Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown

[Roman Monaghan]

A: that's not irony, and B: not even remotely the same thing.

A: that is irony, and B: it is the same thing.

Maybe if you're getting your definition from the Alanis Morissette song, which you must be, which means I have to point you towards this: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5806921/actually-ironic

And again, no it isn't. That's like if someone was lobbying for the right to kill babies, and then someone else lobbied against that person lobbying for the right to kill babies, you'd say "well they're both lobbying, so there is clearly no difference."

 

[wulf3n]

Maybe if you're getting your definition from the Alanis Morissette song, which you must be, which means I have to point you towards this: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5806921/actually-ironic

I'm certainly not getting it from collegehumor.

And again, no it isn't. That's like if someone was lobbying for the right to kill babies, and then someone else lobbied against that person lobbying for the right to kill babies, you'd say "well they're both lobbying, so there is clearly no difference."

Are they not both trying to alter the opinion of those they're lobbying against?

edit: Besides, you're either using a strawman or completely missing the point.

The irony comes from the fact that statement is telling people to not do exactly what it is currently doing.

To use your baby killing example it would be like someone lobbying against the killing of babies by killing babies.

 

[wulf3n]

Maybe if you're getting your definition from the Alanis Morissette song, which you must be, which means I have to point you towards this: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5806921/actually-ironic

I'm certainly not getting it from collegehumor.

And again, no it isn't. That's like if someone was lobbying for the right to kill babies, and then someone else lobbied against that person lobbying for the right to kill babies, you'd say "well they're both lobbying, so there is clearly no difference."

Are they not both trying to alter the opinion of those they're lobbying against?

edit: Besides, you're either using a strawman or completely missing the point.

The irony comes from the fact that statement is telling people to not do exactly what it is currently doing.

To use your baby killing example it would be like someone lobbying against the killing of babies by killing babies.

Oh wow, I'm arguing with an idiot. How.... ironic.

Says the one who instantly resorts to insults. That is ironic.

 

[kazriko]

But that's a 3/5, whereas on a 1-10 scale, normally 6-10 is the equivalent to 1-5. A 6.5 is closer to a 1.5/5 stars.

Here's an example of a 1-10 or 1-100 grading scale. http://www.rpgfan.com/graphics/gradingscale_lg.jpg Polygon's policy is similar, stated at the bottom of this, but a bit more technical. http://www.polygon.com/pages/about-reviews You can see that 6.0-6.9 matches up with the "subpar" rating on RPGFan pretty well, which means it's probably in the 1 to 1.5 star rating on a site that uses a smaller scale like that.

Umm, what? A 3/5 is the exact same thing as a 6/10 or a 60/100 (though less exact since they can only go down to half stars really). If the system is from 0-5, you don't decide that it's really from 5-10, because, not only is that a really crappy system for rating things, it's also your weird interpretation of it, unless it's actually explained somewhere that that is the case, in which case I apologize.

It comes from lining up the text descriptions of various sites that explain their grading systems. Escapist doesn't have a page describing their ratings, so you have to go with a stand-in somewhere else. RPGamer's one such site with a 1-5, here's their page. On theirs, a 6-6.9 rating matches up closest to a 2.0, but there's variations with different sites. http://www.rpgamer.com/pointsofview/info/reviewratings.html Other sites are less specific on what their star ratings mean, like Joystiq. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/11/welcome-to-the-latest-joystiq-we-call-it-futurestiq/#4
But the general gist is still that a 5 or 50 in the 10/100 point scale is somewhere around a 1 in the 1-5 scale, and that generally matches the US grading scale in schools... Anything below a 60 is considered a "failing" grade, and it goes up from there, whereas 5 star systems a 1 is a failing, and it goes up from there.

Lets just put it this way.
In US grading, A - 90-100, B - 80-89, C - 70-79 D - 60-69 F < 60
If you line that up to stars, A - 4.5-5, B - 3.5-4, C - 2.5-3, D - 1.5-2, F - 1.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'm so excited about this game, I just drew this!

Spoiler

Having said that, yeah, some designs aren't to my taste...but to simply ignore the good cause there's a thing or two your tastes don't agree with is ignorant.


The reviewer ignores a lot of good art design, a whole lot of it, if she uses one the games' BEST features to justify her score of 65. (which is a D, if we go by exams, this game isn't a D)

First off: I am very jealous that I can't draw that well.

Second: As I said, there isn't a "right way" to do scoring so just going off the score can't mean much. Especially with the 10/10 system. Some use it like the school system(in that a 6 is a failing grade, and anything lower is just a more pungent turd), but some like Angry Joe have 6/10 as there average mark, so a 6.5 would mean somewhat above average.

So I'd go more by what the reviewer said, rather than just the score they gave. For example, even in the positive reviews I've seen of the game(like here on the escapist) the reviewer did mention the issue with the titillation. One even commented on how he was surprised the narrator was able to say all his lines without laughing.

That said, there are a few other miner issues I've heard about Dragon's Crown. Repetitiveness being one, but that's to be somewhat expected with a brawler, and it wasn't a major issue. The others were that the quests are sometimes had to follow, and that the upgraded gear didn't look all that different from the lower level gear. Those ones are a bit more important, at least to me.

What I'm trying to get at is the game does have some flaws, and perhaps that adds to the issues with the titillation problems. Because the game isn't doing as good as it could, you notice the smaller problems more. It doesn't help that it sounds like the game shoves the problem in your face.

That said, I can't make a final call until I've played the game myself. Which will be soon.

Right, I'm not saying the game is perfect and I have no issue with the numerous other reviews which scored it an 80 based on the other issues. This one though seemed to use those issues more as an excuse rather than take real offense to them. She focused so much on a small segment of the overal awesome art style and ignored the rest and tried her hardest to make the game sound as bad as possible and minimized the positivity of every nice thing about it simply cause of a seeming grudge she bore against it, one which apparently stems from her bias against the art style, a bias allowed to infect other areas of the game it should have no contact with.



I think a key factor here is that nobody, NOBODY complained about the multiple 80/100 reviews. Those are hardly "perfect". To compare this with the Uncharted 3 situation is a travesty. People are calling out sensetionalist or over-biased hacks and are doing it rightfully so. They're not badgering people who gave 85s and 80s and saying they should have given 100s, they're badgering the one person who docked 15 points cause they don't like a few drawings that have no effect in gameplay whatsoever which stay on the screen for less than a minute each. That's, what, 15 minutes? Out of a 100+ hour game?

You're gonna dock an extra 15 points out of how much those 15 minutes bothered you? A point for a minute?! That's quite unreasonable lol.

Well, like Jim said, the art is a big part of the games selling point, and if the reviewer doesn't like the art that would hurt it's overall score.(Plus, if you don't like any of the art, then the really bad parts are far more likely to stand out.)

That all said, it's just ONE review. Plus I've seen far more critical "reviews"(more like critiques I guess) of games I've liked. Such as the Errant Signal episodes about Bioshock Infinite, and The Last of Us(Waring: Lots of spoilers in them). I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of the criticisms, but I still really love both games.

The review had an experience with Dragon's Crown, and made a review about it. You can't be bias about what you experienced. In this instance it just happened to be a bad one for various reasons. One of them being the stupid big emphasis on titillation(joke/parody that it may in part be). As I said, even in the positive reviews I've see/heard mention of the issue.

That said, I've seem more people dwelling on people complaining about everyone hating on people hating on Dragon's Crown for the tits, than I've seen reviews dwelling on the tits in their reviews. All the ones I've seen have mentioned it, but have also moved past it.

The Escapist review is(numerically) about the same as the one from Polygon, but was scored such not JUST because of over sexually characters.

Side Note: There were still some people who complained about the more positive reviews of Dragon's Crown. Like the one on the Escapist. Then again, they did seem to focus more on the score, rather than the actual review.

Repeating Side Note: That drawing is pretty cool. =w= b

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I didn't even read any of the scores (I never do), but I'm very mad at every reviewer who looked at Dragon's Crown, including the one at Polygon. I'm mad at them because they write like shit and spend all their time talking about the art, but don't know enough about art or art criticism to notice, let alone comment on all the amazing things going on in that game's art design (hint: not much to do with breasts, more to do with elaborate homages to classic works of art).

Funny that you mention that. The review on the Escapist did talk a lot about the art, and mentioned a few of the cool things they do with it in the game.

"The outside world is revealed to you as series of sequential two-dimensional levels, each one its own hyperbolic variation of a magical trope like the mad scientist's laboratory or the castle of the dead. Sometimes it'll feel cliché, but the scenery is absolutely stunning anyway. It's particularly striking watching the picturesque landscape rotate around the mage's tower as you run up it. Even the mounts look legendary. Like the best kind of 80's power metal song, this game will have you riding velociraptors around and spitting a hail of fireballs into the faces of your foes."

That said, a lot of people focused more on this;(or rather, some of this quote)
"If the game's questionable portrayal of women and lackluster storyline aren't enough to put you off, though, there's still plenty left to enjoy about it."

Even though Lashani did say this first;

"Where the notable exaggeration remains appropriate to the subject it does really work. The genie's muscular arms and the old beggar's wrinkled skin bring out their essential qualities of strength and weakness respectively. It even makes sense for the Sorceress, a class that's traditionally charismatic, to have sexually suggestive garb. However, in the case of the nun with her legs spread it feels at best lazy and at worst downright regressive."

The review overall was very positive, but still admitted that the game has some flaws. Seems fair to me.

 

[kazriko]

I should have clarified that I think 6.5 is a very borderline score between 'mediocre' and 'good'.

Lets look at what Polygon considers a 6.5. Here's the text of their review policy page for 6 and 7.

http://www.polygon.com/pages/about-reviews

Sevens are good games that may even have some great parts, but they also have some big "buts." They often don't do much with their concepts, or they have interesting concepts but don't do much with their mechanics. They can be recommended with several caveats.

Games with a score of six have good parts, but uneven overall execution. Prospective players should know what they?re getting into before they dedicate time and commitment.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I think it all boils down to the overall quality of review. See, first and foremost it's a 2D RPG/beat-em-up. In case of that review reviewer but a lot of stock into particular art style quirks which are highly, highly subjective. See, all reviews are subjective but what differentiates a good reviewer is ability to determine which parts are most important. That depiction of women ties very neatly into medieval fantasy theme. A good reviewer would evaluate gameplay, RPG elements, story and such first and stuff like huge boobs second. That review reads like a whiny blog and that's the issue.
It would be all fine and good if they scored the game low based on core elements like leveling system. But on basis on some highly subjective and arguably stupid elements of art?
See Jim, the point being it's not a professional review. It's a whiny blog. If we don't stomp such "reviewers" now next thing will be Dynasty Warriors getting 1 and 2 scores because of lack of proper beard on certain characters.

This got tweeted on Jims twitter, and will/was probably showed around in the comments here already, but fuck it, because you more then anyone needs to see it: http://i.imgur.com/6GXBC96.jpg

Am I the only one who see's the irony of forcing the opinion of not forcing your opinion?

:/ Asking someone nicely to do something is forcing them?

0_0 Crap! I've been quite the abusive a-hole all my life.

 

[Erttheking]

I don't see what the big deal is. Dragon's Crown never really interested me, even before I was put off by the character models it was just a side scrolling 2D beat em up and I already have Scott Pilgrim. I respect that a lot of people like it but this never did seem like a game that was going to get universal acclaim.

 

[wulf3n]

:/ Asking someone nicely to do something is forcing them?

0_0 Crap! I've been quite the abusive a-hole all my life.

I don't really see any form of argument to be forcing, however AtlusPRime seemed to be under the impression that the vocal opposition were trying to do just that.

Now there are over 1300 comments to the original review, and I make no claim to have read all of them, but I haven't seen anything that would constitute forcing an opinion.

So I can only assume that AtlusPRime consider expressing an opinion, however [in]eloquently, with the goal of changing someone opinion to be considered "force"

 

[RaikuFA]

Which explains their TLoU review.

Or maybe they just didn't like it? I know I didn't. But nah, better to assume the game was perfect any anyone who doesn't think so is taking teh bribes.

OT: People freaking out over review scores is nothing new, whether its "whhhaaa score to high, must be paid for" or "whhhaaaaa score to low, reviewer is scum/biased/has no taste"
As for Dragon's Crown, I never cared about the overblown controversy, in part because it jumped to front page news after the Kotaku article, and (IMO) Kotaku can not go away fast enough.

They actually are funded by Microsoft. Dunno if it really did affect both reviews but that's what I hear when this arises. Could be true, could not be true.

The problem with the review is the fact that the reviewer insults the reader calling them juvenile. That should have never passed the editors desk.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

:/ Asking someone nicely to do something is forcing them?

0_0 Crap! I've been quite the abusive a-hole all my life.

I don't really see any form of argument to be forcing, however AtlusPRime seemed to be under the impression that the vocal opposition were trying to do just that.

Now there are over 1300 comments to the original review, and I make no claim to have read all of them, but I haven't seen anything that would constitute forcing an opinion.

So I can only assume that AtlusPRime consider expressing an opinion, however [in]eloquently, with the goal of changing someone opinion to be considered "force"

Hmmm.... I can agree with the idea that talking about your opinion is NOT trying to force your opinion on someone. Even if you share your opinion with another to try and change theirs.

However, I'm am still confused as to what you meant with the first thing you said.
It was about the tweet right? Because it seemed to be just asking people to relax, listen to someone's opinion, and then form/change/keep their own. And, ya know, try not to force yours on others(by which I assume they mean don't yell at anyone to change their opinion, just because they don't share yours).

Even if there aren't people saying the review should be changed, I don't see how what AtlusPRime said is saying that we should force people, to not force their opinions on others.

 

[seditary]

I'm going to focus on the most important part of this video.

I love Dynasty Warriors too Jim.

 

[hexFrank202]

We and the gaming community we live in would be better if we destroyed Number Scores for good and for all.

You know the phrase 'actions speak louder than words?' Well, so do Numbers. Digits and percentages and */10 scales and statistics are more readily digested and used in the human consciousness than explanations and descriptions and thoughts. Or, in the case of reviews, at least.

Because of this, we have the first problem with Number Scores: the number in a review takes up so much more importance than the content of the review itself. Yahtzee dressed-down Numbers very well: how can you shrink and crush a complex and dynamic opinion into a lifeless calculated digit? And even if and when you CAN do this, why would you want to?

What, really, is the point of a review? I mean originally it was so a person could get an idea of whether or not they'd like a Thing before they spent the time or money to consume it, so what good does a number do for that cause? A number can't tell you anything, and that's the second problem with number scores: they're essentially pointless.
'This game is a nine'. So what? Does that really mean you'll like it? Most websites have a description of each number; say '9 = an incredibly thrilling experience'. Well, why not just CALL the game an incredibly thrilling experience, then? If you play that game and end up agreeing with the review, will you think, "wow, this game is incredibly thrilling!", or "wow! Nine! The number nine! Four plus five! N-I-N-E!!"

Now obviously, ever since Siskel and Ebert, a second mainstream function of reviews has formed: to exchange interesting commentary and thought-provoking theses on the product/art in question. To analyze, not just to review. To make observations, not just to say your opinion. 'Analysis' as its own separate entity is becoming more popular on Youtube; I really like the stuff made by people like Digibrony, or this obscure 'Sonic Dissected' series that seriously needs to be more popular. The latter of those two particularly emphasizes how LITTLE they want to emphasize their opinions, and maximize their focus on observations and analysis; though still while having an emotional tint to it based on their opinion; to still give the commentary just enough character and humanity.

That's personally one thing I like about Yahtzee's reviews more than Bob's; Ben focuses more on talking about the things that are in the game and explaining why he has the opinions that he has--so much so that it used to be hard to tell what his opinion even was. While Bob almost always puts his opinion at the forefront of every review; he still gives commentary and it's always interesting, but I still feel that it makes his show a little bit more dry. (I should emphasize that this doesn't say anything bad about him as a person; just the way in which he chooses to go about his videos.)

So with all that in mind, take a look at Number Scores again, and you'll see the third problem with number scores: they're pure opinion. And Problem #3 next to Problem #1 creates an acidic combo that causes reviews to be much more opinion focused. If Yahtzee had always handed out Numbers, his review of Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon would have left me more-or-less thinking, "Wow, Dark Moon got an 8, which is almost the highest score he's ever given to a 1st Party Nintendo game. He gave an 8.5 to Super Mario Galaxy, so that must still be his favorite in the past few years. He have a 6 to Zelda Spirit Tracks, and a 4.4 to Other M, so clearly, he likes Dark Moon a surprising amount. Even more than Bowser's Inside Story, which he gave a 7.5."

But instead, in the actual dimension where Yahtzee doesn't give out numbers, I left that review thinking, "Wow! Yahtzee really liked a 1st party Nintendo Game for the first time since Super Mario Galaxy I think. Hmm, it is uncommon for Nintendo to not focus its gameplay on a hardware gimmick... is it? I wonder what it is about this game that Ben liked so much. Well, the visuals and the atmosphere certainly were a big factor. Hey, Galaxy also had a fun atmosphere to it! And..." and so on and so on. In other words, I was completely engrossed in the actual CONTENT of the games; not the opinions of the games.

Now obviously, reviews still work adequately despite all that I've mentioned. Normally, what any person can do is make their guesses as to whether-or-not they'll like a Thing based on who it was that made the review. I mean as long as I've watched Bob's show, I have gotten pretty good at telling whether or not I'll agree with him. When Doug Walker does regular reviews, he is always mentioning 'what kind of people will or won't like such and such movie'.

So ultimately, I wouldn't call Number Scores as being THAT worth doing away with, if it weren't for, well, the exact problem that Jim talks about in this video.

While I liked this video as much as any episode, I wish he had put some effort into actually understanding why this 'number hawking' phenomenon takes place. Yeah, people are 'getting brought down by one low number', but WHY are they doing that?

Well first of all, we need to explain Number Score problem #4--which is actually a mutation of the first three problems: that everyone has their own ideas of what the numbers mean. This means that two critics could both enjoy a Thing just as much as the other, yet give the Thing a different score! This could lead to confusion and frustration, because Problem #1 is distracting us from the generally-similar opinions.

So to remedy this problem, reviewers (mostly for games) basically started to Coalesce their rank theories together, and what has resulted is this 'generally agreed upon' standard for reviews in Gaming goes about like this:

10 = Perfect
9 = Excellent
8 = Great
7 = Good
6 = Okay
5 = Medicore
4 = Bad
3/0 = Different synonyms for 'terrible'

But in your attempt to fix Problem #4, you just made it worse; for now, if ANY review goes outside of these boundaries, it gets special attention and scorn. Jim says exactly this in the video: that Number Scores are slowly chaining reviewers into the same methods of opinions as everyone else. Jim has ALSO said that Number Scores are 'ultimately still a good thing', because problems like #4 (and the other problems that I will get to) are just the result of 'people not using them correctly', but I highly question that reasoning. From my perspective, the issue of Reviewers melting down into a collective ball of unanimity is a natural and predictable effect caused by the nature of Number Scores.

So as I said, the more we try to fix the problem of the Subjectivity of numbers, the more destructive the Subjectivity of numbers becomes.

But there's more to it than that: another result of this homogenization has caused the values of these numbers to climb to the ceiling. I'm not quite sure how this happens, but it so clearly does; that the more games get 9's and 10's, the more reviewers feel obligated to give more games 9's and 10's. This problem, then--if combined with Problem #1 again--mutates into the fifth problem with Number Scores: Hate out of Ten. We know roughly how that scale explains itself, but given the way in which numbers are handed out, how does that scale feel to the human heart?

10/9 = This game is very thoroughly enjoyable and has very few flaws; you could just spend your time playing only these games
8 = This game is pretty enjoyable, but you won't be missing out if you don't play it
7 = This game is average and almost certainly not worth buying
6 = A completely pointless game that might have some slim chance of appealing to you if you're in a very specific niche
5/4 = A completely worthless game
3/0 = It might be fun to watch an angry Let's Play of

We've created a gaming scene where soaring praise is expected; where the highest numbers are the average. Again the Jimquisition acknowledges this problem, and I'm glad he's aware of it, and while slapping the face of those who get consumed by it definitely helps, I don't think it's the cure to the problem.



And now, here we are at last: the conclusion of the dissection of this frustrating phenomenon; we can comprehend what the heart of the issue is; we can put the pieces together to fully understand why people flooded hatred over that 6.5 review of Dragon's Crown.

The fact that numbers speak louder than words mixed with the subjectivity of numbers along with the homogenization of opinions, with the power of Hate out of Ten amplifying it all, we get...

The 6th problem with Number Scores: the number becomes reality.

No one will say that opinions aren't objective, when asked. They won't say it, or think it out loud, that is. But on a deeper emotional level, an opinion can become an important part of their own enjoyment of the Thing. If someone gives a 9 to a game, because of all the problems I've mentioned before, it essentially becomes much more like an objective statement about a game's quality, and the more people agree on that number, the more 'objective' the number becomes, and the more infuriating any differing number can become.

Like, say if you spent your life supporting Such and Such political policy, because of allll the statistics you know of stating that Such and Such policy has a 95% benefit to Whatever. How are you inclined to react when someone tells you that, actually, only 10% of benefit to Whatever is caused by Such and Such, and is 90% damaging? If you're like me, you might be frustrated with that person.

Indeed, frustrated or annoyed by conflicting information, but ultimately okay if that guy ends up being factually wrong: your potential anger is defused by the alleviation of clear, true facts. Number Scores have the same element of frustratability, but because they are ultimately all subjective and opinion-based, you can't get behind objective fact to calm yourself, and may get pissed off as a result. There are many people who make angry comments about a 'low' 7.5 score, but I bet there are many times more people who've wanted to make an angry comment, but withheld their fingers knowing that their anger was stupid and pointless.

In general, I don't like what Number Scores do to the gaming community. It brings people to wallow in this bitter, emotionally-taxing Data Entry-esque sport of comparing and contrasting numbers. 'Ooh this got a 9.2 but the last one got a 9.3, this one is worse, huh? Sega Racing got a 7.75 but MAG just a 7?? This got a 10, but THAT did NOT get a 10! The PS3 version got half a point less than the 360 version!'

If Number Scores had some useful function in spite of all this, I would understand the desire to keep them. But, because of Problem #2: the problem that scores ultimately are pretty much pointless, I don't see any reason why we can't just throw these wasteful distractions into the dustbin of history, never to be seen again.

Now before anyone asks, I'm not trying to get Congress to ban numbers, or saying that we should flog every game site to purge its score policy, or saying that we need to start an anti-number Revolution Uprising; all I'm saying is--and in fact, the ultimate conclusion I've written this post to make--I want everyone to do the same thing I did: start ignoring Number Scores.

My internet-browsing life has been a solid 9.25 without them.

 

[wulf3n]

However, I'm am still confused as to what you meant with the first thing you said.
It was about the tweet right?

More so the comment by AtlusPRime on the actual review [http://www.polygon.com/game/dragon-s-crown/9102] [note: it's the same quote]

Because it seemed to be just asking people to relax, listen to someone's opinion, and then form/change/keep their own.

Which is what people seem to be doing, they listen to the reviewers opinion and then post their differing opinion in the comment section.

And, ya know, try not to force yours on others(by which I assume they mean don't yell at anyone to change their opinion, just because they don't share yours)
Even if there aren't people saying the review should be changed, I don't see how what AtlusPRime said is saying that we should force people, to not force their opinions on others..

Which is why it's confusing as no one is really yelling at anyone to change their opinion, so why the call to not forcing an opinion? unless they see expressing a counter opinion to be "force"

Ultimately this seems like one of those situations that's being blown out of proportion by it's propagation within the media.

Looking at the epicenter of the issue, it doesn't look like it should be an issue. Some discussing the issues of sexism within the game, others about the credibility of a review that places such weight on a single aspect of the game.

edit: Maybe things are worse on Twitter or Facebook, I don't know.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I didn't even read any of the scores (I never do), but I'm very mad at every reviewer who looked at Dragon's Crown, including the one at Polygon. I'm mad at them because they write like shit and spend all their time talking about the art, but don't know enough about art or art criticism to notice, let alone comment on all the amazing things going on in that game's art design (hint: not much to do with breasts, more to do with elaborate homages to classic works of art).

Actually, I am mad at the entire gaming press literally all the time because they are all complete failures as critics of any kind despite constantly going on about how much better qualified they are because they read a bastardization of theory decades out of date on a blog somewhere. I would not be at all put out if the entire lot of them were sacked tomorrow and we started over with a new batch who can actually fucking write.

Yeah, I settle in to read a review about a game..

I come out confused, and angry.

I didn't learn anything about the game..

I read some fuckin' editorial about objectification of women.

I then make the mistake of rolling my mouse further into the comments.

I just got in an argument with someone.

I STILL DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THIS GAME IS ABOUT!!

What pisses me off the most is that they clearly don't even know about what they do write about. These people would get thrown out of real gender studies faster than they would art history. Honestly, I don't think any of them actually even know what objectification is. If they were real feminist critics, they'd be talking about subjectivity and wouldn't make the assumption that objectification is sexual in nature. As it is, they come off as Tumblr third-wavers who are more fanboys/girls than they are experts or even activists.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

However, I'm am still confused as to what you meant with the first thing you said.
It was about the tweet right?

More so the comment by AtlusPRime on the actual review [http://www.polygon.com/game/dragon-s-crown/9102] [note: it's the same quote]

Because it seemed to be just asking people to relax, listen to someone's opinion, and then form/change/keep their own.

Which is what people seem to be doing, they listen to the reviewers opinion and then post their differing opinion in the comment section.

And, ya know, try not to force yours on others(by which I assume they mean don't yell at anyone to change their opinion, just because they don't share yours)
Even if there aren't people saying the review should be changed, I don't see how what AtlusPRime said is saying that we should force people, to not force their opinions on others..

Which is why it's confusing as no one is really yelling at anyone to change their opinion, so why the call to not forcing an opinion? unless they see expressing a counter opinion to be "force"

Ultimately this seems like one of those situations that's being blown out of proportion by it's propagation within the media.

Looking at the epicenter of the issue, it's really not an issue. Some discussing the issues of sexism within the game, others about the credibility of a review that places such weight on a single aspect of the game.

Eh, I have seen people claim that reviews should be changed before. In a thread with a post count of over 1300, filled with some angry people, I think it would be a safe bet that some such people would pop up. Heck, I've even seen some people do that on the Escapist sometimes.

However, I can completely agree that the issue of one "bad" review, has indeed gone a bit overboard. Not so much because of the media, but rather the people who consume it.
:/ Which I guess technically includes us now......Huh...

 

[Amir Kondori]

I love me some huge titties and highly stylized art but it doesn't bug my that some reviewer on Polygon didn't. Not one bit. Heck, if you guys who can't stand fair to middling reviews of games you don't like want to get REALLY angry saunter over to:
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/review-list/

and peruse until you have that heart attack you've been waiting for.

 

[FireAza]

I wonder, if there wasn't that big brouhaha around Sorceress leading up to the game's release, would Polygon have score it differently? Like, subconsciously, the reviewer was harsh-ish on it because he figured that everyone hated the game and if he wrote a review agreeing with their criticisms ("yes! the characters in the final game really are disgustingly sexualized!") that the review would get a lot of praise and attention?

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I didn't even read any of the scores (I never do), but I'm very mad at every reviewer who looked at Dragon's Crown, including the one at Polygon. I'm mad at them because they write like shit and spend all their time talking about the art, but don't know enough about art or art criticism to notice, let alone comment on all the amazing things going on in that game's art design (hint: not much to do with breasts, more to do with elaborate homages to classic works of art).

Funny that you mention that. The review on the Escapist did talk a lot about the art, and mentioned a few of the cool things they do with it in the game.

"The outside world is revealed to you as series of sequential two-dimensional levels, each one its own hyperbolic variation of a magical trope like the mad scientist's laboratory or the castle of the dead. Sometimes it'll feel cliché, but the scenery is absolutely stunning anyway. It's particularly striking watching the picturesque landscape rotate around the mage's tower as you run up it. Even the mounts look legendary. Like the best kind of 80's power metal song, this game will have you riding velociraptors around and spitting a hail of fireballs into the faces of your foes."

That said, a lot of people focused more on this;(or rather, some of this quote)
"If the game's questionable portrayal of women and lackluster storyline aren't enough to put you off, though, there's still plenty left to enjoy about it."

Even though Lashani did say this first;

"Where the notable exaggeration remains appropriate to the subject it does really work. The genie's muscular arms and the old beggar's wrinkled skin bring out their essential qualities of strength and weakness respectively. It even makes sense for the Sorceress, a class that's traditionally charismatic, to have sexually suggestive garb. However, in the case of the nun with her legs spread it feels at best lazy and at worst downright regressive."

The review overall was very positive, but still admitted that the game has some flaws. Seems fair to me.

That review was better than most, but still didn't touch on what I'm talking about. Dragon's Crown is littered with specific homages to everything from renaissance tapestries and paintings to Ray Harryhausen and Walt Disney, and I have yet to see a single critic pick up on any of that in their discussion of the art design. It's one of the things that first got me interested in the game, and I would expect paid professionals to be capable of at least recognizing that those elements are present.

I have absolutely no problem with discussing gender issues and representation in a game review. What I take issue with is the sheer incompetence of self-appointed experts in dealing with these issues. Remember when Jim's best effort at real discourse was comparing a picture of the men from Gears of War to one of the women from Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball, and then mocking everyone who disagreed with him in a funny voice for 4 minutes? Remember when Bob Chipman brought up a really interesting racial question, and then ruined his whole point by not knowing the difference between 'lost civilization' and 'lost white tribe,' completely failing to do basic research into the history of anthropology, and wasting half the video belittling anyone who might disagree? Real critics would laugh at these people. They talk about objectification without ever once mentioning subjectivity and almost invariably define it in purely sexual terms. I don't believe these people have even read the type of feminist criticism they endeavor to emulate. Game critics should be bringing all of these points to the table, but time and again they show themselves incapable of doing so.