People freak out over Gamespot GTA V review

[Stephen St.]

I have read the Review. And as you stated, she donates 2 entire Paragraphs to the whole Sexism thing. It's GTA, so im sure there arent only females portrayed rather stereotpyical. I mean, in San Andreas you play as a Black Man, whos first mission in the Game is to steal a Bike. In Vice City (I think it was Vice City, could've been San Andreas as well, im not sure) you had Homosexuals displayed as overly flamboyant and with a way over the top "Gay Guy"-Voice. It just isnt a series where i would search for grand political message. And just focusing on the Sexism-thing _again_, just came over to me like she was desperately searching for something to criticize. This doenst justify the Backslash it got, but as previous posters stated, Reviewers cant make it right for everyone.

Well, you may have some points here, but by now we have left the topic of this conversation, which was: Does this kind of criticism belong into a review? None of your new arguments adress that point.

By the way, I too felt that the issue was oddly standing out in the review, and I can totally understand why it sounds preachy. I suspect that is because it is both a current hot-topic as well as a topic we are not used to seeing in game reviews, so it stands out doubly.

 

[ERaptor]

I have read the Review. And as you stated, she donates 2 entire Paragraphs to the whole Sexism thing. It's GTA, so im sure there arent only females portrayed rather stereotpyical. I mean, in San Andreas you play as a Black Man, whos first mission in the Game is to steal a Bike. In Vice City (I think it was Vice City, could've been San Andreas as well, im not sure) you had Homosexuals displayed as overly flamboyant and with a way over the top "Gay Guy"-Voice. It just isnt a series where i would search for grand political message. And just focusing on the Sexism-thing _again_, just came over to me like she was desperately searching for something to criticize. This doenst justify the Backslash it got, but as previous posters stated, Reviewers cant make it right for everyone.

Well, you may have some points here, but by now we have left the topic of this conversation, which was: Does this kind of criticism belong into a review? None of your new arguments adress that point.

By the way, I too felt that the issue was oddly standing out in the review, and I can totally understand why it sounds preachy. I suspect that is because it is both a current hot-topic as well as a topic we are not used to seeing in game reviews, so it stands out doubly.

Im not sure if "conversation" refers to the topic of the thread or the thing we are talking about. In both cases i think i stayed on track, since you can easily link the issue.

A lot of people yelling at the review arent really yelling at the 9/10, but rather about what she focused on. As the Creator of this thread asked, how can you call her out on stuff like that even tough you didnt play the game and why does everyone rages about an actually really good score?

I answered the last one like everyone else. Because the Internet transforms people into screaming Monkeys, hauling their poo at every opportunity. And the first one by stating her Misogyny-focus is stupid, because IF you judge GTA based on stuff like that, you'd have to point at every other group or lifestyle that is ridiculed or under-presented. She uses the Radio-Messages as an example, where they try to sell a perfume that makes Women smell "like a *****". Now, ofc, that stuff's in poor taste. But i dont see it as such a serious message, when in previous games there was just as much whacko stuff, sometimes even worse. I remember one spot that advertised selling Babies, in a Box "that after some incidents, now even has airholes!". Im having problems taking the sexism critique seriously, when the accused in question makes dead baby-jokes as well, and thus i think her Review actually IS flawed in some ways. It's still a got read, and the reactios are, as usual, horrid. But i think those points still apply.

Just to make that clear, i dont support any of that "stone her to death" bullcrap that gets thrown around on YT. It's really just about her chosen negative points, that i think the Reviews isnt completely honest and has some bad focus.

 

[GundamSentinel]

How can you objectively review a story? Is Pride and Prejudiced objectively good? Most people think so. I think it was rubbish. Am I wrong? No I'm not because that was my opinion and the quality of a story is subjective. Also I don't think you know what objective means. An objective review would look like this.

http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

Even that one isn't entirely objective. Which information to write down is a subjective choice. The order and format in which to write it down is subjective. Even the question whether or not to even write a review is subjective. True objectivity in human action does simply not exist. Hell, stating scientific facts is a subjective activity. You could choose not to.

My personal advice on reading reviews: find a reviewer that shares your opinion on many things and stick to that one. Ignore others. It's the reason why I never read Escapist reviews and I always value Jim Sterling's opinions. Jim thinks more like me than any of the Escapist people do. That's not a bad thing, quite the contrary. Variety is good.

 

[Flippincrazy]

It's an unfortunate inevitability that this sort of reaction will take place. The response can be explained by looking at three main elements of the review, all of which interlink to create a truly vitriolic comment section.

1. The Reviewer's Reputation - Whilst I don't know a huge amount about the reviewer, from what I've gathered from the... imaginative comments made by Gamespot's 'community', the reviewer has a reputation for 'pushing her social agenda where it isn't welcome' in her (or his, if you believe the more toxic comments) reviews. Whether this is a justified outlook or not is irrelevant - many people believe it to be justified, and therefore will call her out on her perceived wrong-doing.

2. Use of the word 'Misogynist' - The reviewer claims that GTA V is misogynist, and talks about it for a paragraph or two. This in itself is pretty toxic, but combined with the reviewer's reputation, people are angered yet further.

3. The Score - Whilst it being a 9/10 has certainly shocked some people, it's more the reasons for the one point reduction that create the cesspool of hatred. The reasons being that she felt it was 'Politically muddled and profoundly misogynistic' as well as 'Character behavior is sometimes inconsistent.' ...Yeah, I believe she's perfectly justified in deducting a point for that, but if you wanted a way to incite internet hatred, this finisher to the trio does so perfectly.

I don't agree with any of the above 'critiques' of her review, just to make clear. People before me have already shown how silly they are.

The main thing that gets to me is all the claims that the review is too 'subjective' to be a helpful review. People don't seem to understand what these two terms mean. But going on from their definition,90% of the review was 'objective' - it covered (and praised) all the aspects of gameplay in a satisfactory manner and really gave me and insight into how the game was technologically ground-breaking and fun. She only spent two paragraphs on what people call the 'subjective' part of it, and as someone critically assessing a game, she's free to point out it's ideological inconsistencies and to object to its subject matter.

These people are just being reactionary and unnecessarily silly, and need to be taught what the purpose of a review is:

As much as people would like to point at the GTA series as "just a sand box", the games also have a focused narrative. During these narrative sections, both the gameplay and story follow a designated path as designed by the developers(diverging from this would result in some kind of game over/mission failure). Should a review ignore entire sections of the game the reviewer was emotionally invested in it(for better or worse)?

The purpose of a review is explain the experience the reviewer had while playing it. Their experience should be all inclusive from the more objective side (like how the controls felt/how responsive they were, notable bugs or glitches etc..) to the full on subjective (character overview, music, art style, notable themes etc..). Both parts are important to help the widest quantity of people to come to a purchasing decision.

A good reviewer will fully explain their reasoning for faulting the game for subjective reasons, this allows the readers to compare their own line of reasoning to that of the reviewer. If the reader decides that the listed subjective faults do not align with their own views, they can safely disregard fault and be more confident in their decision to purchase the game. If the reader is of a similar opinion to the reviewer and they also view that subjective fault as one that makes the purchase of the game less appealing(or a complete no-buy), then they will at least be more comfortable in holding off on the game purchase until a price drop so that they don't waste money buying a game they may not enjoy.

Couldn't put it better if I tried. The Gamespot review, in my opinion, meet the criteria of a 'good review'.

 

[Stephen St.]

Im not sure if "conversation" refers to the topic of the thread or the thing we are talking about. In both cases i think i stayed on track, since you can easily link the issue.

Well the thing we are debating about, which is one of the two issues the thread has raised. And I don't link issues other people bring up, because that easily leads to straw-men arguments.

A lot of people yelling at the review arent really yelling at the 9/10, but rather about what she focused on. As the Creator of this thread asked, how can you call her out on stuff like that even tough you didnt play the game and why does everyone rages about an actually really good score?

I answered the last one like everyone else. Because the Internet transforms people into screaming Monkeys, hauling their poo at every opportunity. And the first one by stating her Misogyny-focus is stupid, because IF you judge GTA based on stuff like that, you'd have to point at every other group or lifestyle that is ridiculed or under-presented. She uses the Radio-Messages as an example, where they try to sell a perfume that makes Women smell "like a *****". Now, ofc, that stuff's in poor taste. But i dont see it as such a serious message, when in previous games there was just as much whacko stuff, sometimes even worse. I remember one spot that advertised selling Babies, in a Box "that after some incidents, now even has airholes!". Im having problems taking the sexism critique seriously, when the accused in question makes dead baby-jokes as well, and thus i think her Review actually IS flawed in some ways. It's still a got read, and the reactios are, as usual, horrid. But i think those points still apply.

Just to make that clear, i dont support any of that "stone her to death" bullcrap that gets thrown around on YT. It's really just about her chosen negative points, that i think the Reviews isnt completely honest and has some bad focus.

First of all, stating that the review, as a whole, is focused on the mysogony aspect is, I think, a misrepresentation. it's not clearly stated how exactly the 9/10 came to pass, but I think it's safe to say that the mysogony aspect likely accounted for less that 10% of it.

The other arguments you bring up don't follow:
- If you mention mysogony, you also have to mention every other group or lifestyle that is misrepresented: A frequently brought up argument, nevertheless it's not logically sound.
- The message is not "serious": The review states as much. That doesn't necessarily change the message though, and apprently the reviewer in this case thought it didn't. You are not adressing how the humor is supposed to change the message.
- Saying the reviewer is dishonest and searching for something to critisize is speculation, and is only tangentially related to the question of whether or not a review should mention such issues.

But yeah, maybe the review has "some" bad focus. I am pretty sure the point of contention is not, however, whether the review optimally distributed it's ressources on the game to cover.

 

[lapan]

kind of bugged me that she makes a big deal of it being misogynistic. I dont know what she expected from a GTA game

It didnt bug me enough to send her a load of vitriolic hate, its her opinion she can think what she wants and its probably one of the most honest reviews ive seen for the game so far.

Indeed, those are game about gangsters and gangsters aren't exactly known for their political correctness

 

[Sack of Cheese]

If the game makes them feel uncomfortable which affects their ability to enjoy it, then it's not a surprise the reviewer would bring it up.
9/10 is still a good score, I don't know why people are going bananas over it.

 

[havoc33]

On top of all the above comments, it needs to be pointed out that that's the YouTube comments section. In fact I'd be tempted to ignore all prior points and say "YouTube comments section - enough said". In many ways they make 4chan look respectab- no, I can't finish that with a straight face. But they're scum.

Well, just look at the comments in this thread. More elaborate, maybe, but no less terrible at times. Case in point:

Let "Boys be boys", seriously? Being mysogonistic is just a "thing boys do" now? Is that supposed to be "part of the fun"?

Also you are equating traditional values with good values, and are thinking that teenagers confused about their identity and self expression are somehow not normal, but instead caused by a feminist agenda. You might also be surprised to hear that your "traditional male values" are not quite as traditional as you might think. Just take a look at the poetry of the early 19th century, for example.

Look, I obviously haven't played the game myself yet, nor did I read her full review thoroughly. That will have to be done once I finish work. I never meant being misogynistic was just boys being boys, don't be ridiculous. You're taking part of my post and running with it. I personally just don't agree with the point she is trying to make, as the series is well known for their takes on exaggerated male stereotypes and basically pokes fun at society as a whole, bad taste or not. You know what you get when you play these games, so I think her sexism critique is misdirected.

As for you saying I'm confusing the normal identity and self expression of teenagers for a feminist agenda, you better tell this to the researchers, and not me. I'm just telling you what the report stated. I'm all for equal rights, but I don't have to agree when it's tipping in the other direction either. Maybe it's just you that are taken by surprise by the fact that feminism has taken such a strong influence over here.

 

[ERaptor]

Well the thing we are debating about, which is one of the two issues the thread has raised. And I don't link issues other people bring up, because that easily leads to straw-men arguments.

Yeah, but the way he wrote it, hes asking for reasons why. So people are bringing up stuff they think is the issue, or part of the issue. I think that's part of a Forum discussion, otherwise you can just either write "Yay" or "Nay" below and that's it.

First of all, stating that the review, as a whole, is focused on the mysogony aspect is, I think, a misrepresentation. it's not clearly stated how exactly the 9/10 came to pass, but I think it's safe to say that the mysogony aspect likely accounted for less that 10% of it.

I should've been more clear. I was focusing on the negative points she brought up, and those are the reason this whole thing started. And the mysogony-thing is the "bad" game-aspect she wrote most about. So her _critique_ is, in fact, focused on the mysogony.
[/quote]

The other arguments you bring up don't follow:
- If you mention mysogony, you also have to mention every other group or lifestyle that is misrepresented: A frequently brought up argument, nevertheless it's not logically sound.

I'm not saying the mysogony isnt present, or not an issue. Im saying that i have an issue with the fact that she points it out as the one flaw, the one thing that made it taste sour just a bit. And be honest, it's a Gangster-Game. People get shot, people get tortured. The series is offensive and has a very dark sense of humour. If you want to staple that as bad, do it by adressing it as a whole, saying that you think its in bad taste. And dont just take the group your part of and yell "That's bad because its offensive against ME!". Doing that pretty much means you have to only care about offensive stuff if you're the one that can potentially be offended. I will have to dig into the game a bit, to see if it's really ONLY the female gender that's getting a bad picture. If that's really the case, im of course wrong and she has a valid point. But with a series like GTA, i highly doubt that.

- The message is not "serious": The review states as much. That doesn't necessarily change the message though, and apprently the reviewer in this case thought it didn't. You are not adressing how the humor is supposed to change the message.

It's potrayed as over the top, as laughably over the border. It's MEANT to make you point and laugh at how retarded the whole thing is. Its' the whole reason a lot of parodys are funny. Watch some "Abridged"-Series on Youtube. It's exactly the same, but instead of "overly manly man" its Anime-Chliches. And to me both are not to be taken seriously.

- Saying the reviewer is dishonest and searching for something to critisize is speculation, and is only tangentially related to the question of whether or not a review should mention such issues.

But yeah, maybe the review has "some" bad focus. I am pretty sure the point of contention is not, however, whether the review optimally distributed it's ressources on the game to cover.

This is true, the last part is an assumption. A 9 /10 while calling the thing out on obvious mysogny you saw in it, jsut doesnt sit well with me. I felt like she wanted to go further, but didnt. And the distribution of ressources, i stated my issue with that above. I'd have to look into the game's story and presentation before i can safely say if she missed some crucial stuff or not.

 

[Legion]

Ignoring the specifics of the review and the complaints themselves, complaining about losing marks for something you do not consider worth losing marks for isn't that difficult to understand as a concept.

I don't care about reviews in general but I happen to disagree with the Escapists review where points were deducted because the characters were horrible people. To me that's like a food critic knocking off points at a Steak House for not having many vegetarian options. Or that Halo 4 review where it lost marks for not having iron sights like COD does. Losing points for something you have no logical reason to expect from it in the first place to me feels like nitpicking.

It's not that it got marked down, it is why it did.

As for the specific complaints the writer has? I can agree with what they put:

GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we're meant to laugh at.

Characters constantly spout lines that glorify male sexuality while demeaning women, and the billboards and radio stations of the world reinforce this misogyny, with ads that equate manhood with sleek sports cars while encouraging women to purchase a fragrance that will make them "smell like a *****." Yes, these are exaggerations of misogynistic undercurrents in our own society, but not satirical ones. With nothing in the narrative to underscore how insane and wrong this is, all the game does is reinforce and celebrate sexism.

Taken from a user above, I can see why they might be upset. I don't agree that it is misogynistic (and people need to learn what the bloody word means before using it), but it can certainly be viewed as sexist, especially as GTA has more recently become a lot more "realistic" and claims that it is satire are a lot harder to justify when that kind of attitude is prevalent amongst the series.

Satire can be subtle, but with GTA they normally make it very obvious when it is (like the radio station DJ's), so when it is played straight it is not that surprising that some people might view that as sexist.

 

[Saelune]

Gamespot gave the game a 9/10 and people are freaking out about it?

Think that's bad.Adam Sessler gave Killzone 2 a perfect 5/5 score back in the day and still received hate mail over it.Some people are just idiots

I was thinking just that. I loved his reaction to it too on his soapbox thing. That is when he became someone I respected.

 

[Zenn3k]

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

 

[Evan Waters]

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

There's a middle being excluded here. WHY is there no room in this satire for female characters with agency? Like, not a single one?

 

[Lieju]

I'd like to be surprised at this, but I can't, really.

I can understand being upset at a relatively unknown game you like getting bad reviews, because it can hurt the game, but WTF is wrong with people who get upset at GTAV getting 'bad' scores?

Oh no, I'm sure this will drive people away from the series, it will sell zero copies and Rockstar employees will have to start selling their kidneys to buy food.

EDIT:

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

But of course no-one is allowed to criticise how they get their satire across.

Only people who totally acree everything the game does is brilliant is allowed to review it.

With the gamer community being what it is, I can't see how anyone can even suspect that reviewers are being 'paid off' to give good scores. Gamers police those who have differing opinions pretty well themselves.

 

[Thr33X]

SNIP

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Game reviews can be objective and to prove my point here's Game Informer's review of the one of the hotbeds of gaming controversy the last few months, Dragon's Crown.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragons_crown/b/ps3/archive/2013/08/06/a-massive-adventure-fueled-by-nostalgia.aspx

Not once in the review is personal preference even brought up, nor do you see the any of the keywords that incite internet rage nowadays. It's clear and to to the point- here's the good about this game/here's the bad about this game/here's why you should or should not play this game.

Furthermore, their print review of the game gives mention of the art style ONCE...at the end of the article, and in doing so merely states that it might be off-putting for some. No long winded diatribes about sexualization, tropes, misogyny or anything else of the sort that you see almost everywhere else. That's textbook objectivity for you, and personally why GI is the only major game news source I ever pay attention to.

So by your definition reviews are subjective, but by proper definition they should be, and as GI proves time and again, they CAN be objective.

 

[Zenn3k]

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

There's a middle being excluded here. WHY is there no room in this satire for female characters with agency? Like, not a single one?

Because it just happens to not have one.

What if they made a female lead and she was the insane crazy emotional mass murderer of the group? Then all the sudden its sexist because the female isn't "correct" and is too violent and whatever extra non-sense they wanna spew about it. Its a no-win situation for Rockstar really, they create a female lead and they are bad guys, they don't and they are bad guys. Also, not a single Rockstar game has had a female lead, its apparently something they aren't interested in doing...maybe they don't feel they can write women very well, (thats actually a legit reason) so they stick to satire of women instead.

The point remains, knocking the score down because of a lack of understanding about the game world coupled with personal beliefs is a bad reason to knock down a score.

Do I really care if Gamespot gave it a 9 instead of a 10? Fuck no. I'm gonna play the shit out of this game and love it (put in 4 hours before bed last night, it was great so far), but its still unprofessional as fuck.

 

[deloftie]

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

There's a middle being excluded here. WHY is there no room in this satire for female characters with agency? Like, not a single one?

Because it just happens to not have one.

What if they made a female lead and she was the insane crazy emotional mass murderer of the group? Then all the sudden its sexist because the female isn't "correct" and is too violent and whatever extra non-sense they wanna spew about it. Its a no-win situation for Rockstar really, they create a female lead and they are bad guys, they don't and they are bad guys. Also, not a single Rockstar game has had a female lead, its apparently something they aren't interested in doing...maybe they don't feel they can write women very well, (thats actually a legit reason) so they stick to satire of women instead.

The point remains, knocking the score down because of a lack of understanding about the game world coupled with personal beliefs is a bad reason to knock down a score.

Do I really care if Gamespot gave it a 9 instead of a 10? Fuck no. I'm gonna play the shit out of this game and love it (put in 4 hours before bed last night, it was great so far), but its still unprofessional as fuck.

Yeah .. that isn't what "satire" means. Filling a world full of women who are not characters but simply objects for the game play, while also making every single one of them a stereotype of what some sad pathetic men think women are, is not "satire". If GTA V was saying something about the objectification of women it might be satire. But they aren't, they are just doing it, because sure isn't it funny to laugh at women when you are a teenage boy and real woman are weird and embarrassing and won't talk to you. It is both insulting to women, including any woman gamer who might actually want to play this game, it is also insulting to the presumed "target audience" of this game, the idea that they are all secretly longing to play a game where they belittle and laugh at women because har har isn't it all so funny.

How can it be "unprofessional" of a game reviewer to comment on this. This nonsense that the game journalists should just shut up about story and tell us all how the game plays ignores the fact that it is the game developers who put the story in the game in the first place. If the story is irrelevant why is there? If it isn't irrelevant then the game journalists should comment on it. Game journalists review a game for everyone who might play it, not the small percentage of teenage males who don't give a crap about any issues wider than how much pizza should I order while I play this game.

 

[deloftie]

SNIP

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Game reviews can be objective and to prove my point here's Game Informer's review of the one of the hotbeds of gaming controversy the last few months, Dragon's Crown.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragons_crown/b/ps3/archive/2013/08/06/a-massive-adventure-fueled-by-nostalgia.aspx

Not once in the review is personal preference even brought up, nor do you see the any of the keywords that incite internet rage nowadays. It's clear and to to the point- here's the good about this game/here's the bad about this game/here's why you should or should not play this game.

Furthermore, their print review of the game gives mention of the art style ONCE...at the end of the article, and in doing so merely states that it might be off-putting for some. No long winded diatribes about sexualization, tropes, misogyny or anything else of the sort that you see almost everywhere else. That's textbook objectivity for you, and personally why GI is the only major game news source I ever pay attention to.

So by your definition reviews are subjective, but by proper definition they should be, and as GI proves time and again, they CAN be objective.

The review you linked to is full of the reviewers comments on how much he loved aspects of the game and how much fun it was. How is that "not once in the review is personal preference even brought up"?

If a reviewer is allowed comment on how much he, for example, loved a core game play mechanic, why is he not allowed comment on how he didn't enjoy elements of the story?

 

[Zenn3k]

Why do they have people review games who don't understand them?

When has ANY GTA game been all feminist agenda? Never, its ALWAYS objectified women as part of the satire of the world...it should be no surprise they did that again, and knocking the score down because of that is petty and unprofessional.

There's a middle being excluded here. WHY is there no room in this satire for female characters with agency? Like, not a single one?

Because it just happens to not have one.

What if they made a female lead and she was the insane crazy emotional mass murderer of the group? Then all the sudden its sexist because the female isn't "correct" and is too violent and whatever extra non-sense they wanna spew about it. Its a no-win situation for Rockstar really, they create a female lead and they are bad guys, they don't and they are bad guys. Also, not a single Rockstar game has had a female lead, its apparently something they aren't interested in doing...maybe they don't feel they can write women very well, (thats actually a legit reason) so they stick to satire of women instead.

The point remains, knocking the score down because of a lack of understanding about the game world coupled with personal beliefs is a bad reason to knock down a score.

Do I really care if Gamespot gave it a 9 instead of a 10? Fuck no. I'm gonna play the shit out of this game and love it (put in 4 hours before bed last night, it was great so far), but its still unprofessional as fuck.

Yeah .. that isn't what "satire" means. Filling a world full of women who are not characters but simply objects for the game play, while also making every single one of them a stereotype of what some sad pathetic men think women are, is not "satire". If GTA V was saying something about the objectification of women it might be satire. But they aren't, they are just doing it, because sure isn't it funny to laugh at women when you are a teenage boy and real woman are weird and embarrassing and won't talk to you. It is both insulting to women, including any woman gamer who might actually want to play this game, it is also insulting to the presumed "target audience" of this game, the idea that they are all secretly longing to play a game where they belittle and laugh at women because har har isn't it all so funny.

How can it be "unprofessional" of a game reviewer to comment on this. This nonsense that the game journalists should just shut up about story and tell us all how the game plays ignores the fact that it is the game developers who put the story in the game in the first place. If the story is irrelevant why is there? If it isn't irrelevant then the game journalists should comment on it. Game journalists review a game for everyone who might play it, not the small percentage of teenage males who don't give a crap about any issues wider than how much pizza should I order while I play this game.

Grats, you also don't understand the game at all.

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS SATIRE, EVERYTHING. NOTHING IS EXEMPT FROM THAT.

That clear enough for you?

 

[carnex]

1) Review will always be subjective to some degree. Even if one should try to be objective, one can never remove itself from his opinion. From that side I can understand her statement.

2) On the other hand every single character or even a foot-note is on one level or another a joke and deprived human being. I never did play GTA4, but in all previous titles there were basically no character I wanted to be like. All of them are overblown caricatures of bat to horrible human beings. Men and Women. And given that, her complaint does not make any sense. It's a world where being decent human being means you don't even get a name, just a baseball bat to the face.

Could Rockstar have made one of three main protagonists female? Yes they could. But then again, would that decision serve them as company? I really don't think so.

To be honest I'm more disturbed by really shallow and stupid comments like one Total Biscuit gave. To quote him

"If there isn't a single worthwhile female character in GTA5s story as this review suggests, then it's telling a pretty shitty story."

... I'm at loss of words.