Having 3 different people bombarding you with questions, rebuttals, clarifications and what-not can be a bit tiring.
I am however gonna finish off with answering the last of your posts as they are now.
GloatingSwine.
I think we (maybe both of us) are confusing depiction of misogyny, and support (I can't find the right word, and English isn't my native language so please be lenient) of misogyny. I don't think misogyny can be excused today either. I don't think it's something we should strive towards (heaven forbid, I though we left all that misogyny bollocks behind in the 1960s). I just think that a reviewer shouldn't deduct from a review score because the game depicts events that actually happened, because we know today that they were wrong.
It seems this is the offending review. And you're right. It doesn't disclose that Jim Sterling and Anthony Burch had some form of relationship (being friends or whatever). The reason why I never realised this little bit of non-disclosure is because I was never interested in Borderlands 2 (especially not on the PS Vita. It never popped up on my RADAR). Now, I can only hope that Jim follows up on this, and discloses any relationships that may have had an effect on a review in the future.
Not The Bees.
"Just as an aside, Barbarians didn't always rape women, that's a myth, usually spread by Romans because that made Barbarians seem much more frightening that way."
Basically like the Vikings then. Fair enough. As for the rest, look at my answer to GloatingSwine. It seems it may have been a language barrier that have confused me.
I just think that a reviewer shouldn't deduct from a review score because the game depicts events that actually happened, because we know today that they were wrong.
They shouldn't necessarily do so, but they should consider how the game depicts those things and why the writers chose to include them.
And sometimes the answer to that is going to mean that the product deserves a lower score (perhaps because it was lazy or exploitative and "teh historical" is not a defence against that accusation)
I though we left all that misogyny bollocks behind in the 1960s
One of the great challenges in every fight for equality, whether race, gender, gender identity, or whatever, is convincing the beneficiaries of inequality that the round of concessions grudgingly eked out by the last generation didn't actually solve the problem because the inequality still exists.
But we can indeed look to ebert as a go to source for reviews in general, whatever the medium. And I agree we should hold game reviewers to a higher standard and be consistent in our complaints and criticism.
Why would we use him as the go-to source? He reviewed movies and that's it. I wouldn't use him as a go-to source for technology reviews, or hotel reviews, or food reviews. It's pretty well known that Ebert didn't understand video games so I definitely wouldn't trust anything he had to say on that matter.
What I can say is his ethics as a reviewer were leagues above those who review video games professionally.
TheKasp said:
YES!
Let's shit on the consumer. Fuck'em. Even those who actually want those reviews that you want gone because they don't make you feel fuzzy inside. We need to protect the publishers and studios and even more important: METACRITIC! The intransparent piece of shit!
Fuck, and people wonder why I don't side with #GG... When people fight for censorship without realising it.
And this is why I can't take arguments like this seriously. A review not being listed on metacritic is "censorship"? Are you being completely serious here?
Nor are historical period games, even the most cursory glance at the medium's output in that regard should tell you that.
On a further note, attempting to reproduce the "attitudes" of a particular historical period is generally going to be more accurate to a caricature of the period than the reality, because history is far messier than "people at time X thought and acted this way"
So including, say, misogynistic elements in a historical piece would be appropriate if they were attached to a particular character, because then they become part of that character*, but not if they were presented as "an accurate portrayal of the period", because different people will always have acted differently in that regard, and the claim of accuracy is false.
This looks more like Hollywood correct misogyny, and I think the "misogyny" link is tenuous. Do you think grabbing a woman by her arm is inherently misogynist?
Do you think L.A. Noire would work without the misogyny or the racism that was common back in the 1950s, but have since become, if nothing else, old fashioned.
Do I think it would work? I think it could work. It might not be the exact same story, but that's tautological. Do you feel a noir story mandates racism and sexism, or a period piece does? Do you feel the media bears this out?
Also, as a minor history junkie with a thing for period pieces, I find that the common perception is usually exaggerated. That is to say there certainly was sexism in the 50s, but it's often exaggerated. Shows like Mad Men seem to dial up a lot of "period" details to 15 and get praised for their historicity, but that's like praising CSI for its scientific accuracy.
But on this subject, do you think historical Greek games suffer from their lack of pederasty? What about Japan? Clearly, we can tell these stories without pedophilia, and I doubt anyone would seriously argue that sex with children would enhance these stories. So why is it an excuse for other unsavoury historical pieces? Why is it specifically the mistreatment of blacks and women that garner this positive response and defense?
2) Because we're still at 0.01% have slipped past it.
Can you post your methodology and data on this? It seems as though you're assuming that the only people who have slipped under your radar are the ones (well, one) I've pointed out to you. But if they've slipped under your radar, you would, by definition, likely not notice.
3) Because they aren't big, or popular enough to create a blip on the Corporate RADAR.
Well, except we've got random YouTubers getting approached with shady NDAs. And if you want to compare to other media, well...My father and I get unsolicited review material. Him more than me, because he's got a longer history of reviews. But even my Amazon book reviews have led to people offering me material.
Neither of us are particularly huge.
If we're being approached by companies for review purposes, and the only way you know about this is that I just told you, how do you know that your guys are under the corporate radar? How could you know that I hadn't been asked for anything additional, like being asked to sign an NDA? And since this is happening with YouTube and games, how can you possibly know for certain that your guys are below the radar?
As for Peer-Review at 3-5 Months. I wasn't skimping. I was using examples which NTB gave me (she said Peer Review could take somewhere between 3 Months to 2 years).
No, it's A offending review. Or an, but I felt like capitalising AN would look weird. This goes back to the original release, not the Vita release here, and it involves Jim as reviews editor at Destructoid as well as his later career on the Escapist. It involves multiple reviews for multiple games, and even the gamergaters who want to Boycott Jim don't do it on these grounds, because nobody took the time to actually look.
I have done more ethical research on Jim Sterling than apparently 100% of Gamergate has done.
Now, I can only hope that Jim follows up on this, and discloses any relationships that may have had an effect on a review in the future.
That looks like you're back to taking things on faith. There's no evidence that he's changed anything since then, or even since he made those comments about Gearbox and/or Burch. Why would you think anything is different?
To the same end, Gamergate has already accused The Escapist of violating their own ethics policy. On what grounds are you praising it (bringing this back up, since you didn't answer before)?
There are actually people who want 100% objective reviews?... Weird!
You could just read the wiki and call it a day, rather than demand `objective reviews`, surely that would be pretty much the same review from a bunch of different websites, and what's the bloody point of that?
I always thought the idea was to shop around to see what consensus was on the game, or find a reviewer who's tastes mesh nicely with yours.
Yahtzee's reviews have always been my favourite. I like to have every single flaw magnified so I can go into a game fully aware of what's good and what's shit.
Now I want an 100% objective Yahtzee review, I imagine it would sound like someone just reading the wiki intercut with swears for no reason. That sounds fun.
Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.
I'll repeat what I said before:
A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.
What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.
A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.
Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.
No one says you can't have an opinion, no one says reviews should be 100% objective, but that opinion should be built on video game knowledge. When you talk about whether something works or not in a video game whether the combat system is fun or not, or balanced or not, it should be based on your experience in video games, not some personal vendetta or political nonsense that has nothing to do with games and nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because that's what we're getting out of reviews these days. People who don't even like genres or know something in the game is going to "trigger" them are being given games to review specifically so their review will generate controversy clicks or they can push an agenda.
This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.
THANK YOU. I registered finally after lurking these forums for atleast 4 years now, just to Quote this. It cannot possibly be stressed enough IMHO. You don't base a rating off personal politics and no one should be defending anyone who does that either. That's not journalism. That's activism. It doesn't matter if it's against "an evil Corporation". That's just fighting fire with poopoo. No it's not going to kill any publishers or video games themselves. But it will kill the gaming "press" if these HACKS are given taller and taller podiums to spew contoversey just for the sake of sensationalism.
The gaming press itself is already going through the "MTV devolution" ... where-in it started off being about fun catchy game mechanics (videos) ... then it tried to include a bit of "art" and social commentary on the side (animated series?) ... until finally it slid into the dark abyss of nonstop Reality-TV. This is exactly where both Games Media and Youtube channels are all heading right now. Into the goddamned dark abyss of PewdiePie and Gender-War. Meanwhile corporations are laughing their rich asses off b/c the more ignorant of gaming technicals the general population is, the more money they stand to make off those DISTRACTED suckers. It's like that Cake song about the rock & roll hipster. You're drinking what they're selling. Misplaced Activism can't harm them, only education can. An informed and wholly un-distracted consumer is an empowered consumer, regardless of their political standings.
Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.
I'll repeat what I said before:
A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.
What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.
A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.
Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.
No one says you can't have an opinion, no one says reviews should be 100% objective, but that opinion should be built on video game knowledge. When you talk about whether something works or not in a video game whether the combat system is fun or not, or balanced or not, it should be based on your experience in video games, not some personal vendetta or political nonsense that has nothing to do with games and nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because that's what we're getting out of reviews these days. People who don't even like genres or know something in the game is going to "trigger" them are being given games to review specifically so their review will generate controversy clicks or they can push an agenda.
This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.
THANK YOU. I registered finally after lurking these forums for atleast 4 years now, just to Quote this. It cannot possibly be stressed enough IMHO. You don't base a rating off personal politics and no one should be defending anyone who does that either. That's not journalism. That's activism. It doesn't matter if it's against "an evil Corporation". That's just fighting fire with poopoo. No it's not going to kill any publishers or video games themselves. But it will kill the gaming "press" if these HACKS are given taller and taller podiums to spew contoversey just for the sake of sensationalism.
The gaming press itself is already going through the "MTV devolution" ... where-in it started off being about fun catchy game mechanics (videos) ... then it tried to include a bit of "art" and social commentary on the side (animated series?) ... until finally it slid into the dark abyss of nonstop Reality-TV. This is exactly where both Games Media and Youtube channels are all heading right now. Into the goddamned dark abyss of PewdiePie and Gender-War. Meanwhile corporations are laughing their rich asses off b/c the more ignorant of gaming technicals the general population is, the more money they stand to make off those DISTRACTED suckers. It's like that Cake song about the rock & roll hipster. You're drinking what they're selling. Misplaced Activism can't harm them, only education can. An informed and wholly un-distracted consumer is an empowered consumer, regardless of their political standings.
100% objective? Nope. But you can clearly see it's trying to be, and there's a great focus on both explaining the systems of the game and comparing/contrasting them with those of similar genre games, namely Dark Souls. Personal opinion is kept to a minimum and it's easily seen where he's marking his own personal experiences vs what you may see instead. And there's no agenda being pushed. It gives recommendation near the end of who would be interested in the game. To the consumer who has played Dark Souls, this is of great use. To the consumer who has not played Dark Souls, the implication is to go play Dark Souls before you even bother thinking about whether to get this game (the most useful advice it can give, after all).
A factual minimally subjective review written for the consumer. Why can't they all be like this, and why are some people fighting so hard against this notion?
Nor are historical period games, even the most cursory glance at the medium's output in that regard should tell you that.
On a further note, attempting to reproduce the "attitudes" of a particular historical period is generally going to be more accurate to a caricature of the period than the reality, because history is far messier than "people at time X thought and acted this way"
So including, say, misogynistic elements in a historical piece would be appropriate if they were attached to a particular character, because then they become part of that character*, but not if they were presented as "an accurate portrayal of the period", because different people will always have acted differently in that regard, and the claim of accuracy is false.
This looks more like Hollywood correct misogyny, and I think the "misogyny" link is tenuous. Do you think grabbing a woman by her arm is inherently misogynist?
Do you think L.A. Noire would work without the misogyny or the racism that was common back in the 1950s, but have since become, if nothing else, old fashioned.
Do I think it would work? I think it could work. It might not be the exact same story, but that's tautological. Do you feel a noir story mandates racism and sexism, or a period piece does? Do you feel the media bears this out?
Also, as a minor history junkie with a thing for period pieces, I find that the common perception is usually exaggerated. That is to say there certainly was sexism in the 50s, but it's often exaggerated. Shows like Mad Men seem to dial up a lot of "period" details to 15 and get praised for their historicity, but that's like praising CSI for its scientific accuracy.
But on this subject, do you think historical Greek games suffer from their lack of pederasty? What about Japan? Clearly, we can tell these stories without pedophilia, and I doubt anyone would seriously argue that sex with children would enhance these stories. So why is it an excuse for other unsavoury historical pieces? Why is it specifically the mistreatment of blacks and women that garner this positive response and defense?
2) Because we're still at 0.01% have slipped past it.
Can you post your methodology and data on this? It seems as though you're assuming that the only people who have slipped under your radar are the ones (well, one) I've pointed out to you. But if they've slipped under your radar, you would, by definition, likely not notice.
3) Because they aren't big, or popular enough to create a blip on the Corporate RADAR.
Well, except we've got random YouTubers getting approached with shady NDAs. And if you want to compare to other media, well...My father and I get unsolicited review material. Him more than me, because he's got a longer history of reviews. But even my Amazon book reviews have led to people offering me material.
Neither of us are particularly huge.
If we're being approached by companies for review purposes, and the only way you know about this is that I just told you, how do you know that your guys are under the corporate radar? How could you know that I hadn't been asked for anything additional, like being asked to sign an NDA? And since this is happening with YouTube and games, how can you possibly know for certain that your guys are below the radar?
As for Peer-Review at 3-5 Months. I wasn't skimping. I was using examples which NTB gave me (she said Peer Review could take somewhere between 3 Months to 2 years).
No, it's A offending review. Or an, but I felt like capitalising AN would look weird. This goes back to the original release, not the Vita release here, and it involves Jim as reviews editor at Destructoid as well as his later career on the Escapist. It involves multiple reviews for multiple games, and even the gamergaters who want to Boycott Jim don't do it on these grounds, because nobody took the time to actually look.
I have done more ethical research on Jim Sterling than apparently 100% of Gamergate has done.
Now, I can only hope that Jim follows up on this, and discloses any relationships that may have had an effect on a review in the future.
That looks like you're back to taking things on faith. There's no evidence that he's changed anything since then, or even since he made those comments about Gearbox and/or Burch. Why would you think anything is different?
To the same end, Gamergate has already accused The Escapist of violating their own ethics policy. On what grounds are you praising it (bringing this back up, since you didn't answer before)?
Actually, video games based on Greece kind of suffer from lots of unfortunate implications, especially misogyny. Notice how much Japanese video games based on Greek mythology feature goddesses taken hostage (think of Athena in the game Altered Beast) that would be able to take care of themselves in Greek myths.
It is kind of ridiculous to say that a game should be with the standards of its time when many stuff in the game already shows a clear lack of research and the "being with the standards of its time issue" (the damsel in distress plot was really common back then) shows that clear lack of research and thus comes across as really offensive to people who are dedicated to the genre.
This is also why I think that LA Noire might be a case beyond criticism. The creator made The Getaway before it, which shows a perfectly accurate modelling of London in the year 2001 (the year it came out). So it really feels easy to suggest that LA Noire was done with the same detail and is thus a perfect construction of Los Angeles like it was in 1947.
I don't think anyone phrases them as such, but...yes. This is what they say they want. Reviews that do not show off personal bias or opinion.
LifeCharacter said:
As everyone knows, not letting people outright insult contributors is way up there on the corruption scale. It's right next to "Having a different opinion than me" and "Not drinking the kool-aid."
I think there is a bit of an issue here - on issues of historic values. Lets take racism as an example:
Portraying the racism of the 1950s, isn't racist in itself. Where racism comes in, is when you portray those values as being accurate.
Essentially, you can write a period piece where characters have period appropriate values, but you still need to write rounded characters who don't fit the era's prejudices otherwise you end up endorsing those prejudices.
You mistake this for a one time event. It is only the straw that broke the camels back - and no you are not representing this correctly. Unfortunately, if I did describe the problem, I'm sure I'd get more wrath. Let's just say, there is a HUGE double standard on these forums that has been steadily getting worse.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
