The_Kodu said:
And if said issue brought down their enjoyment of the game, then it's a legitimate reason to give the game a lower score. Especially in this day and age when many games are story driven, the content of the story plays a much more important part of the equation than before. What the story is saying and how it's saying it matters, especially if they're trying to draw me in with a particular character.
So should I rate games down for not having an environmentally friendly message and showing cars that run on fossil fuels ?
Or should I maybe put the game first and my own personal politics second ?
I mean should hardcore PETA supports be fine rating Mario down because of the possibility the Tanooki suit is fur or maybe the Cat costume for that matter ?
If it impacted your enjoyment of the game, yes. Absolutely.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the reviewer played Bayonetta and said, "alright, that was a shit ton of fun... now how does it stack up politically" and it's much more likely the two are intertwined.
Such as, I find Rockstar's habit of deconstructing controversial scenes to make sure the gamer understands they're not endorsing that kind of behavior to be irritating as fuck. Every fucking game has long-ass monologues in between missions, because they want you to know they subscribe to all the correct political opinions. And damn straight I'd dock them for that, because it's fucking annoying.
I know people who are hardcore against cruelty to animals, so hunting whales in Assassins Creed IV offends them on a pretty deep level (and weren't there some upgrades that required you to do it?). And why is there whale hunting in a game about pirate assassins, an activity not suited to either profession? Because we have to shove this giant world full of content, even if it's not terribly fun content.
Netrigan said:
One of the big problems I'm having with GG is over the whole review issues, because GG wants to push their opinions about review writing on everyone else. You are not the Thought Police. You don't get to dictate what reviews do and don't find enjoyable in their video games. We can only encourage every reviewer to give his honest opinion.
How is it difficult to have two separate things and allow things to be discussed in more depths ?
Movie Bob does just think by having two shows. Escape to the movies for reviews and The big picture to look at in depth themes and ideas present.
Why does there need to be a line drawn between the two? They're both opinion pieces. If you don't like the way the reviewer reviews games, you don't have to support them.
Instead, GamerGate is encouraging Nintendo punish them for writing a review you disagree with. And fuck that. Fuck that as hard as anything has been fucked before. I think that's fucking obscene.
Netrigan said:
Dev's bonuses should not be tied to game reviews. That's fucking emotional blackmail. If you like New Vegas, better bump up that score... never mind that we didn't make any substantial chance to the game since Fallout 3 and it's still got the same Biblical horde of bugs. Give them higher scores or it's on you when they have to lay off a bunch of people.
No I claimed rating down for not meeting your personal politics is a stupid idea. I also said rating up because the developer is your friend is dumb too.
How hard is it to give a score not based on personal politics ?
Because you seem to have this very limited perspective about it, and your unswerving belief that reviewers aren't putting those political beliefs into some kind of perspective.
I was about an old review controversy from 2000 (Japanese open-world game, can't be bothered to google the name) where Gamespot bowed to the pressure of Sega and the fans and gave the game an extra point. The writer of the review talked about his process and one of the things which made up the final score was called "Tilt", which is really just anything the reviewer thinks should affect the final score which isn't part of the other categories. In this case, he gave it a high Tilt because he thought the ambition of the game warranted a higher score than the individual categories allows.
Now I'm not a particular fan of this grading system (I don't think you can quantify the graphics, sounds, etc.) and come up with a meaningful result; but even way back then they knew there were other factors which pushed the score up or down. So take the Tropico 5 review, where he gave it a not-bad score (6.5/10). He knocked it down for its sense of humor (which he thought was juvenile) and for the way it consistently portrayed the natives as totally backward in service of its bad sense of humor; two things which he made clear bugged him throughout the game and drug down his enjoyment. Seeing as humor is a key part of the game's appeal, not liking the humor is a perfectly valid reason to not enjoy the game.
Yet it's on the time-line of journalistic scandals. Bulshit. Bull-fucking-shit.
Netrigan said:
Because linking bonuses to sales would just be madness.
And Gaters being Gaters go after the reviewers who seem to be doing nothing more than expressing their honest opinion instead of the people who made this mess by linking said bonuses to review scores in the first place. They're the ones saying "you can't give lower scores, think of the devs"... and that's supporting the hopelessly corrupt system that is trying to blackmail reviewers into keeping those high scores flowing.
You can't give low scores because you ate a you had a bad sandwich at lunch.
And you shouldn't put dirty underwear on your head. What's your point?
Tying review scores to bonuses and trying to hold that over the heads of reviewers is a bullshit tactic. They should give their honest opinion and let the chips fall where they may.
Notice how I keep using the word "honest" and you keep using the word "politics"... it's because I don't give a rat's ass what the politics of the reviewer are, so long as he gives an honest assessment of the game based on his natural reaction to the game. If you didn't like Duke Nukem because of the constant sexism, then it's bullshit to say "commenting on sexism has no place in a game review, therefore I shall write a review of the game based on a hypothetical experience with Duke Nukem that didn't include the sexism I found so irritating." That's not an honest review. That's a bullshit review. He's just making some shit up to make other people happy.
Netrigan said:
But we're not supposed to talk about those ethics. Those ethics are aren't journalistic in nature, therefore are of much less importance. God forbid, we hold anyone else's feet the fire. Someone reviewed Bayonetta wrong. That's the real corruption.
Okay, I'm ranting, but, seriously, honest reviews are the cornerstone of the system. The reason I don't trust the system is I see the same damn opinions from everyone. I've got three reviewers I seek out when I'm unsure about buying a game: Yahtzee, Jim Sterling, and Angry Joe. I'm sure there are others, but those three guys don't seem to give a damn what anyone else thinks and will straight-up attack a game they think is lacking. Was Saints Row 3 fun? Yup. Was is a big disappoint for SR fans? Oh, yeah. And someone like Angry Joe just went after all the ways he thought it came up short. I love that Jim Sterline gave Assassins Creed 2 an insanely low score. If he didn't like it, that's exactly what he should have given it. We need more like him.
We don't need the bloody Thought Police cracking down on every voice that doesn't fit in with the herd.
and we don't need reviewers docking scores because the game didn't make their lunch time sandwich good. Or because they don't believe the game is pushing a progressive enough stance and is dare I say it being neutral ?
In your opinion, and I think your opinion is bullshit. I don't want a reviewer to lie about his experience with a game to appease the likes of you. He had a reaction to that game. You may not like his reaction or agree with his reaction, but that's his reaction.
And there are far too many people encouraging them to lie about that reaction. Maybe it's the politically correct forces you complain about, who want said reviewer to lie about having fun and espouse all the right politics. Maybe it's fan who doesn't give a rat's ass that Halo 8's single player campaign is a piece of shit, the game deserves a 10/10 for its multiplayer alone. Maybe it's the corporate masters who don't want to spend advertising dollars to a site that says their games suck.
And fuck all those people. And fuck anyone who wants to inject even more bullshit into the system by demanding game reviews conform to their preferences. Not every game review is aimed at you. They should express a wide variety of opinions. Sites like Metacritic are nothing more than a tool, a place to give a general sense of the reaction and link you to a bunch of different reviews to help the consumer. It should never, ever be tied to bonuses.