Originally I had a much longer rant written about this but since brevity is the soul of wit I'll keep this s#!t short.
Why is it that Kilscreen.com can write a review critiquing The Division's problematic narrative ( https://killscreen.com/articles/the-perverse-ideology-of-the-division/ ) and the resulting reaction is 80% s#!t like this (and yes those are all real comments):
Which brings me to my point, is our culture anti-intellectual? I mean that's the only explanation I can think of for why the reaction to a review like this even exists. It's the kind of hypocrisy in which gamers say that games are art so that they're not exempt from anti-censorship laws but scoff at the notion of anyone treating them like art. Sure it's still escapism and entertainment but by their logic Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug shouldn't have bothered to look for deeper themes in meaning in this Power Rangers retrospective ( http://atopthefourthwall.com/category/hopr/ ), or Jaymes "Captain Logan" Logan shouldn't have bothered to give the superhero movie genre any in-depth analysis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5yiowFDpQ&list=PLE6AD3F273B4DA8DE ), because like The Division they're entertainment and nothing more, and don't give me that stupid "they're not professional journalists" excuse, they're still critics and they're still doing this professionally as their job, the only difference is that Killscreen does its analysis in text form rather than video form. Is there another reason and if so I'd like to hear it since I can't think of anything else.
And now I have to ask: why is it that video game reviews aren't allowed to talk mostly about narrative and or provide in-depth analysis of the work and it's themes? Why does this stigma against anything but the most clinical, bare-bones, just-the-facts, gameplay-only reviews even exists?
I don't know, and that's what has me worried about the maturity of the people that make our culture, the ones that are dismissive of any sort of intellectual analysis of games and their place as an art form.
So what if Killscreen is only talking about narrative and themes? They've got so many other outlets that specialize in just-gameplay reviews and yet they keep insisting that all media outlets must review games the same way, and that its reviews should not be on Metacritic simply because they said so.
Even if you disagree with the points made by the review can you really say that the points shouldn't have been made just because The Division was a game?
Why is it that Kilscreen.com can write a review critiquing The Division's problematic narrative ( https://killscreen.com/articles/the-perverse-ideology-of-the-division/ ) and the resulting reaction is 80% s#!t like this (and yes those are all real comments):
So your score is reflective of nothing that has to do with the game play... Solid review, sad that you think that games and gaming industry need to make some sort of moral statement. Go back to reading books.
This review was nothing more than a way to state your political and moral views. Has nothing to do with the game. It's just a game and nothing more. Made for entertainment. This article is ridiculous.
Can we please have real gamers review games, versus failed english majors.
That last one is especially confounding in its idiocy given that the title of the Review is "The Perverse Ideology of The Division".Can you actually review the gameplay and not comment on it as a philosophical piece? This is article is extremely articulate and direly misplaced. Rate the gameplay, not the ideology, after all, ideology =/= game mechanics or fun.
Which brings me to my point, is our culture anti-intellectual? I mean that's the only explanation I can think of for why the reaction to a review like this even exists. It's the kind of hypocrisy in which gamers say that games are art so that they're not exempt from anti-censorship laws but scoff at the notion of anyone treating them like art. Sure it's still escapism and entertainment but by their logic Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug shouldn't have bothered to look for deeper themes in meaning in this Power Rangers retrospective ( http://atopthefourthwall.com/category/hopr/ ), or Jaymes "Captain Logan" Logan shouldn't have bothered to give the superhero movie genre any in-depth analysis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5yiowFDpQ&list=PLE6AD3F273B4DA8DE ), because like The Division they're entertainment and nothing more, and don't give me that stupid "they're not professional journalists" excuse, they're still critics and they're still doing this professionally as their job, the only difference is that Killscreen does its analysis in text form rather than video form. Is there another reason and if so I'd like to hear it since I can't think of anything else.
And now I have to ask: why is it that video game reviews aren't allowed to talk mostly about narrative and or provide in-depth analysis of the work and it's themes? Why does this stigma against anything but the most clinical, bare-bones, just-the-facts, gameplay-only reviews even exists?
I don't know, and that's what has me worried about the maturity of the people that make our culture, the ones that are dismissive of any sort of intellectual analysis of games and their place as an art form.
So what if Killscreen is only talking about narrative and themes? They've got so many other outlets that specialize in just-gameplay reviews and yet they keep insisting that all media outlets must review games the same way, and that its reviews should not be on Metacritic simply because they said so.
Even if you disagree with the points made by the review can you really say that the points shouldn't have been made just because The Division was a game?