@gogoleafs @MasterOfMordor @Them_Apples I don't entirely agree with that. There is a line that you can't cross. It comes down to "treat people the way you want to be treated" I don't mind if someone argues with me about something I said as long as it is intelligent, but if they start making personal comments or threats, that isn't right, either online or in person. Those people need to be removed thereby making the community a better place for everyone who is able to be civil.
@XPats Fantastic post, really really good! Too bad no one at GameSpot will bother to address your points, because at the end of the day, there is no defense other than, that is what we are gonna do so if you don't like it, shove off sailor, we don't need you. Don't believe me, read Kevins post for yourself:
I would think this would be self-obvious, but it seems I need to post this.
We are critics. Just as film critics evaluate more than cinematography and costume design, game critics evaluate more than frame rate and controls. Every art form has a message, and the worth of that message, and the success at which the art communicates it, is part of that work. Rockstar crafted a world and gave that world a tone, a story, and characters. If the critic feels it is vital to point out aspects of the game's story, world, and message, he or she should be free to do so. Objectivity in criticism means that the critic has no personal connection to the success of that game, and is under no influence from the developer, publisher, or audience to make statements that may not reflect his or her actual feelings about the game. It does not mean that the critic does not evaluate the worth of any given aspect of the game.
If you want only a list of the things a game does without critical evaluation of those things, you can read press releases. Reviews are critical analyses. If you do not want us to express our experience with a game, and to not point out aspects that elevated or harmed that experience, then you should not read GameSpot reviews, or reviews in general. Regardless, critiques of a game's message are hardly anything new. One of my first reviews on GameSpot, almost seven years ago, pointed out racism. (This was a review of Happy Feet.) In our Army of Two review, we pointed out the uncomfortable message of the game. In my review of the third Army of Two game, I pointed out the puerility of its gay jokes. In his review of Everquest, Greg Kasavin pointed out the female characters' uncomfortable lack of clothing. All of these things stood out to the critic, and so they were evaluated.
If you want critics to overlook the worth and success of a game's message, GameSpot is not for you. If we find any aspect of the game relevant to the overall experience, it is fair to critique. We will not be singling out specific aspects of game design and narrative like characterization and theme and putting them in a box labeled "do not touch."
I have also attached the link to the page with this post from GameSpots senior editor Kevin Van Ord, just in case you don't believe a professional journalist could ACTUALLY say something like this.
@Xeuten @MasterOfMordor @Them_Apples Ok, two points I'd like to make. You can't knock a game for not being what you wanted it to be. You can't knock, lets say, NHL 14, for not having female hockey leagues in the game, because it never intended to do that in the first place. Why does anything have to live up to expectations it never set for itself. Should an Indian son be looked down upon by his father because he became a chef not a doctor? They do, all the time, is it right? Nope, it just is, just like GTA, it just is what it wants to be, not what you want it to be.
People want games to be art, which I believe they very rarely are, but if you want to treat it is art how can you knock the artist for not having your vision, go sculpt your own David, go paint your own Mona Lisa, go code your own GTA, then you can have whatever you like. Again, to be sure I don't think games are art, but that was for those that do.
@ggregd @MasterOfMordor We will indeed have to disagree. In a game like GTA, if overt sexism is a negative, so shouldn't overt violence, overt racism etc. At that point you are knocking the score down quite a bit over offended sensibilities. How is that a proper review?
@ggregd Good, post, thought I do disagree that a review cannot be objective. You can state facts about a game and still write a solid review, other sites/reviewers are able to do it so such a thing as an objective review exists. You can state the game has tight controls or graphical glitches. You can state that the story gripped you. The problem that I, and some of the more sane posters here not just spouting jibberish have, is that a subjective thing such as being offended by an aspect of the game should not affect its score, because it will not offend everyone. Bad controls are bad controls, a bad story is a bad story, but in a game that takes gangs, strippers, torture, murder, racism etc into account, you cannot single one out as a negative unless you will list every potential negative for every potential audience. Again, bad control will be bad controls for everyone, but not everyone sees a stripper and sees the dregs of society.
I totally agree with your final statement however. Why not take the GOOD posts and read them, and maybe try to argue their points in a rational manner. I tend to think they don't because in many cases GameSpot will have to admit they were wrong in some way.
@Them_Apples Very well thought out and reasoned post. The problem is no one at GameSpot will acknowledge that either you or your post exists. They only concentrate on the bad but they do not ever engage the good solid posts that make quality arguments that speak out against what they do or say. Maybe they should have a show that reads posts like yours and speak to them point by point. They won't because in many cases they would have to admit being incorrect. Its much easier to just complain about the people that are obviously morons with nothing of value to say.
@Blondezilla11 @MasterOfMordor @Dan11223344 @avalanche814 @Critical_man Blondie, first, I apologize, when I clicked on the link in my email it said it the message was gone, but obviously it isn't. Not entirely my fault, but I apologize.
Second, just because it is her review doesn't mean she can do what she likes with it. There are rules and those rules must be adhered to. In a review you must keep journalistic objectivity and she did not. That is my issue. If you are going to buy GTAV you know there will be stripper and prostitutes etc...there have been since GTAIII and how many years ago was that? I don't need to know she doesn't like how women are presented, and she shouldn't be knocking the score down for it either. Why can't she just write a separate editorial? Because it wont get nearly as many click throughs?
You can also answer your own question, as I believe you called me a sad old man, sexist and more. So what play DOES name calling have on a message board.
@boyinblu @Blondezilla11 @avalanche814 @MasterOfMordor @Dan11223344 @Critical_man Again, thanks man, its good to know I'm not the only one that sees this who fiasco as partially insane.
@avalanche814 @Blondezilla11 @MasterOfMordor @Dan11223344 @Critical_man Dude, finally, some sense....you were like a breath of fresh air. I though I was alone out there. I mean I said some dumb things to her I admit, but she is just out there being rude without any real arguments.
MasterOfMordor's comments