Grand Theft Objectivity

[hentropy]

When you say "I'm not going to read an article from someone who has a different opinion than me on some hot-button issue and nothing else", it means you're intentionally closing your mind off to opposing opinions.

I gave the example I gave to try and avoid the current hot button.

A "meh" movie getting good reviews purely because the reviewer wants "those kinds of movies" to do well isn't helping me find good movies, which is what I seek out a movie critic for.

If you think the game is a 10/10, that's fine, no reviewer is going to tell you you're wrong for thinking that.

I've never played a GTA game, nor do I intend to.

The bone I'm picking is in regards to the section of the article that says "bias on the part of a media critic is foine"; I pointed out why I had a problem with that attitude.

That's just the thing though, disconnecting someone's feelings from a piece of work ultimately makes every review a boring, grey, sterile discussion about mechanics and graphics and level design that can actually be quantified and measured objectively. What about story? Characters and character interactions? All of those things are subjective measures, and often debated on with games, but usually don't generate the same flamestorms that come when someone even dares to mention more divisive issues.

In the end, my subjective opinion is that subjectivity should be and is a part of all critical reviews, just so long as there's a certain amount of honesty and clarity involved. For example, the person knocking GTAV for being sexist isn't being sneaky about it. She's simply stating that, in her opinion, the treatment of gender in the game too away from the overall experience for her, and it might for others if they have a problem with such things. If you don't then it might not be an issue. From what I can see there's no grand soapboxing there- I think all of that is perfectly fair, and very informative and important for a reviewer to include, as it adds a more well-rounded picture of the overall game rather than just the basic mechanics and other "objective" measures, tearing down the piece or art down to its bare coding.

Because even minorly, there's something off-putting about the idea that something is somehow "worse" because it doesn't hold a particular social, political, or ethical value.

Why? You say this, but why do you really think it? You can take examples Bob gave- having seen Birth of a Nation myself I can say I was appalled by it, and probably wouldn't recommend it... outside of film courses, because it was very ahead of its time in a variety of ways. The content- story, themes, characters, all that squishy subjective stuff, really can detract from someone enjoyment of a piece of art. It doesn't mean they're media gestapo out to censor all the things, only that they didn't particularly enjoy it because it crosses a personal line. It's ultimately not much different from a Vietnam vet avoiding movies or other media relating to Vietnam regardless of how good a movie the rest of us feel it is, and no one faults them for that. But somehow if something offends you on a deep level, all of a sudden you're irrational and judging something in a "wrong" way, because a bunch of Internet people don't agree with you.

In other words, it's an arbitrary and irrational standard that is not applied to other media, the idea that critics should strive not to give an a good overall picture of what they're reviewing, and instead strive only to take a ruler to the things that can be measured and come to the same conclusion as you.

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

Look it's unrealistic to expect people not to bring personal bias or taste into a review. yeah you can expect critics to say "I didn't care for that but it's a feature most people might like." and just rubber stamp something because that's "what people expect." GTAV is clearly a harshly written game it's bound to rub people the wrong way. I haven't played it so I can't say that with 100% accuracy but their appears to be a theme in these reviews that the game is gritty and harsh. If you do something well no matter what that thing is some people will like it, some will not it's just the nature of taste. personally i'm surprised the game isn't more polarizing. from the sounds of it the characters are difficult to like and there's a lot of things in it that would not appeal to everyone. personally I haven't liked gta since I got my hands on saints row 2. my review score would be considerably lower. the fact is an opinion is entirely subjective and can change for almost any reason. and spamming a person with hate isn't going to have a positive effect period.

I generally follow critics with similar tastes which is why I tend to ignore when bob reviews any action movie with a cast larger than 2. he pretty universally pannes action comedies with ensemble casts. the losers, being a prime example, he ripped that movie a new one but that in no way changes the fact that I enjoyed the hell out of it and still really like it. just because a critic doesn't like something (which in this case isn't true 9/10 is pretty damn good) doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. it doesn't take away anything from your personal experience, grow up.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I feel that this article was a wee bit redundant.

Yes, what people are doing to critics that don't give GTA V perfect scores is bad.

I was kind of hoping that instead, we'd get to see your insight on the questionable morals and writing of V, but oh well.

Well, I think the issue with that is that Bob may not have played or even bought the game yet.

Now this may have changed, but last time Bob mentioned it, he said he didn't ever buy a PS3, doesn't play PC games(at least not much), and mostly plays Nintendo games. I don't remember if he had a 360 or not. Maybe he does.

Plus, he has 3 or 4 video shows, and at least two written works that he has to do. So, he says he doesn't get to game as much as he use to.

So while I don't know for sure, it's possible he hasn't played the game himself, and thus can't comment from personal experience.

 

[Canadish]

If your personal and political beliefs are dictating your judgments of the quality of the art, you're essentially just Fox News. You have every right to do so, but don't expect me to ever take anything you say seriously.
Obviously it has an influence on everyone to some extent, but when you work for a major site/company that ISN'T supposed to be taking one political stance or the other, you're expected to judge the work itself.

The wider issue from this is that if one side of a political spectrum controls a majority of the media, it pressures companies to only make games that pander to them and more or less censors any opposing view point from ever getting out in the mainstream and reaching a wider audience. That may sound all well and good from where you're sitting now, but imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.

"Yes, Metroid Prime was a great series of games, but I'm troubled by the strong feminist tone of the games. I'm forced to lower their score from 9 to 8 because of this unfortunately. Maybe in future Nintendo can amend this."

There would be cries for bloody murder and demands that the site fire whoever wrote the review from the same people defending this GTA review right now.

Remember, it's not like these games are genuinely encouraging something like rape or wife beating (featuring possibly). It just takes the piss out of the extreme end of the feminist movement, just like it mocks the misogynistic COD gamer and pretty much EVERYTHING in American culture.

I think the reason people are mad about the review in question is because they're suspecting the use of "misogyny" is hyperbole. The internet definition of misogyny, which pretty much entails anything that could have possibly upset something that might have had or has a vagina attached to it. It's the same thing as when Fox would call something "degenerate". The word lost all meaning and became a joke because of how abused it was.

Saying all that though;

The reviewer did only knock off a point, from 10 to 9 and no game deserves a 10 anyway. The whole damn thing was just manufactured controversy because any mention of "sexism", "misogyny" or "feminism" drives up hits and everyone damn well knows it. While I'm sure everyone talking about this issue cares deeply about it, I'm under no illusion that the extra clicks aren't hurting revenue either.

The whole gaming media is giant mess right now and working wrong on just about every level. It's tabloid levels of shite now.

 

[Stabby Joe]

My biggest problem with the review, among others for other games with similar criticisms is, as one user points out, is "misogyny" is hatred. I would not be able to enjoy a game that hates women. If violence, politics, racism and social problems are about of the themes and brutality of the game's world, why is sexism alone the problem?

The devil is probably in the details. I should imagine it is that when women (and some men) like to play a fun, violent game, they don't want to be reminded of how often women are objectified/abused etc in real life within that game. Having not played GTA V, I couldn't say.

I have no problem with the notion that content could be unsettling to some. Recently I watched a violent film with someone who afterwards did acknowledge it as a great film but didn't care for the violence and probably won't watch it again. Fair enough but the wording a lot of the time when the topic comes up is rather strong, that some how the makers and fans are consciously being hateful and sexist. Even if the person criticizing it themselves doesn't think that it reflects very poorly to on lookers outside of gaming who hear about this.

Poor job writing female characters? Sure. Malicious though?

Well, I think the issue with that is that Bob may not have played or even bought the game yet.

I was surprised when he weighed in on the Mass Effect 3 ending without playing it. These type of articles of his on the other hand are usually the better examples.

 

[Smiley Face]

Personally, I've never seen why you can't do both at the same time - do what you can to present the objective realities that most people would care about, then add as an addendum your personal opinion - ideally keeping in mind that most people will take at least some of it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Winnosh]

It comes down to this. You go to a review site for the reviewers opinion. If you come to a review and hope to see the gospel truth of a game other than game mechanics then you sir are doing it wrong.

That is why I only go by the reviews of people I share the opinion of because I know that if they like something chances are I will like it as well. And that if someone who shares my style of game enjoyment dislikes a game then it doesn't matter if 100 other review sites gave it a perfect score.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Worst of all however is that it give legitimacy to the same mindset being used for less progressive arguments, like when Fox news chastised The Muppets, or the Lorax or even a bit on Sesame Street as "liberal propaganda".

I don't see how this is even relevant here, as Fox News, or any other such media, is not in the business of film/game/art criticism or reviewing.

We all know that political partisans of all stripes will take anything they can and bend it to fit their agenda. However, the discussion here is about art criticism, which is an entirely different area. And I think that very few reviewers or critics bring hardline political agendas into their reviews. They may be influenced by their politics, but not in the same way.

The mention of feminist themes or other social issues does not necessarily equate to "activism" in a review. From what I've seen, it's generally been done in very reasonable ways. But to some idiots, even the mention of gender or social values is like a red flag to a bull - they just get unhinged and start screaming about feminist agendas and whatnot.

It's really rather sad, and as Bob mentions in the article, it's probably because most of these people are of the "default" gender, and lack the maturity or perspective to even see that others are of a different gender/race/social orientation. That it's not some feminist political conspiracy - it's just that some people actually are female and experience things from a female perspective. Just as they experience things from a male perspective.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Remember, it's not like these games are genuinely encouraging something like rape or wife beating (featuring possibly).

But so what if they were? You make it sound like that would be a taboo, that should affect the review of a game. Don't you realize that being anti-rape and wife beating is a political position? So why should a game encouraging those things be treated any differently than a game that doesn't?

That's culturally insensitive of you! There have been (and still are) plenty of cultures that encourage those things. It's even in the Bible! How dare you bring your cultural and political biases into this by being against rape and domestic violence!

 

[Shjade]

If your personal and political beliefs are dictating your judgments of the quality of the art, you're essentially just Fox News. You have every right to do so, but don't expect me to ever take anything you say seriously.

First off: this statement is hilariously false. Just flat "no."

Secondly, if it were true, everyone would be Fox News because, hey, guess what, your personal beliefs (which include your political beliefs so yay redundancy) are a major contributing factor in your judgments, and by "your" I mean "those of any rational human being." You can try to be unbiased, but considering that your definition of bias is, itself, determined by a judgment call on your part (in answering the unspoken question, "Am I biased toward/against X," when you're contemplating how best to make the "objective" judgment you desire), well, good luck with that.

Third, and this one might blow your mind so you should probably sit down before you keep reading...

...all settled down? Okay, here we go: there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing personal preference to influence criticism. Now, there is a caveat to that statement in that, when you're making such a critique, you should express the influencing preferences so that your audience is aware of where you stand, your point of reference for making the judgments you express. Once you've done that, however, you're golden.

For instance, if I were reading a review written by you about, I dunno, let's pick a random game off my shelf. Let's see here...Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria. I'm reading your VP2:S review, alright? And fairly early on in this review you mention something like, say, "I'm not really a fan of games that try to mix RTS and turn-based combat together," that tells me I should read your criticism and praise of the game's mechanics in that regard with that point in mind: it's not your usual fare. That might mean you'll be more harsh on that style of game's flaws because they're not familiar to you, or because you're looking at them in a fresh light and seeing things I overlook because I've played them so long I take those things for granted, or that you'll find something really fresh and interesting about the game that just annoys me because I've seen it done better in other games with that same style of play - games you haven't seen because, again, as you told me earlier in your review, you aren't really a fan of the style, from which I can infer you probably haven't played many games in that style as a result (why would you go out of your way to play a kind of game you know you don't like much, right?).

So if you end up giving this game something like a 6/10 with notes on your dislike of the combat style (among other things, no doubt, with a score that low!), I'm not going to stage a boycott of your column over it. You already told me it's not your thing; why would the score surprise me? I have to interpret that score through the lens of your point of view, which tells me it's a lower score given it's a kind of game you specifically do not enjoy playing. That it got even a 6 in that case tells me, the theoretical fan of those kinds of games, it might still be worth a look: someone who doesn't even like that kind of game didn't pan it completely, so it can't be all bad.

Bringing this back to the article Bob mentioned, the reviewer in question gave her reasons for the lower score, yes? The discouraging treatment and portrayal of women in the game? So the 9/10 isn't a mystery score. It's not like she gave it a completely perfect review and then there's just this missing point at the end. We know where that point went and why it went there. If we disagree, hey, that's cool, we can do that. It doesn't mean that she's wrong because we don't mind the content and she does; it means that it bothers her more than it bothers us and, as such, impacts her enjoyment of the game. That it isn't a mechanical impairment of playing is irrelevant: cons are cons.

 

[Shjade]

In other words, it's hard to take seriously a review that criticizes the characters moral compass in the same breath that it praises previous characters who are exactly as morally twisted and at many times as devoid of a higher purpose as anything from the new game. It is also missing the point that GTA's brand of satire has a lot less in common with the likes of the Daily Show (something Tito specifically mentioned as wishing it did) and much more with the vicious, admittedly downright oftimes brutal comedy of Armando Iannucci or Ricky Gervais back at the british The Office, where everyone is a bastard and there is little levity or relief.


It is a valid complaint and criticism of Tito's review, and there were quite a few people arguing that point. And here is another point of some contention: while giving out some clarification of his views is laudable, by refusing to acknowledge the points being fairly and politely raised against him, even if it is to say "Now, I know some people argued that... but I stand by what I said because...", and by instead, both him, Grey Carter, and now you, with this article, seemingly focusing only on the hateful detractors, you're basically denying those who want to discuss it of a fair chance at an argument, and worse, you embolden the trolls and hatemongers by giving them your atention.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I see your point. It sounds like you're suggesting it's a "valid complaint and criticism" of Tito's review to point out that not everyone likes The Office's style of humor...?

I hadn't listened to the review before reading your complaint, so I went and read the review and read the editorial afterward, and...I just don't see the problem. He points out some complaints he had with the story's writing with a specific example of a weak plot and a "surprise" incident of gruesomeness that can't be avoided he found distasteful. His comment on parody in the style of the Daily Show and The Onion didn't sound like he was saying, "This is the only acceptable form of satire," more that it's a kind of humor he finds more entertaining and, key point, better escapism. And no, that's not just to make a wordplay joke with the site title, he addressed that specific point in the review: "Satire excels at pointing out our foibles, our faults, but that doesn't mean it makes for great escapism." And in that much he's pretty much right: darker humor is less about escapism and more finding the cynical humor in life. So if what you look for in games is getting away from the real world, that kind of satire probably isn't going to be very appealing to you, as appears to be the case with Tito and GTA V.

Or, to address your example, with The Office and me. I get the style of humor at work in that show. I like one of the actors in it. The show itself, however, does absolutely nothing for me. I can't watch it for more than a few minutes at a time before either getting bored or wanting to push a character out a window. Or both. That's not my idea of a good time; thus, I don't watch the show. If I were to review The Office, believe you me, it would get a pretty dire score, regardless how "valid" its sense of humor might be.

If you don't enjoy playing a game in which every character in the game is a complete dick because you don't enjoy playing complete dicks, and you say as much, I don't see the problem. So he doesn't like playing utterly amoral, unlikable, poorly written (in his view) characters and feels the game is detrimentally affected by its story being entirely comprised of such characters. What's wrong with that?

 

[RedDeadFred]

By the sounds of it, most of the bad or uncomfortable things in the game are commentating on today's society. However, just because it's intended that way, doesn't mean it's wrong for a reviewer to not enjoy the game as much because of it.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Me, I rage against people who give perfect 10s to games. No game is perfect and it's a sign of a complete lack of perspective for anyone to give a perfect score to anything.

 

[Shjade]

Somewhat. I'll have to take your word for it; I haven't played much of the GTA series so its protagonists are not familiar to me, making the comparisons a moot point.

 

[StriderShinryu]

As a few others have pointed out, I think a fair amount of this dischord falls at the feet of the numerical rating system. There was an article posted on Kotaku on, if I recall correctly, the day of GTA5's release that did a great job of breaking down just what sort of problems a numerical rating system cause. It's a broken system that, far too often, leads to a broken discussion.

As for a reviewer making use of a personal stance to influence their review, I can see both sides of the debate. Either way, I think the more important thing is that a choice has to be made. If you, as a reviewer, are going to be opening to more personal influence, then that's great, but make it clear. Tito's review of GTA5 did an excellent job of this. How his personal feelings towards the game, and those feelings created by the game, were clearly explored in his review. There was a clear discussion on both the merits and failings of the game on a mechanical level aas well as on an artistic/personal level. If, however, your review is going to be based almost entirely on the mechcanical workings (and not workings) of a game, then an off hand comment in the summary section of a review including, if a scoring system is used, an obviously reduced score due to the personal criticism, does not belong. Either you discuss and include your personal feelings within the context of review, or you leave them out. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Tumedus]

/sigh

Should have known this would be used to justify Tito's review. Yes, its true that fans will come out of the woodwork when you give their favorite game of the hour a less than perfect review, but comparing what happened here with some of the internet hate that was lobbed at GameSpot's review is disingenuous at best.

The GameSpot review talked about all the great things about the game, had a few minor issues with the game, explained why those issues were, in their minds, legitimate faults of game and/or story and not just a personal difference and then scored the game slightly less than amazing because of it.

Tito's review couldn't actually articulate a real problem with the game. Even his one sole complaint, that he couldn't identify with the characters, was undermined by him trying to contrast their "evilness" using previous GTA characters that were just as bad, if not worse in most cases, as the characters here (at least compared to Michael and Franklin). Granted, he didn't do a particularly good job of detailing what was good about the game either, but at least that discussion had a more diverse offering of what the game actually offered. And for that nebulous claim of "I didn't like them" he rated the game down to a 3.5 stars. Given what the game is, that reduction is nearly impossible to justify given one poorly expressed dissatisfaction.

The issue at GameSpot was a case of some annoying hate from fringe obsessed fans. Some of those same types obviously contributed here, but the problem was actually a really poor review, not one of fan perspective.

I agree with above sentiments about how numerical reviews are fraught with issue when it comes to games, but still, I can think of several games (D3 springs to mind) that had far more legitimate gameplay issues on top of having a terrible story (not saying GTA 5's story is bad, but that is the absolute extreme end of what you could take away from Tito's issues with it) that got better scores than what GTA 5 had here.

 

[hentropy]

That's just the thing though, disconnecting someone's feelings from a piece of work ultimately makes every review a boring, grey, sterile discussion about mechanics and graphics and level design that can actually be quantified and measured objectively.

Not what I'm meaning.

just so long as there's a certain amount of honesty and clarity involved.

Ding ding ding! Exactly!

Suppose I was reviewing, oh, Starship Troopers.

I'm a Heinlein fan ... that VanHagendas disliked the subject matter and decided to make a satire instead of treating the subject matter straightforwardly pisses me off (In my opinion, if you hated the book you really shouldn't be making the movie of it).
On the other hand, the movie he pooched out wasn't bad per se ... from a generic scifi/fantasy perspective (better than Pacific Rim, for instance): decent if generic story, decent dialogue, good acting, excellent special effects, internally consistent...weak ending, but whatever.

If I say it sucks, because I hate what he's done with the book, that just plain dishonest ... and it's due only to my own personal agenda of "I wanna see Starship Troopers, as intended by the original author, on the big screen."
That's the kind of bias I think professional movie (and other) critics could do without.
Does that make sense?

Well certainly, but you'd also be within your rights to tell others why you didn't love it, while also telling them the things you just said. My only point here was that I was agreeing with Bob in a different way, the reviews I like the best tend to be when the reviewer talks about what they thought of it personally, much like Bob does with his reviews, instead of trying to take a checklist approach.

There seems to be this weird push on the internet to push video game reviews towards more uniformity and "objectivity", when in my opinion at least it has made game reviews a comparable stale blob compared to more established forms of criticism, that "activism" is some sort of pernicious force that wants to inject "isms" into their favorite toy. It would only be a valid criticism if people were giving 3/10s for sexist themes or reviews that were nothing but long rants against sexism, but that's not what is happening here. We have people getting all worked up over one "point" being taken away for reasons they don't agree with, and it doesn't exactly make the community look that much more mature.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Should have known this would be used to justify Tito's review.

What?

Tito's review was never even mentioned in Bob's article.

 

[Kargathia]

"Oh look, Bob Chipman did another soulless rant about how the attitudes of gamers and how full of "rage" they are. Urgh. While he's at it I wonder if he'll find a way to bring up misogyny and feminis-
Oh there it is."

I'm surprised that he writes for The Escapist and not Kotaku or even Jezebel at this stage, it's embarrassing.
At least he didn't use the word "entitled" even once, I'll give him that.

While I can understand your distaste for continually hearing the same thing, I find it hard to even imagine any point of view in which these internet storms are anything but disgusting. Not in reason, nor in intensity of emotion, but merely by the downright appalling way the more vocal choose to express themselves.

Being the umpteenth to complain about a rampant lynch mob might possibly make you sound somewhat rehashed, but that doesn't mean your concerns are any less valid.

 

[Tumedus]

Should have known this would be used to justify Tito's review.

What?

Tito's review was never even mentioned in Bob's article.

It's called subtext. If you can't see it, I am sorry, but its seems pretty obvious to me. He comes in defense of reviewers when not all that many are getting much flak for this game. Jim Sterling, for example, gave it a 9 (just like GameSpot) on his Destructoid site and, while there has been some complaints, it has been met with mostly reasonable responses, at least for the internet.

Relative to their user base, the review here and Carolyn Petit's are probably the worst in terms of an angered response. So rather than just blindly come to the defense of his boss, he attempts to turn this into a broader issue than it really is by using "the most visible example".

Except Carolyn's review isn't a great example of what Bob is trying to argue. In case you are unaware, Carolyn is a trans woman and thus her claim of misogyny engenders a lot of blow back that otherwise would not be an issue. There is a LOT more to the anger there than just unhappy fanbois. So to use her review for these purposes is dubious at best and really just comes across as deflection. This is especially striking when you consider that with all his talk of gender issues, both in this article and in general, that he doesn't even mention the much larger issue that exists within that scenario.

Not surprisingly when you factor all that extra junk out, you realize that the way Bob's argument is framed, it is a much better fit for Tito's review than Petit's, especially if you read/watch both reviews. But, as I pointed out above, it misses the fact that the complaints about Tito's review extend beyond just his personal opinions, but his inability to properly express those opinions or justify the score because of them.