The Evolution of Games Journalism

[wulf3n]

It is not my belief that they shouldn't be talking about it. I simply question that the "belief" a game is [insert]ist is genuine if it bothers someone so little that it won't prevent them from playing the game, yet they still feel the need to bring it up just for the sake of bringing it up.

What, if a mostly enjoyable game has qualities you dislike, you shouldn't mention them or discuss them?

Let's say a game you like has a really bad escort-mission, are you not allowed to mention it in a review, for example?
Are you only allowed to love everything in a game, or hate it with a passion and never play it because it makes you physically ill?

It's not about qualities you dislike but qualities you find offensive.

 

[Lieju]

It is not my belief that they shouldn't be talking about it. I simply question that the "belief" a game is [insert]ist is genuine if it bothers someone so little that it won't prevent them from playing the game, yet they still feel the need to bring it up just for the sake of bringing it up.

What, if a mostly enjoyable game has qualities you dislike, you shouldn't mention them or discuss them?

Let's say a game you like has a really bad escort-mission, are you not allowed to mention it in a review, for example?
Are you only allowed to love everything in a game, or hate it with a passion and never play it because it makes you physically ill?

It's not about qualities you dislike but qualities you find offensive.

And? If something offends you, you'll probably dislike that and find that negative.

If for example a game has a very stereotypical gay-character that's there just to be the butt of gay-jokes, then I dislike that and consider it a sign of bad writing, and that the humor relies too much on stereotypes.

I might still like the game, depending on how big a part that is, and how it compares to the other characters etc.
But I can recognise it has issues.

 

[wulf3n]

And? If something offends you, you'll probably dislike that and find that negative.

If for example a game has a very stereotypical gay-character that's there just to be the butt of gay-jokes, then I dislike that and consider it a sign of bad writing, and that the humor relies too much on stereotypes.

I might still like the game, depending on how big a part that is, and how it compares to the other characters etc.
But I can recognise it has issues.

Then I would question how offended you really were. If you were to then bring it up as an issue I would question sincerity of your complaint.

Once again there's a big difference between a poorly implemented mechanic and a bigoted message. If your reaction to both is the same there's something wrong.

 

[Lieju]

Once again there's a big difference between a poorly implemented mechanic and a bigoted message. If your reaction to both is the same there's something wrong.

The thing is, people who end up putting something bigoted in aren't necessarily doing it out of hatred, or because they want it to have a certain kind of message.

It's often the result of thoughtlessness ('the word 'tranny' is just what they're called'), wanting to get a certain demographic ('we can't make any of the playable character female, that'll scare away the male players'), the lack of time ('let's not put any female enemies in because we don't have time to make different models'), or the lack of oversight.
Same things that are often reasons for bad mechanics.

It's usually not the result of outright desire to attack gays, for example.

Are you seriously saying that unless something offends me so much that it makes me unable to play the game, I can't complain about it?
I can't criticise some aspect of a game I generally like?

Sounds a bit silly to me.

 

[wulf3n]

Are you seriously saying that unless something offends me so much that it makes me unable to play the game, I can't complain about it?

No, just that due to the current state of game "criticism" it won't come off as sincere if your saying "I find this offensive but whatevs I'm going to play it anyway.

I can't criticise some aspect of a game I generally like?

This is also a funny little side effect of the current state of game "criticism". Why is any criticism of a criticism met with accusations of trying to stop criticism?

Just as all games are free to be criticised so are all criticisms and just like game criticism it is not a call for it to go away completely.

 

[Lieju]

Are you seriously saying that unless something offends me so much that it makes me unable to play the game, I can't complain about it?

No, just that due to the current state of game "criticism" it won't come off as sincere if your saying "I find this offensive but whatevs I'm going to play it anyway.

I can't criticise some aspect of a game I generally like?

This is also a funny little side effect of the current state of game "criticism". Why is any criticism of a criticism met with accusations of trying to stop criticism?

Just as all games are free to be criticised so are all criticisms and just like game criticism it is not a call for it to go away completely.

But aren't you saying exactly that? That unless the issue is so bad you cannot play the game at all, you shouldn't say anything. Nevermind the fact that if I enjoy a flawed game I'm much more likely to care about it's flaws, especially if it's a game series, and I have hopes they might improve on it.

I have no idea what you mean by 'current state of criticism'. What does it have to do with what I say personally and how sincere I am?

The problem I see in the 'gamer community' is that it's so volatile when it comes to issues like sexism.

 

[wulf3n]

But aren't you saying exactly that? That unless the issue is so bad you cannot play the game at all, you shouldn't say anything. Nevermind the fact that if I enjoy a flawed game I'm much more likely to care about it's flaws, especially if it's a game series, and I have hopes they might improve on it.

No I'm not, nor have I ever said that. Why do people think a criticism of a criticism is censorship?

I have no idea what you mean by 'current state of criticism'. What does it have to do with what I say personally and how sincere I am?

I'll try and summarise. Not too long ago people found out that you can get a modicum of fame by nothing more than being offended by something, which brought on the rise of the offended. The spin off of this was the notion that crusading on behalf of the offended gave a game critic/journalist a boost in readers tapping into this new market. This lead to every game critic requiring to follow suit whether they cared or not, to at best retain their audience at worst avoid being labelled as bigoted. These critics held a lot of influence with their respective fandoms as such this behaviour trickled down into every facet of criticsm, professional or otherwise. This diluted the sincerity of the criticism to the point where if someone is saying they have a problem with it, but are doing nothing but pointing it out, odds are they are pointing it out simply because it's the "in" thing.

Whether or not a person is sincere is unknowable to all but that person, as such the perception of sincerity falls upon that persons actions. If they treat it like a non issue then it will be perceived by others that they believe it's a non issue.

The problem I see in the 'gamer community' is that it's so volatile when it comes to issues like sexism.

It depends on where you look really.

 

[Lieju]

But aren't you saying exactly that? That unless the issue is so bad you cannot play the game at all, you shouldn't say anything. Nevermind the fact that if I enjoy a flawed game I'm much more likely to care about it's flaws, especially if it's a game series, and I have hopes they might improve on it.

No I'm not, nor have I ever said that. Why do people think a criticism of a criticism is censorship?

Censorship? Why are you bringing that up now? Have I accused you of it? I'm trying to find out what your opinions are here. You're seeing accusations where there are none.

I'll try and summarise. Not too long ago people found out that you can get a modicum of fame by nothing more than being offended by something, which brought on the rise of the offended. The spin off of this was the notion that crusading on behalf of the offended gave a game critic/journalist a boost in readers tapping into this new market. This lead to every game critic requiring to follow suit whether they cared or not, to at best retain their audience at worst avoid being labelled as bigoted. These critics held a lot of influence with their respective fandoms as such this behaviour trickled down into every facet of criticsm, professional or otherwise. This diluted the sincerity of the criticism to the point where if someone is saying they have a problem with it, but are doing nothing but pointing it out, odds are they are pointing it out simply because it's the "in" thing.

Whether or not a person is sincere is unknowable to all but that person, as such the perception of sincerity falls upon that persons actions. If they treat it like a non issue then it will be perceived by others that they believe it's a non issue.

Controversy sells. But you might be overreacting here.
Especially if we are talking about reviewers who do this for a living.

I don't think your attitude is very constructive. All the kind of 'all or nothing' attitude does is divide people. If your options are boycotting a game and ignoring all it's issues all you have is a more toxic atmosphere.

What I'd like to see is being able to acknowledge the good things and see the problems.

 

[wulf3n]

Censorship? Why are you bringing that up now? Have I accused you of it? I'm trying to find out what your opinions are here.

You seemed to be of the opinion that I wanted people to stop talking about isms, which is untrue. Whether or not you call that censorship is up to you.

You're seeing accusations where there are none.

What I'm seeing are assumpptions of the positions I supposedly hold that I don't recall ever saying.

Controversy sells. But you might be overreacting here.
Especially if we are talking about reviewers who do this for a living.

On the contrary, people who do this for a living are more likely to fall victim, as page views are essential to their livelihood.

I don't think your attitude is very constructive. All the kind of 'all or nothing' attitude does is divide people. If your options are boycotting a game and ignoring all it's issues all you have is a more toxic atmosphere.

It's only an all or nothing approach if you care about how you are perceived by others. Having said that it's caring about the perception of others that lead to this issue in the first place.

What I'd like to see is being able to acknowledge the good things and see the problems.

Nothing is stopping you, other than potential for people to question your sincerity.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I was kind of hoping it would be the same journalist in each era, changing his outlook as he got older. =P

The 90's one cracked me up.

 

[MorganL4]

Either that was Yahtzee I just saw there, or the Nostalgia Critic started reviewing video games. C'mon, I can't be the only one who sees it...

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/vgcon/36856-earthworm-jim

 

[Piecewise]

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for these particular guys to be making this particular comic.

 

[Malisteen]

I think we keep forgetting that gameplay really should come first.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true, not in a world where gaming is becoming mainstream - and not just in the US and Japan, but internationally. Enjoyable game play simply doesn't excuse bigotry in games - subtle or otherwise - any more than a positive message excuses poor game design (which is probably a better term to use then game design, because as video games mature as an art form, the idea that they should always constitute 'play', that they should always be 'fun' is becoming ever more arbitrary and limiting). Like it or not, this kind of criticism is an essential part of being a legitimate artistic medium in a modern, global age.

Considering what the games say about the people that produce and purchase them, considering the influence of society on games and games on society, that's what respect for video games as more than "just" games looks like. It's what we've been asking for for decades, and now that the genie's out of the bottle, it's not going back. We will never return to a time where the games we choose to produce and consume don't say anything about who we are as people, about what our values and morals are, about how we see ourselves and others, because that time never existed in the first place.

The societal character of video games was there all along, we just didn't see it before. And as they say on the internet, "once you've seen it, you can't unsee it".

 

[Raikas]

Why bring up your belief that they shouldn't be talking about it?

It is not my belief that they shouldn't be talking about it. I simply question that the "belief" a game is [insert]ist is genuine if it bothers someone so little that it won't prevent them from playing the game, yet they still feel the need to bring it up just for the sake of bringing it up.

I think a fair number of those problematic social bits are things that get included in games (or TV, movies, books, whatever) unconsciously, so it's not as though the creators were racist/sexist/whatever in an explicit or intentional way. In those cases, I think being aware of it and bringing it up are the best way to deal with it. So (in general) they're not supporting a work that is racist or a writer who is sexist, they're just supporting a product that reflects some of the unfortunate social norms of whatever culture it's coming from.

In a broader social sense, there's so much of it that's just part of the social fabric that if you never played/watched/read anything problematic you'd never play/watch/read anything at all.