BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[BloatedGuppy]

Kinda ironic that you used the same argument people annoyed at sexism in games threads do.

The sexist game clearly isn't aimed at you, so you should just ignore it.

Apart from that i generally agree with what you are saying.

He's quite free to criticize critics. They get criticism all the time. Good lord, Armond White probably never hears the end of it.

However we're not hearing "I disagree with how this criticism was presented" or "I think this guy is letting his biases color his review too much", we're hearing "This criticism shouldn't exist".

By the same token, you can criticize a "sexist" game or campaign for changes until the cows come home. When you try to drum it out of existence because its existence offends you, THEN we've got a problem.

Gamers campaign for changes to their games all the time. Fuck it's like, 80% of the conversation on any given gaming forum. More of this, less of that, balance this, buff that, etc, etc.

 

[Erttheking]

Calling a review biased is basically condemning it because you don't agree with it. Reviews are biased? Well yeah. What do you want? For all reviews to march in lockstep and all say the same thing? This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 when the Firemen are all talking about how "How can you read those books? They all say different things!"

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

When you try to drum it out of existence because its existence offends you, THEN we've got a problem.

Isn't that generally what people criticizing games with sexist elements do?
For example we have the recent controversial thread about Fatal Frame's bouncy boobs physics.
Most people in that thread isn't criticizing, but advocating the removal of it and how you shouldn't be allowed to implement such mechanics.

That's why i generally don't indulge in criticism as it more often than not becomes something else.

 

[Zontar]

Calling a review biased is basically condemning it because you don't agree with it. Reviews are biased? Well yeah. What do you want? For all reviews to march in lockstep and all say the same thing? This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 when the Firemen are all talking about how "How can you read those books? They all say different things!"

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

 

[Erttheking]

Calling a review biased is basically condemning it because you don't agree with it. Reviews are biased? Well yeah. What do you want? For all reviews to march in lockstep and all say the same thing? This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 when the Firemen are all talking about how "How can you read those books? They all say different things!"

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

So you're allowed to have an opinion of the game, you're just supposed to tell the audience what they want to hear instead of what you actually think? How is this a plus?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Isn't that generally what people criticizing games with sexist elements do?

No. It's what people who dislike their criticism like to CLAIM they do. Have you a long list of games that were banned or removed from existence due to sexist elements criticized by prominent games journalists or critics? Neither do I.

For example we have the recent controversial thread about Fatal Frame's bouncy boobs physics.

And yet Fatal Frame continues to exist.

Most people in that thread isn't criticizing, but advocating the removal of it and how you shouldn't be allowed to implement such mechanics.

Which is fair criticism. People want LFR removed from World of Warcraft. That is also fair criticism. People wanted Mass Effect 3's ending changed. That was fair criticism.

Changing an element of a game =/= denying that game's right to exist. We change and campaign for changes to games all the time.

That's why i generally don't indulge in criticism as it more often than not becomes something else.

You're criticizing criticism right now!

Seriously though, people tend to be outspoken about the things they want and the things they dislike, and that is perfectly okay. It is consumer feedback. I've shouted for years about wanting more turn based strategy and less brown military shooters. That doesn't mean I'm a fevered ideologue trying to control the narrative and force my predilections down your throat. It means I'm a customer who knows what I want. I view yapping at Ubisoft to include a female avatar in Assasins Creed the EXACT same way I view yapping at Bethesda to make an RPG that doesn't require 7500 community patches to work properly. It is a statement of preference.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

No...just...no. That is NOT what reviews are for. Reviews are NOT to tell you whether or not you're going to like a game. They are to provide you with information so you can make informed decisions about purchases. Part of that process is understanding a reviewer's POV so you can determine whether or not their experience will reflect yours.

How the fuck is a reviewer supposed to know if his "audience" is going to like a game, when that audience is composed of thousands of individuals, all with their own preferences, likes, quirks, distastes, etc? All they can do is tell you what their experience was like, and what they thought of it. The rest is up to you.

 

[Irick]

Editorials and labelled opinion pieces exist. Trying to pass off politics or ideology in a review as fact just services to piss the main consumer base off.

Like the women in that interview.

Reviews are always opinion pieces.
You can't speak to anything but the experience you are going to have. It's not objective, no form of critisism is ever objective. If I read a review of a resertaunt, It is a review of their experience, not necessarily the one I will have. They may mark off for gaudy atmosphere, but as long as that rational is in the review that's fine. It gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.

If I read a review of a movie, and the movie critic doesn't particularly like the wide use of panning shots, but clearly marks it in the review It still gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.

If a games journalist has his experience negatively impact because of the portrayal of wemon in a game, and clearly marks it in their review, then it still gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.

That's not corruption. That's reviewing.

There is no such existent thing as an objective review, unless someone is double checking your math homework. Then you've got some objective review.

 

[Fappy]

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

No...just...no. That is NOT what reviews are for. Reviews are NOT to tell you whether or not you're going to like a game. They are to provide you with information so you can make informed decisions about purchases. Part of that process is understanding a reviewer's POV so you can determine whether or not their experience will reflect yours.

How the fuck is a reviewer supposed to know if his "audience" is going to like a game, when that audience is composed of thousands of individuals, all with their own preferences, likes, quirks, distastes, etc? All they can do is tell you what their experience was like, and what they thought of it. The rest is up to you.

Now I am beginning to see where the press' resentment comes from.

It's basically a bunch of randos telling you how to do your job :/

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Lively discussion on the nature of reviews, I like it. Personal opinion: Reviews are opinions by nature. The fact that there is often an arbitrary "score" at the end of it means nothing.

On that note, when did companies paying their developers based on Metacritic scores become the journalist's problem?

 

[Zontar]

Calling a review biased is basically condemning it because you don't agree with it. Reviews are biased? Well yeah. What do you want? For all reviews to march in lockstep and all say the same thing? This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 when the Firemen are all talking about how "How can you read those books? They all say different things!"

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

So you're allowed to have an opinion of the game, you're just supposed to tell the audience what they want to hear instead of what you actually think? How is this a plus?

How did you get "tell your audience what they want to hear" out of "tell your audience weather or not they will like it"?

Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.

No...just...no. That is NOT what reviews are for. Reviews are NOT to tell you whether or not you're going to like a game. They are to provide you with information so you can make informed decisions about purchases. Part of that process is understanding a reviewer's POV so you can determine whether or not their experience will reflect yours.

How the fuck is a reviewer supposed to know if his "audience" is going to like a game, when that audience is composed of thousands of individuals, all with their own preferences, likes, quirks, distastes, etc? All they can do is tell you what their experience was like, and what they thought of it. The rest is up to you.

It's simple: you use examples of elements within the game to let your audience know if they'll like it or not. The best reviwers I can think of brake what they review down to its components, and even when it's something they admit to greatly disliking they say all the positive and negative elements of what makes the game mechanics work. If done right it will have the same review make one person say "you know what, that sounds like my type of game", while another will say "that's just not for me". The best ones will also end with examples of "if you like X and Y, you'll probably like this game as well".

 

[dragoongfa]

Lively discussion on the nature of reviews, I like it. Personal opinion: Reviews are opinions by nature. The fact that there is often an arbitrary "score" at the end of it means nothing.

On that note, when did companies paying their developers based on Metacritic scores become the journalist's problem?

When journalists band together to launch an attack against their audience (see the 12 'gamers are over' articles) it becomes quite relevant when you think about what they can do if they decide to destroy a developer's livelihood for 'reasons'.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Isn't that generally what people criticizing games with sexist elements do?

No. It's what people who dislike their criticism like to CLAIM they do. Have you a long list of games that were banned or removed from existence due to sexist elements criticized by prominent games journalists or critics? Neither do I.

For example we have the recent controversial thread about Fatal Frame's bouncy boobs physics.

And yet Fatal Frame continues to exist.

Most people in that thread isn't criticizing, but advocating the removal of it and how you shouldn't be allowed to implement such mechanics.

Which is fair criticism. People want LFR removed from World of Warcraft. That is also fair criticism. People wanted Mass Effect 3's ending changed. That was fair criticism.

Changing an element of a game =/= denying that game's right to exist. We change and campaign for changes to games all the time.

That's why i generally don't indulge in criticism as it more often than not becomes something else.

You're criticizing criticism right now!

Seriously though, people tend to be outspoken about the things they want and the things they dislike, and that is perfectly okay. It is consumer feedback. I've shouted for years about wanting more turn based strategy and less brown military shooters. That doesn't mean I'm a fevered ideologue trying to control the narrative and force my predilections down your throat. It means I'm a customer who knows what I want. I view yapping at Ubisoft to include a female avatar in Assasins Creed the EXACT same way I view yapping at Bethesda to make an RPG that doesn't require 7500 community patches to work properly. It is a statement of preference.

DISCLAIMER: I have no keyboard to write with so I'll number your quotes as it is easier.

1.
It did in fact happen to RapeLay and that one Rockstar game.

2. and 3.
I never said they're denying the game's right to exist.
What they're denying is certain elements of the game and developers can end up feeling pressured to change parts they don't want to.

It happened to the devs of Divinity Original Sin and it can happen to others.
It is paradoxical actually as I have no problems with changes that haven't been forced.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Because what fan wants to be told that the next call of duty game is bad? Also in fact, who gets to decide if an audience would like a game or not? Plenty of halo fans love Halo 4. And as a Halo fan, I think it's shit because the story is bad. Is that biased?

 

[redlemon]

Now I am beginning to see where the press' resentment comes from.

It's basically a bunch of randos telling you how to do your job :/

I have a question, why do you keep distorting what other people are saying?

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Because what fan wants to be told that the next call of duty game is bad? Also in fact, who gets to decide if an audience would like a game or not? Plenty of halo fans love Halo 4. And as a Halo fan, I think it's shit because the story is bad. Is that biased?

When I said "tell your audience if they'll like it or not", I didn't mean literally tell them "you will like it" or "you won't like it", I was speaking about telling them using descriptions of the game to let them figure it out on their own if they'll like it or not.

 

[Silvanus]

For example we have the recent controversial thread about Fatal Frame's bouncy boobs physics.
Most people in that thread isn't criticizing, but advocating the removal of it and how you shouldn't be allowed to implement such mechanics.

Really? I just revisited that thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862098-Thoughts-on-the-sexualization-of-the-new-Fatal-Frame?page=4], and couldn't find a single person saying developers shouldn't be allowed to implement it.

In the entire thread, the words 'allowed', 'remove', 'ban', and even 'shouldn't' were never said.

 

[Skull Bearer]

And the Tea Party sometimes trots out black supporters to prove how not racist they are.

... your point?

 

[redlemon]

And the Tea Party sometimes trots out black supporters to prove how not racist they are.

... your point?

*sigh* And you believe that narrative too?

 

[WindKnight]

DISCLAIMER: I have no keyboard to write with so I'll number your quotes as it is easier.

1.
It did in fact happen to RapeLay and that one Rockstar game.

uh... last I checked, no-one was interested in releasing rapelay outside of japan, O I don't think the controversy over it in the west 'stopped' it coming out here.

And which Rockstar game are you talking about? the only rockstar gamez I remember not coming out was the manhunt games in the UK, and that was more that the BBFC - the government certification body - refused to certify it due to content. That was a government body, not journalists.