BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[Sleepy Sol]

I just startled my husband by laughing so loud I choked on my drink and spit it out.

But you hit the nail on the head. Objective review is a oxymoron. You can't expect someone give a review in a dead eye sort of way. Lets say I think Minecraft is boring and with crappy graphics (though I know that's the point), and there is no reason for the game, it's just a waste of time. Whereas someone else might say the graphics are great for this game, because it touches on all the nostalgia that makes this game so great.

I don't really care much about Minecraft honestly, I'm just using it as an example. Watching other people play is actually kind of fun.

The point is, two different reviews gave graphics two different scores. But for different reasons, and they're both right. The graphics are crap, but if nostalgia is your thing they're going to be wonderful crap. That's why subjectivity is important. You find more than one reviewer and you read/listen and then... this is the important part... do some critical thinking and make your own decision based on what you think is best. Not based on what Jim Sterling said, or what Yahtzee said, or what Total Biscuit said.

You watch all 3, weigh all the options, and then decide what you think is best. That's what's amazing about reviews, and that's what fantastic about subjectivity. You get to see what their experiences were, how it made them feel, and take from that how it might make you feel.

Absolutely. I can't really say an argument about reviews is ever going to turn out well for any GamerGate supporters (this is coming from a light supporter). Review scores themselves are never what you should worry about. If you disagree with a review's content, you can explain why without being inflammatory.

In particular, the whole weird Bayonetta 2 fiasco has got me scratching my head, since Polygon still gave it a pretty damn good score. I may think the reviewer focused on his perceived issues of sexism too much in the review, but that doesn't make him wrong. It makes him someone I disagree with on an issue that can be potentially contentious. And that doesn't mean I should want to silence his voice. Ideally, I should just move on after I've said my feelings on why I feel differently.

Of course, a lot of GamerGaters like to bring up Metacritic scores as a justification for not wanting Polygon to lower scores based on this issue, due to the fact that many large publishers now use it as a metric for how many jobs will be kept in a studio or how well the people holding those jobs will be paid, which is absolutely fucking ridiculous. But that is not a problem with how a reviewer felt about a game. It is a problem with the publisher that chooses to do so.

Those are my feelings on this particular issue.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Try "I don't like FPS games, so this game gets a 1" or "I don't like anime artstyle, so I'm docking 3 points" or "This game portrays homosexuals in a positive way, so I'm only giving it a 6."

Try actually reading what people are complaining about next time, please?

And?

Don't read the reviews then. If you don't like someone's outlook, then obviously their opinion on a title is not going to be relevant to you.

This isn't hard.

 

[redlemon]

Try "I don't like FPS games, so this game gets a 1" or "I don't like anime artstyle, so I'm docking 3 points" or "This game portrays homosexuals in a positive way, so I'm only giving it a 6."

Try actually reading what people are complaining about next time, please?

And?

Don't read the reviews then. If you don't like someone's outlook, then obviously their opinion on a title is not going to be relevant to you.

This isn't hard.

Normally, I would ignore them, except they have power in the industry, they're abusing that power to spread their political ideology. And now they're spreading lies, which really does hurt society, so now we have to shut them down.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Normally, I would ignore them, except they have power in the industry, they're abusing that power to spread their political ideology. And now they're spreading lies, which really does hurt society, so now we have to shut them down.

Ah. Right. I forgot about that widespread ideological conspiracy devouring the industry. That's my bad. Sorry.

 

[Breakdown]

"Objective review."

There is a conflict in the story. There are fighting mechanics. There are textures and pixels. You can get a game over.

10/10, this is indeed a video game.

I just startled my husband by laughing so loud I choked on my drink and spit it out.

But you hit the nail on the head. Objective review is a oxymoron. You can't expect someone give a review in a dead eye sort of way. Lets say I think Minecraft is boring and with crappy graphics (though I know that's the point), and there is no reason for the game, it's just a waste of time. Whereas someone else might say the graphics are great for this game, because it touches on all the nostalgia that makes this game so great.

I don't really care much about Minecraft honestly, I'm just using it as an example. Watching other people play is actually kind of fun.

The point is, two different reviews gave graphics two different scores. But for different reasons, and they're both right. The graphics are crap, but if nostalgia is your thing they're going to be wonderful crap. That's why subjectivity is important. You find more than one reviewer and you read/listen and then... this is the important part... do some critical thinking and make your own decision based on what you think is best. Not based on what Jim Sterling said, or what Yahtzee said, or what Total Biscuit said.

You watch all 3, weigh all the options, and then decide what you think is best. That's what's amazing about reviews, and that's what fantastic about subjectivity. You get to see what their experiences were, how it made them feel, and take from that how it might make you feel.

I think this approach is pretty reasonable, and I normally check a few different reviews before buying a game. The problem at the minute though is the question of whether you're going to get a range of different opinions about a game, or are you going to get the correct opinion passed on by a range of different journalists pursuing the same ideological cause.

This doesn't seem to be happening at present, but I think it's a legitimate concern for the future.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's the same reason I don't go to IGN, I find that their reviews are so general and vague (most often) that I don't have any idea of what the feeling is of the game, just a general sense that I should "go buy it!" I'm definitely not their target audience.

I think IGN could probably replace their review text with "Go buy it!" and not really miss a beat. Most people probably wouldn't notice.

 

[redlemon]

Normally, I would ignore them, except they have power in the industry, they're abusing that power to spread their political ideology. And now they're spreading lies, which really does hurt society, so now we have to shut them down.

Ah. Right. I forgot about that widespread ideological conspiracy devouring the industry. That's my bad. Sorry.

You mean you forgot about all of these journalists blatantly lying repeatedly? That was my first clue that "hey maybe Gamergate actually has a point".

This doesn't seem to be happening at present, but I think it's a legitimate concern for the future.

Problem is, if you wait too long to stop it, it becomes harder to stop.

 

[IceForce]

Don't read the reviews then. If you don't like someone's outlook, then obviously their opinion on a title is not going to be relevant to you.

This isn't hard.

Normally, I would ignore them, except they have power in the industry, they're abusing that power to spread their political ideology. And now they're spreading lies, which really does hurt society, so now we have to shut them down.

You "have to" shut them down? Someone's making you do this? Who exactly?
And how is you forcibly shutting down someone who you don't like, any different to an abuse of power?

Good grief, people aren't even trying to hide their hypocrisy these days.

 

[Fappy]

"Objective review."

There is a conflict in the story. There are fighting mechanics. There are textures and pixels. You can get a game over.

10/10, this is indeed a video game.

I just startled my husband by laughing so loud I choked on my drink and spit it out.

But you hit the nail on the head. Objective review is a oxymoron. You can't expect someone give a review in a dead eye sort of way. Lets say I think Minecraft is boring and with crappy graphics (though I know that's the point), and there is no reason for the game, it's just a waste of time. Whereas someone else might say the graphics are great for this game, because it touches on all the nostalgia that makes this game so great.

I don't really care much about Minecraft honestly, I'm just using it as an example. Watching other people play is actually kind of fun.

The point is, two different reviews gave graphics two different scores. But for different reasons, and they're both right. The graphics are crap, but if nostalgia is your thing they're going to be wonderful crap. That's why subjectivity is important. You find more than one reviewer and you read/listen and then... this is the important part... do some critical thinking and make your own decision based on what you think is best. Not based on what Jim Sterling said, or what Yahtzee said, or what Total Biscuit said.

You watch all 3, weigh all the options, and then decide what you think is best. That's what's amazing about reviews, and that's what fantastic about subjectivity. You get to see what their experiences were, how it made them feel, and take from that how it might make you feel.

I think this approach is pretty reasonable, and I normally check a few different reviews before buying a game. The problem at the minute though is the question of whether you're going to get a range of different opinions about a game, or are you going to get the correct opinion passed on by a range of different journalists pursuing the same ideological cause.

This doesn't seem to be happening at present, but I think it's a legitimate concern for the future.

I really don't see it as a concern because it's ultimately a very anti-competitive notion in an industry that lives and dies at the whim of market forces. If one site goes completely left, another site will cater to those marginalized on the right. Obviously we don't want to end up with a bunch of pandering talking heads running every outlet (like broadcast news), but considering more and more voices are being given a platform every day in this industry, I don't think we will ever have any real issues finding moderate voices of reason.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't think we will ever have any real issues finding moderate voices of reason.

I could go for some moderate voices of reason about now. Aside from my own, of course. Has there ever been a voice more moderate or given to reason than my own? My sources say "No".

 

[redlemon]

And how is you forcibly shutting down someone who you don't like, any different to an abuse of power?

Please quit asking "Have you stopped beating your wife" type questions.

We're shutting down people in positions of power who abuse it by spreading lies. Lies that actually hurt people.

 

[Breakdown]

Everyone keeps mentioning this ideological cause that journalists are going to pursuing. They did the same thing in the mainstream media in the early Bush years as well. But studies show that the only thing that really pushes journalists to do anything is money.

Not saying they're greedy, but economics talk, not social causes. Social causes don't bring in advertisers, viewers do. And people are too aware of alienating people. Most journalists, including game reviewers, are not going to suddenly start veering off in that territory as long as they need to make money. When they start getting money from Kickstarter or donations... maybe. But as long as their money comes from ads and clicks, it's not a thing.

The Gamers are Dead articles do seem to suggest that the websites involved are both co-operating with each other and alienating large sections of the audience regardless of the economic consequences for them. Although maybe they just got carried away at the time and that was an exceptional instance instead of the norm.

 

[Thorn14]

Objective Review:

This game has a colorful palette with slight aliasing issues that are hard to catch unless staying still or looking up close. In motion the game is a vibrant blend of pastel colors and smooth framerate.

Biased Review: The colors on this game are childish and distracting, a muddled or darker color scheme would make this game appear not as childish.

Note, I doubt any reviewer would give a review that biased, but I'm terrible at making up examples.

Basically I want as little of the reviewers bias in a review as possible. I don't care if Tropico 5 hurt your feelings because you play as a tyrant. I don't care if Bayonetta being sexy upsets you.

In a world where Metacritic can affect the paycheck of a developer (which is bullshit) we must demand reviews be as objective as possible.

Although maybe they just got carried away at the time and that was an exceptional instance instead of the norm.

Nah, remember the whole "Gamers are Entitled" after ME3? This is the same divide of gamers and journalists as before.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The Gamers are Dead articles do seem to suggest that the websites involved are both co-operating with each other and alienating large sections of the audience regardless of the economic consequences for them. Although maybe they just got carried away at the time and that was an exceptional instance instead of the norm.

Would seem like rather an exceptional incident wouldn't it? I can't recall any other "Gamers are dead" articles.

I think it was poor word choice combined with yellow journalism more than anything. Looking at Alexa, it hasn't seemed to cause much damage.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com

Rockpapershotgun and Gamasutra took dramatic nosedives, but they're also comparable to historical norms for both sites, and both are trending upwards again.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rockpapershotgun.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gamasutra.com

It's possible they're swapping one audience for another, but in terms of audience health they seem to be either thriving (in the first two cases) or doing more or less business as usual in the latter two. If any can be said to have taken it squarely on the chin it was Gamasutra, and that was probably the most warranted (they're the ones who employ Alexander, no?).

Nah, remember the whole "Gamers are Entitled" after ME3? This is the same divide of gamers and journalists as before.

Was that the social justice warriors too? Damn them!

 

[Thorn14]

Was that the social justice warriors too? Damn them!

...No it wasn't and ME3's ending had nothing to do with SJW. Anyone who thought it was was an idiot.

What it was was Bioware lying to us about the endings (Dev even said "It won't be an ABC ending") and how basically our choices mattered less than the actual multiplayer game.

That would have been cause for some internet noise, but then journalists began calling us "entitled" for getting upset over it.

And thats where the divide came up. Its when Erik Kain started becoming heard around the gaming circle and he made a lot of good points back then and I've been a fan of his since.

Whether or not its true gamers were "entitled" or what gamers believe, the point is there a massive divide and lack of trust between Gamers and Journalists and its hurting our industry.

 

[Thorn14]

Considering how crazy it was before those articles happened, the fallout with Zoe Quinn, the insane amount of shaming that was going on... I mean, we can hope that we have all grown from that, but at the beginning there, the amount of toxic and really vile rhetoric that was going on was honestly beyond par. It was definitely not something I had ever seen before, and I imagine it was nothing no one else had ever seen before.

Ever heard of the Streisand effect?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StreisandEffect

I guarantee you if that if Reddit didn't massively censor that one thread and journalists all start attacking gamers en masse, we wouldn't be having these megathreads and news interviews and such. It would at worse been a Phil Fish level flash in the pan.

But when you censor people from discussion and then attack them, you're going to see a kickback.

Imagine if there was a "Feminism" or "Feminism in Gaming" thread on some big site and it got blocked and erased and said "We don't want people discussing feminism." You don't think there would not be a pushback?

Granted, that's not what actually came out of those articles. But then when people are angry, shocked, and confused by what they see, they're not always as eloquent as they should be. This is why people should never write when they're mad. Especially journalists.

Hear Hear. This whole mess got this way because both sides got angry and rabid. And now I'm 95% certain a third party is playing us all like fiddles.

And double post! Crap sorry!

 

[Breakdown]

Was that the social justice warriors too? Damn them!

...No it wasn't and ME3's ending had nothing to do with SJW. Anyone who thought it was was an idiot.

What it was was Bioware lying to us about the endings (Dev even said "It won't be an ABC ending") and how basically our choices mattered less than the actual multiplayer game.

That would have been cause for some internet noise, but then journalists began calling us "entitled" for getting upset over it.

And thats where the divide came up. Its when Erik Kain started becoming heard around the gaming circle and he made a lot of good points back then and I've been a fan of his since.

Whether or not its true gamers were "entitled" or what gamers believe, the point is there a massive divide and lack of trust between Gamers and Journalists and its hurting our industry.

I missed out on most of the furore over the ME3 ending. Did the journalists call you entitled for hating the ending or for demanding the ending to be changed?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

...No it wasn't and ME3's ending had nothing to do with SJW. Anyone who thought it was was an idiot.

What it was was Bioware lying to us about the endings (Dev even said "It won't be an ABC ending") and how basically our choices mattered less than the actual multiplayer game.

That would have been cause for some internet noise, but then journalists began calling us "entitled" for getting upset over it.

To be fair WE were calling us "entitled" about it too. I had a lot of very angry debates with people on this website happy to call me entitled because I thought the ending was hot garbage, and none of them were prominent games journalists. Hell to this day people like to bust out "entitled" as a go-to insult.

But yeah the media was employed as attack dogs for EA. It was some shameful shit, and it's part of why I'm 100% behind the whole "transparency and ethics in gaming journalism" thing, although I don't take it NEARLY as seriously as some. Where I lose the plot is when I get told there is a liberal ideological conspiracy sweeping through gaming and the journalists are trying to indoctrinate me and yada yada yada.

Whether or not its true gamers were "entitled" or what gamers believe, the point is there a massive divide and lack of trust between Gamers and Journalists and its hurting our industry.

Meh. In all honesty the industry seems fine. It's making for a lot of hysterical discussion around the edges of it though. It's "Dickwolves" Redux.

I missed out on most of the furore over the ME3 ending. Did the journalists call you entitled for hating the ending or for demanding the ending to be changed?

Both. For "unreasonable expectations" about the ending and for the temerity to demand such a carefully considered and hallowed piece of gaming art be altered from the auteur's vision.

 

[Thorn14]

I missed out on most of the furore over the ME3 ending. Did the journalists call you entitled for hating the ending or for demanding the ending to be changed?

Both. Demanding an ending change is a bit extreme (But the DLC did do a decent job) is probably what journalists intended but the sheer noise caused some "Hey its their artistic decision!" stuff from journalists too.

Personally I thought ME3 was crap and the fact Bioware lied to us about our choices and ending was scummy as hell, and something should have been done, even a little thing (DLC went a good route, again), but even I thought people were a bit silly there. I just said "Fine I'm not buying anymore Bioware games."

That said, the point wasn't so much "Oh these people want a game changed and they're entitled." that made noise, it was "Its obvious gamers and gaming journalists are NOT friends and the fact that Journalists and Developers are so chummy with each other is causing a trust issue."

The issue didn't go away, it was bottled ready to explode, and here we are.

 

[shrekfan246]

Objective Review:

This game has a colorful palette with slight aliasing issues that are hard to catch unless staying still or looking up close. In motion the game is a vibrant blend of pastel colors and smooth framerate.

"Colorful"? Colorful to whom? Mayhaps one person's "colorful" is another's "garish". And any comment on the noticeability of aliasing issues depends entirely on the person playing, as well. What if someone doesn't even know what "aliasing" is? And "vibrant blend of pastel colors" is intensely opinionated. "Vibrant", much like "colorful", is a descriptive word used to describe something from the eyes of the person doing the describing. There is no way of removing that from the subjective opinion of the person writing.

Basically I want as little of the reviewers bias in a review as possible. I don't care if Tropico 5 hurt your feelings because you play as a tyrant. I don't care if Bayonetta being sexy upsets you.

In a world where Metacritic can affect the paycheck of a developer (which is bullshit) we must demand reviews be as objective as possible.

Find me one example that isn't Fallout New Vegas of a developer actively losing money because of the Metacritic score.

Also, prove to me why one review about the sexualization of Bayonetta (which still ended up giving a 7.5, a pretty good score) is something that needs to be stamped out entirely, when there are a multitude of other reviews out there that don't care or decided it wasn't a big enough problem.

How about instead of trying to shut up opinions you don't like to change the entire landscape to fit your perspective, you instead ignore them and find opinions that are actually relevant to your interests?