're defining a review in terms of how you personally want the review. Which I don't think is fair. A review is helpful for someone like you if it talks about gameplay mechanics, design, etc. Other people might be interested in the social impact of the game, and would like a review on how a game communicates ethical issues. Videogames is a big industry and it's growing rapidly. These kinds of themes will only become more apparent as videogames come closer to reality. You stated yourself that a review is in relation to a specific critique - this is not an industry wide critique. This is an individual or group based (e.g Gamespot) standard. I personally think everyone has the right to review in their own style by their own standards - even if it's extremely biased. As a consumer, we should deal with that and read other reviews that we relate to closely. I don't think it's fair to tell that person to stop reviewing in that style because it doesn't agree with how we want to read the review.
then you are alienating literally everyone else who simply wants to know if it is a GOOD or BAD PRODUCT.
there are many other different opinion pieces that promote discourse and that's cool, i'd watch/read/listen to that stuff because that's great but it is different from reviews.
and while you're right about anyone having the right to review in their own style, you are doing the exact same mistake that you accuse me or LJS of; that is wanting to see a review how an individual would want
GOOD or BAD PRODUCT can be dependant on ethical issues too, it depends on who you're talking to. I can think a movie is bad if it is explicitly racist.
I'm not sure of what mistake you're trying to say I'm making: you guys are making the restriction, so the burdon of proof is on you. I've given my reason, which is dependant on freedom and the right to judge a game based on other criteria than game mechanics. And your reasoning is "because I personally prefer reviews without x and y, so they all should be like that because this is what I want to see", or "there are other places you can express agendas, so leave it there". But this doesn't dispute that someone can incorporate agendas into a review. The review is an analysis and overview of a game, the reviewer typically gives some kind of final judgement on the quality of a game. You're defining quality in your own terms, which differs to other people's views - some view subjective qualities are important (which is riddled within every review btw), and some view objective properties as important. Likewise, some people deem quality to be dependant on how they depict ethical issues, it's not your place to say that they can't do that. I'm allowed to deem a game as a 1/10 because it was racist, depsite how good the level design is. The racism could have an overall impact of the enjoyment of the game - something MOST reviewers factor into their review. These are different kinds of reviews by different people.
Again, while agendas have a place in opinion pieces does not mean that they don't have a place elsewhere as well.
@DocSanchez said:
At the end of the day this site is disappearing up its own arse. I have about as much respect for it's opinions on games as I do a random youtuber.
The Beyond Two Souls review. They're complaining about the prominence of women in games, next they give Beyond Two Souls a huge score and Gone Home their biggest score of the year. Objectively, these games don't deserve that. It's an agenda, and it's dishonest reviewing. And you have GTA V being criticised for it's portrayal of women, despite also attacking working class people, rich people, white men, black men, hispanics, hipsters, liberals, conservatives, foreigners, the law, the government, the list goes on.
It's just bullcrap.
I would like to debunk this common rebuttal. "But they make fun of EVERYONE!!!"
Yes they do. But let's focus on the three male leads. Yes they are all mysoginistic a-holes who get put in a negative light. But they're also the protagonists. We want them to win. And each of them are actually given little moments where they aren't all so bad. Franklin helping his friend. Michael and his family. Trevor falling in love with the woman he kidnaps.
But not a single female character gets a moment to be a little more than two dimensional. But the three males leads, while yes are all horrible people, in the end they win and all come out good in the end.
The people who get made fun in the background don't matter. 1. Because it's lousy satire. 2. We never see them or play them.
But the women get actual screen time. None of which is used to give them even one moment of three dimensionality. A moment all of the male protagonists do get before the end credits role.
So you're rebuttal is bullcrap.
The whole section with Trevor and that old lady he falls in love with was just bizarre.
I also thought Franklin needed more character development. He seemed very dull to me, yet he's surrounded by crazy wackos.
@MonsieurX said:
Cool.
So you agree with her,what's next?
This. So what? The game's message is our society and its generalizations and politics are a joke.
@WTA2k5: "If touching on a subject like that for an extended period of time yields no meaningful statement, then it's just crass and exploitative. "
'Crass and expoitative'? What are we talking about here? Grand Theft Auto?
NEWSFLASH! STOP THE PRESSES! UNCONFIRMED REPORTS ARE SWIRLING 'ROUND THE COMPUTERWEBS THAT GRAND THEFT AUTO IS CRASS AND EXPLOITATIVE!! Who knew? *eyeroll*
I see a lot of people in this thread talking out of their collective ass. GTA is not insightful. It's 'message,' whether satire or parody, comes off as well as an eighth-grade term paper titled "I Hate Everything Because Everything Is Stupid." Anyone claiming that it sends a bad message about anything is just nonsense- it makes fun of everything and thus, it believes in nothing. Because it believes in nothing, anyone looking for(and especially anyone FINDING) any deeper meaning in it is fuckin' stupid.
The "satire" in GTA5(because **** your pretentious-ass roman numerals) is nothing more than trolling. Carolyn fed the Rockstar trolls a feast with her feminonsense review.
@Bread_or_Decide: "...not a single female character gets a moment to be a little more than two dimensional. "
That's stupid. NO ONE other than the protags ever gets to be more than a 2-dimensional caricature.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@DocSanchez said:
At the end of the day this site is disappearing up its own arse. I have about as much respect for it's opinions on games as I do a random youtuber.
The Beyond Two Souls review. They're complaining about the prominence of women in games, next they give Beyond Two Souls a huge score and Gone Home their biggest score of the year. Objectively, these games don't deserve that. It's an agenda, and it's dishonest reviewing. And you have GTA V being criticised for it's portrayal of women, despite also attacking working class people, rich people, white men, black men, hispanics, hipsters, liberals, conservatives, foreigners, the law, the government, the list goes on.
It's just bullcrap.
I would like to debunk this common rebuttal. "But they make fun of EVERYONE!!!"
Yes they do. But let's focus on the three male leads. Yes they are all mysoginistic a-holes who get put in a negative light. But they're also the protagonists. We want them to win. And each of them are actually given little moments where they aren't all so bad. Franklin helping his friend. Michael and his family. Trevor falling in love with the woman he kidnaps.
But not a single female character gets a moment to be a little more than two dimensional. But the three males leads, while yes are all horrible people, in the end they win and all come out good in the end.
The people who get made fun in the background don't matter. 1. Because it's lousy satire. 2. We never see them or play them.
But the women get actual screen time. None of which is used to give them even one moment of three dimensionality. A moment all of the male protagonists do get before the end credits role.
So you're rebuttal is bullcrap.
@Krelian-co said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@DocSanchez said:
At the end of the day this site is disappearing up its own arse. I have about as much respect for it's opinions on games as I do a random youtuber.
The Beyond Two Souls review. They're complaining about the prominence of women in games, next they give Beyond Two Souls a huge score and Gone Home their biggest score of the year. Objectively, these games don't deserve that. It's an agenda, and it's dishonest reviewing. And you have GTA V being criticised for it's portrayal of women, despite also attacking working class people, rich people, white men, black men, hispanics, hipsters, liberals, conservatives, foreigners, the law, the government, the list goes on.
It's just bullcrap.
I would like to debunk this common rebuttal. "But they make fun of EVERYONE!!!"
Yes they do. But let's focus on the three male leads. Yes they are all mysoginistic a-holes who get put in a negative light. But they're also the protagonists. We want them to win. And each of them are actually given little moments where they aren't all so bad. Franklin helping his friend. Michael and his family. Trevor falling in love with the woman he kidnaps.
But not a single female character gets a moment to be a little more than two dimensional. But the three males leads, while yes are all horrible people, in the end they win and all come out good in the end.
The people who get made fun in the background don't matter. 1. Because it's lousy satire. 2. We never see them or play them.
But the women get actual screen time. None of which is used to give them even one moment of three dimensionality. A moment all of the male protagonists do get before the end credits role.
So you're rebuttal is bullcrap.
What a well thought out response. Tell me more internet person.
thats cool.. its an opinion, mine is that its prob worth about 8/10.
Good game and i enjoyed playing it...
@undeadgoon said:
thats cool.. its an opinion, mine is that its prob worth about 8/10.
Good game and i enjoyed playing it...
How dare you have your own opinion. Shut up and get back in the kitchen. And don't you dare ask for games to be treated as art and then get mad when it gets critiqued as art.
It's not that carolyn is necessarily a bad reviewer. She is entitled to her opinion.
But however bringing the air of personal life views into reviewing games is something that rubs me the wrong way.
Not once in the GTAV review are things like framerate, screen tearing or any fundamental thing about video games mentioned (Aside from car handling). Which leaves her reviews with a sour taste in my mouth.
This goes to prove that the review while not necessarily a vendetta let the experience become personal which is a problem and it's heavily apparent give the articles she has written.
"GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we’re meant to laugh at"
And putting that smack dab in the middle of the review is enough indication for me that the game was take a little too seriously for a GTA game. Do I agree with the score yes.
However I wanna hear about the game itself. Not someone's personal views on the mantra of the developers.
@Cranler said:
Why does the game need to send any political message?
Is EXACTLY my point. Critics and commentators didn't simply just take political opinions out of their ass and inject it into GTA.
GTA5 is a game that tries SO HARD to be political. Bashing political groups and making social commentary every minute. Be it the story, the radio, the television, and even one of Trevor's switch-scenes bashes trickle down economics.
I didn't ask for GTA5 to be political at all. But since it consciously decided to be, it needs to be responsible for what it says.
@drekula2 said:
@Cranler said:
Why does the game need to send any political message?
Is EXACTLY my point. Critics and commentators didn't simply just take political opinions out of their ass and inject it into GTA.
GTA5 is a game that tries SO HARD to be political. Bashing political groups and making social commentary every minute. Be it the story, the radio, the television, and even one of Trevor's switch-scenes bashes trickle down economics.
I didn't ask for GTA5 to be political at all. But since it consciously decided to be, it needs to be responsible for what it says.
Why does it need to be responsible? And how about an example of where it's not responsible.
@drekula2: @Cranler: Did you guys miss my "it believes in nothing" tirade? To "be political" means that you're trying to change something, or convince someone of something. That you have an agenda- a bone to pick, an axe to grind- SOMETHING TO ACCOMPLISH.
GTA5 has nothing of the sort- unless the overarching political statement is that Americans as a whole have absolutely no redeeming qualities.
In short, Rockstar set out to troll every socio-religio-political demographic in our country, and in Carolyn's case, they won hands fuckin' down.
@El_Zo1212o said:
@drekula2: @Cranler: Did you guys miss my "it believes in nothing" tirade? To "be political" means that you're trying to change something, or convince someone of something. That you have an agenda- a bone to pick, an axe to grind- SOMETHING TO ACCOMPLISH.
GTA5 has nothing of the sort- unless the overarching political statement is that Americans as a whole have absolutely no redeeming qualities.
In short, Rockstar set out to troll every socio-religio-political demographic in our country, and in Carolyn's case, they won hands fuckin' down.
Not hard when all you seem to do revolves around a feminist point of view like carolyn. There i said it.
@Suppaman100 said:
It's a freaking satire, that's the part she didn't get.
"Sarcasm, parody, absurdism and irony are great ways to strip off stuff’s mask and show the unpleasant reality behind it. The problem is that once the rules of art are debunked, and once the unpleasant realities the irony diagnoses are revealed and diagnosed, "then" what do we do? Irony’s useful for debunking illusions, but most of the illusion-debunking in the U.S. has now been done and redone. Once everybody knows that equality of opportunity is bunk and Mike Brady’s bunk and Just Say No is bunk, now what do we do? All we seem to want to do is keep ridiculing the stuff. Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what’s wrong, because they’ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists. Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving. There’s some great essay somewhere that has a line about irony being the song of the prisoner who’s come to love his cage." - David Foster Wallace
I have a couple problems with GTA V, mostly involving the campaign. First, the satire is shit. We've been heard the same stuff time and time again, and like the quote I used above states, if you're you're just using satire to use satire and point out flaws with no solution what's the point? Everyone knows the flaws already because everyone points those flaws out (with/without satire). Second, the campaign doesn't know what it wants to be, does it want to be a satire/parody with piss jokes every 5 seconds? Or a serious crime drama? One of the most hypocritical and possibly self aware scenes was when Trevor (the worse character in the game) states that 'sarcasm is the blight of this generation'. Third, the campaign just drags on and leads to a pretty boring ending. It the problem with all GTA games; it starts out amazing and impressive but halfway through it just becomes mind numbingly boring. GTA is only good for the virtual densely packed sandbox/playground it manages to create which is very impressive and is what I think to be the saving grace of the game.
So in the end I think Carolyn was right, I'm sure she recognized the satire and found it to just be bombastic dribble that doesn't really do anything except be bombastic.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment