Any good game/general geek sites that dont moan about sexism/racism/homophobia?

[Naraku578]

Try Gamefaqs.com, I like that it mixes user review with website reviews.

 

[mmiki]

Try GameWatcher.com (they used to be Strategy Informer). They do news and reviews without politics and drama - there isn't a single article about GG on the site. The reviews are mostly short and to the point.

 

[weirdee]

You're basically asking for people to compartmentalize when untraumatized human brain activity consists entirely of interconnected thoughts, feelings, and memories, and even if they never made direct mention of them, it'd still show in the work anyway. If you can't shut out the concepts you don't like reading or thinking about by your own effort, what makes you think that it's easy for everybody else to do it for you, for basically free? If anything, the main reason why it's so prevalent now is that it was largely suppressed in the past, and to continue doing so would probably ruin everything for everybody, including you, in the long run, when that bigger dam cracks. The closest thing you could achieve would be willfully lying to yourself and surrounding that with other people corroborating that lie, and if you want that, you know exactly where to find it, and what kind of people would resort to it.

The only place where something could exist without any influence from nearby sources or historical events would be outside this universe. To feel sorry for yourself, to be subjected to the expressions of other people, is a direct consequence of prior events that EVERYBODY in this community feels, not just you, and many others have had it worse. Feel free to join the circle of lies, but know that doing so, you are actively contributing to the problem that is currently nagging at you.

It's not about shutting these topics out completely, it never has been. It's about having a few small sources of game review not completely consumed by social justice ideology. It's about finding a review that say "gta was/was not fun to play, it had these mechanical issues, it had these plot holes, ect ect" in the malestrom of "OMG U KAN KILL PROSTITUTES IN GTA!!!!!!" without talking about or considering any other aspects of the game. It's not about eliminating that malestrom, it's just about finding a review that has a bit more class than the click-bait hype-engine social justice machine many gaming media sites and reviewers have become.

In that case, you want a website that is entirely self funded, because there's no other type of news now.

 

[Sanderpower]

OP, you have my sympathies for dealing with these people simply for asking a simple question.

So is it my turn to correct another person's blatant misrepresentation of what happened in this thread so they can stop pretending the OP just innocently asked for something and all the evil SJWs jumped on him? I guess it is.

The OP was only "asking a simple question" if you now consider dismissing things you don't care about as pointless bullshit and insulting anyone who might actually care about those things as "asking a simple question." No one would have cared if he just said, "Anyone know a good site that focuses on things like gameplay in their reviews?" but that obviously wasn't enough for the OP. He wanted to mix insults in with his curiosity, and people happened to not like that and respond accordingly.

OT: I have no idea. Not that I would care very much because I don't see video games as mindless toys whose reviewers should be reduced to saying "it plays nice and looks pretty!"

Wow, ok, if you think that games have to be either "mindless toys" or political tools designed only to advance social justice ideology, you have a SERIOUSLY depressing outlook on games.

There's more to depth in a game than social justice, and a lot of people really need to start realizing this.

Of course there can be more to a game then social justice. There are other artistic forms then just being politically inclusive/politically correct.

The problem however, is that any website that evaluates video games based on artistic merits are also going to have some of it's reviewers or some of it's forum goers also talk about social justice in the video game. There are many, many reviews that don't even touch social justice. But there are very few websites that don't at least have some form of mentioning of it.

 

[Belaam]

I want news about games/movies/comics, I don't give a shit about whether or not something is 'problematic'.

Are there any major sites that keep this shit out of their reviews, previews and basic discussions? I don't want to give ad revenue to any company that thinks these things are relevant in the discussion of video games, tv shows or comics or whatever.

Sure. after the great GamerGate fiasco of 2014, the Pure Gamers(tm) founded a website that hosted reviews that were almost exclusively the specs of the game and never had a single sentence of analysis of the social/religious/political/gender/racial contents of the game. Due to the millions of gamers who were clamor in for such a thing it is wildly popular and the reviewers and site are doing great business.

Unfortunately, because I think they're idiots, they refuse to give me the URL, so I don't have it to pass on to you. Try googling GamerGate Reviews or entering random strings of letters as a URL and see if you find it.

 

[GhostFox]

Alllll righty. Let's consider a hypothetical case that (I dearly hope) might shine a little light in here...

Let's assume there's a new game released (let's just call it 'Game X' to have something to refer to it by), that is a sterling example of gameplay at its state-of-the-art finest. The controls are smooth, responsive, and intuitive. The map/level design is clever and well-done. The graphics and sound are top-notch. Enemies are varied and challenging, and the game's devs adroitly avoided anything in the combat or other mechanics that feels 'cheap' or 'unfair'. From a purely-gameplay perspective, Game X is the best release in 20 years, a crowning achievement.

Unfortunately, Game X is also about hunting down and killing Jews. Or black people. Or gay men and lesbians. Or <insert any identifiable group of humans here, it really doesn't matter>.

Does anyone, including the OP, really, REALLY believe ANY reviewer writing about Game X should POSSIBLY not mention this, because it 'is not about the gameplay'?

Now, of course, this is an exaggerated example. But only by a matter of degree.

How a game treats ANY identifiable subset of humanity IS a factor that will influence buying decisions for many people. And it is every bit as valid a factor to consider as gameplay, or the quality of the score/soundtrack, or of the voice acting, or any of too many other variables to list.

Why do we read game reviews? To help us decide whether to buy a game or not. That said, it is the reviewer's job to present as complete a picture of the game as they can. If they think the graphics are sub-par, they should say so. If they believe the AI 'cheats', they should mention that, too.

And, if the game includes content that some of the audience might find objectionable, it is also the reviewer's job to write about that.

You, or any particular reader, may not care about 'political' considerations, or how good the music is, or whatever other aspect of games just doesn't matter to you. Fine. Just keep in mind that others' priorities are going to be different from yours -- and that what matters to them is every bit as valid as what matters to you.

And that no one's concerns, in choosing which games to buy, are "pointless bullshit". Thank you.

 

[IceForce]

7 pages now, of this back-and-forth.

And STILL no one has linked any actual tangible examples of the types of reviews the OP wishes to avoid reading.

Somehow, I don't think we'll get any examples. The OP appears to have abandoned the thread.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Are you kidding? Did you even read the OP? That was in no way a challenge to anyone who believes in those issues, he just doesn't care about it and doesn't want anything to do with it. He has an abrasive manner of speach, sure, but I think that's simply how he talks and didn't mean any particular insult in the OP. I would hazard a guess that this is how the majority of the people he interacts with IRL talk. And then the entire thread is basically attacking him over his desire to find reviews free of social issues. It wasn't until post 17 that anyone made an earnest attempt to recommend him some sites that would appeal to him.

Ahh, so if he talks to people in real life like this, it's okay and everyone should shut up and accept him insulting them and saying that things they care about are pointless bullshit that don't matter simply because he doesn't care about it. No one in this thread is attacking him over his desire to find a certain type of review, as has been said multiple times, they're attacking him because he decided to insult people.

I'm not saying that he goes around insulting people in real life, I'm saying that the style of speech in his area/workplace tends to be very blunt. Believe it or not manners of speech do vary from place to place. If he lived by me I would say that he worked in the oil fields or a manufacturing industry. This style of speech has then been misconstrued as an insult in his OP, when there really wasn't one intended. Looking at his posts on the first page, the first time he has said anything that could be taken as an insult directly to anybody on these forums was post 35 where he stated:

And which point was this again? The one about 'problematic' elements affecting someone so much they have trouble playing the game? Because if the writing in a game effects someone so much they can no longer play it properly then I'd wager they're a candidate for psychiatric help.

Before this he has simply been bluntly stating his opinion about social issues in reviews. The only way that this could be construed as an insult would be if someone had these social issues so closely bound to their identity that any insult to the ideology were taken as an insult to themselves. To say that this is the fault of Genocidicles is to say that his opinions themselves are offensive, and that would be to deny him his own thoughts.

And actually, nearly everybody on the first page is more directly insulting to Genocidicles than Genocidicles is until the end of the page. I only counted 4 posts on that page that made an earnest attempt to find him review sites that align with his preferences, the rest were mostly snide comments that are much closer to direct insults than what is contained in the OP because they were actually directed at Genocidicles rather than stated in general.

That he should fall back to insults by the end of the page is much more understandable when the entire thread was against him from the outset.

 

[Drathnoxis]

7 pages now, of this back-and-forth.

And STILL no one has linked any actual tangible examples of the types of reviews the OP wishes to avoid reading.

Somehow, I don't think we'll get any examples. The OP appears to have abandoned the thread.

I can't speak for the OP, but if I were to guess it would be reviews like this [http://www.g4tv.com/games/wii/61992/Metroid-Other-M/review/] that he is seeking to avoid. Reviews that place portrayal of characters over the merits of the gameplay itself.

I don't share the views of the OP, but I don't think it's that difficult to understand what the OP is trying to avoid. Acting like reviews of that nature don't exist isn't helpful to anyone.

At this point leaving the thread alone is the best option Genocidicles can take; if he were to persist in his argument against the whole thread he would be certain to receive mod wrath at some point.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Before this he has simply been bluntly stating his opinion about social issues in reviews.

No. He wasn't. That's transparent fiction, and has already been addressed. It's getting pretty tiring hearing it over and over.

Headline: "Moan". Characterizes the criticism of sexism/homophobia or racism in media as "moaning".

Throws problematic in scare quotes to indicate these things are anything but.

Refers to criticism of same as "shit". Suggests allowing ad revenue to go to such publications would be highly undesirable. Carries on with contrasting "resident feminist" to "reviewer I actually care about", and suggests the exploitation of women is "pointless bullshit". That's his headline and his first two posts.

For further context, consider that Genocidicles is an ardent participant in the war against "corrupt journalism", which means the overwhelming majority of his posting history has been aggressively snotting at feminism, cultural critique of games, or everyone's favorite bogeyman the elusive "social justice warrior", so this particular axe has been very finely ground.

Let met present you with an example. Let's use myself. I'm no fan of GamerGate, everyone knows that. In my history posting on this site I've ranged between being dismissive of its arguments to openly hostile to what I perceive to be its actual goal. So let's say I make a thread. I entitle the thread...

"Any good game general/geek sites that don't contain moaners about corrupt journalism/gamers are dead"

And for my post...

"I want cultural criticism about games/movies/comics, I don't give a shit about whether or not some people think they're "coming to take their toys away".

Are there any major sites that keep this shit out of their forums and basic discussions? I don't want to give ad revenue to any company that thinks these things are relevant in the discussion of video games, tv shows or comics or whatever."

Upon writing this post, a GamerGater pops in and accuses me of being insulting/inflammatory. True or false. Am I being insulting? Or am I just a dude innocently asking for some advice? And hey, upon discovering this guy read my CLEARLY INSULTING TONE as insulting, what's my response? Do I say "Hey no offense meant"? Do I clarify or alter my language? Or do I spent the rest of the thread doubling down on insults and taking on all comers?

For fucks sake, call a spade a spade. Genocidicles knew exactly what he was doing. I don't care what kind of gaming news he wants to read, that's his business. His very obviously inflammatory thread on the forums is everyone's business. You flame, you get flame wars.

I can't speak for the OP, but if I were to guess it would be reviews like this that he is seeking to avoid. Reviews that place portrayal of characters over the merits of the gameplay itself.

The Cons
- Samus has more daddy issues than Montana Fishburne
- Control layout is awkward and interrupts combat
- All the game elements feel disjointed and not fully developed

Two of three bullets are completely game play related. One of three is character/story related. One of the two positive bullets was also character/story related.

Crux of the character complaint:

In short, you're asked to forget that Samus has spent the last 10-15 years on solitary missions ridding the galaxy of Space Pirates, saving the universe and surviving on her own as a bounty hunter. Instead, Other M expects you to accept her as a submissive, child-like and self-doubting little girl that cannot possibly wield the amount of power she possesses unless directed to by a man.

So I'm to assume this is the sort of thing we want to avoid? If the same character device was applied to a Nathan Drake or Solid Snake would that be considered a valid complaint about the game's narrative, or "pointless bullshit"? Because I can recall a few instances of game series ditching canon in this fashion, perhaps most notoriously with Ultima IX, and it was anathema to gamers. Is Samus not a well loved character in Metroid lore? I'm not a Nintendo person so I don't know for sure.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I'm not saying that he goes around insulting people in real life, I'm saying that the style of speech in his area/workplace tends to be very blunt. Believe it or not manners of speech do vary from place to place.

And you're assuming, based upon nothing more than him being insulting (it's not blunt to call things pointless bullshit simply because you don't care about them) towards a single subject, it must just be his natural style of speech. Have you been following OP around to get a good understanding of his style of speech to come to this conclusion, or is this just something you came up with on the fly in the hopes someone would unthinkingly accept it?

It's not blunt to state your opinions directly without moderating them to be more polite? If he truly feels that something is "pointless bullshit" then to state that directly is the definition of being blunt.

British Dictionary definitions for blunt
blunt
/bl&#652;nt/
adjective
3.
(of people, manner of speaking, etc) lacking refinement or subtlety; straightforward and uncomplicated
4.
outspoken; direct and to the point: a blunt Yorkshireman
verb (transitive)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blunt?s=t

I haven't been following him around, but I have seen him post a fair bit and from what I've seen he tends to be very frank with his opinions.

Looking at his posts on the first page, the first time he has said anything that could be taken as an insult directly to anybody on these forums was post 35 where he stated:

Actually no, the first time he insulted someone was post 11 where he called anyone who talked about these issues idiots. Prior to that, he just called something people happened to care about and call it worthless because he personally didn't care about it, which caused people to react accordingly. No one should be surprised at this point that "That thing you care about is worthless because I personally don't like it" isn't met with polite acceptance.

In post 11 he calls the reviewers idiots, but this is not directed to anybody in the thread or on the forums.

And actually, nearly everybody on the first page is more directly insulting to Genocidicles than Genocidicles is until the end of the page. I only counted 4 posts on that page that made an earnest attempt to find him review sites that align with his preferences, the rest were mostly snide comments that are much closer to direct insults than what is contained in the OP because they were actually directed at Genocidicles rather than stated in general.

And how many people are telling him to just find reviewers that align with his preferences rather than seek out an entire website dedicated to them? And how many were simply pointing out that his issue with social issues being insiously everywhere was overblown?

Simply telling him to find reviewers that align with his preferences isn't helpful in the slightest, when the request for reviewers was implicit (obviously if he wants a site he wants reviewers to go along with it). If anybody gave specific examples this would have been different and would have actually been helpful. Likewise commenting on the prevalence of his complaints is unhelpful and only serves to derail the thread rather than to actually help him to find reviews that he would enjoy (which should be quite easy if the issues really are as overblown as you say).

Funnily enough, the only way you could take lots of the comments you're referring to as direct insults is if you thought OP's antipathy for social justice was so deeply connected to his identity that insulting said antipathy was taken as an insult toward the person. And, just because, why don't the people who responded with snide comments get the "it's their style of speech" defense from you?

A snide comment to no one in particular is an entirely different thing to a snide comment directed at a single person. It should be quite clear which is the more direct of an insult. They don't get the "style of speech" defense because many of them were clearly mocking the OP for requesting something that they believed didn't exist, and beyond that had no point for commenting in the thread. The OP, on the other hand actually had a purpose beyond insulting social issues when he created the thread, which was to find site/reviewers that appeal to him.

That he should fall back to insults by the end of the page is much more understandable when the entire thread was against him from the outset.

That he should fall back on saying that anyone who disagrees with him needs psychiatric help is not more understandable simply because he had to deal with a page of snarky responses beforehand.

It's not more understandable for a man to push back after being pushed than for a man to push for no reason? I'm not saying he was right to do so, only that it's understandable that he should lash out when he feels the whole thread is against him.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Let met present you with an example. Let's use myself. I'm no fan of GamerGate, everyone knows that. In my history posting on this site I've ranged between being dismissive of its arguments to openly hostile to what I perceive to be its actual goal. So let's say I make a thread. I entitle the thread...

"Any good game general/geek sites that don't contain moaners about corrupt journalism/gamers are dead"

And for my post...

"I want cultural criticism about games/movies/comics, I don't give a shit about whether or not some people think they're "coming to take their toys away".

Are there any major sites that keep this shit out of their forums and basic discussions? I don't want to give ad revenue to any company that thinks these things are relevant in the discussion of video games, tv shows or comics or whatever."

Upon writing this post, a GamerGater pops in and accuses me of being insulting/inflammatory. True or false. Am I being insulting? Or am I just a dude innocently asking for some advice? And hey, upon discovering this guy read my CLEARLY INSULTING TONE as insulting, what's my response? Do I say "Hey no offense meant"? Do I clarify or alter my language? Or do I spent the rest of the thread doubling down on insults and taking on all comers?

Personally, I don't find your mock post to be very insulting either. And rather than to call your post insulting/inflammatory the GamerGater would do better to recommend you a site that would appeal to you. You would move on to a different site that you find more appealing and they wouldn't have to listen to you being insulting/inflammatory anymore, everyone's happier.

I can't speak for the OP, but if I were to guess it would be reviews like this that he is seeking to avoid. Reviews that place portrayal of characters over the merits of the gameplay itself.

The Cons
- Samus has more daddy issues than Montana Fishburne
- Control layout is awkward and interrupts combat
- All the game elements feel disjointed and not fully developed

Two of three bullets are completely game play related. One of three is character/story related. One of the two positive bullets was also character/story related.

Crux of the character complaint:

In short, you're asked to forget that Samus has spent the last 10-15 years on solitary missions ridding the galaxy of Space Pirates, saving the universe and surviving on her own as a bounty hunter. Instead, Other M expects you to accept her as a submissive, child-like and self-doubting little girl that cannot possibly wield the amount of power she possesses unless directed to by a man.

So I'm to assume this is the sort of thing we want to avoid? If the same character device was applied to a Nathan Drake or Solid Snake would that be considered a valid complaint about the game's narrative, or "pointless bullshit"? Because I can recall a few instances of game series ditching canon in this fashion, perhaps most notoriously with Ultima IX, and it was anathema to gamers. Is Samus not a well loved character in Metroid lore? I'm not a Nintendo person so I don't know for sure.

Yes, only 1 out of 3 points are related to characters and perceived sexism, but the OP has clearly stated that he wants reviews without any of that sort of commentary and a little commentary about sexism is still more than none. I would assume that if a review about an Uncharted or Metal Gear Solid game focused on the characters over gameplay and also made commentary of how the character portrayal was sexist, racist, or homophobic, that would also be a review that OP wouldn't want to read.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Personally, I don't find your mock post to be very insulting either.

Whether or not you find the post personally insulting is irrelevant to the intent. I don't find the OP's post insulting, but I find the subsequent "I'm just a humble dude asking for information, any shots fired were totally coincidental" routine on behalf of the OP and his supporters insulting to my intelligence.

And rather than to call your post insulting/inflammatory the GamerGater would do better to recommend you a site that would appeal to you. You would move on to a different site that you find more appealing and they wouldn't have to listen to you being insulting/inflammatory anymore, everyone's happier.

Yes, you have chosen to lecture some of his respondents as to their tone, ostensibly with the goal of making the site a nicer place. Others have chosen to lecture the OP on his tone, ostensibly with the same goal. One would think your motivations were aligned.

My issue is not with your desire to see OP's wishes fulfilled. It's with your presentation of the OP as a genial fellow accidentally employing overly blue language in his post. That is neither consistent with his posting history nor the content of his posts in this thread. Honestly, not much would've come of any of this if OP had just mildly, transparently flamed and got flamed in return. It's the legion of ideologically aligned talking heads marching in to declare the OP pure as the driven snow that is cracking me the fuck up. "Can't a fellow just ask a question? What is wrong with the world!". People ask questions all the time, and get said questions answered problem free. The trick is not to be an instigator about it.

Yes, only 1 out of 3 points are related to characters and perceived sexism, but the OP has clearly stated that he wants reviews without any of that sort of commentary and a little commentary about sexism is still more than none. I would assume that if a review about an Uncharted or Metal Gear Solid game focused on the characters over gameplay and also made commentary of how the character portrayal was sexist, racist, or homophobic, that would also be a review that OP wouldn't want to read.

Very well, just curious to what extent one is willing to pursue such folly. I probably shouldn't judge. Mayhaps he is a sensitive soul, and finds such criticism triggering.