An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[Silvanus]

dude we had this conversation already

look i respect you, and i can see you are a sensible man and stuff, but our point of discrepancy can be boiled down to you think perceived sexism in character design is valid criticism, i think not

we have our stances on the matter and i dont think thats going to change any time soon

i do like so see characters being critized as well, but not on whenever or not the reviewer thinks is sexist or not, neither i want them to argue the game is worse because of it

Your priorities are perfectly fair and understandable, don't get me wrong. Still, it's just a matter of opinion. A reviewer is under no obligation to exclude aspects of the product on that basis.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

it wasnt my intention to belittle EVERYONE, sorry for that, but it just pisses me off to see someone whose job is supposed to be inform the customer about the quality of a product and instead use this product as a soapbox

if you want to analize games on whatever political point of view you want, there are ways to do it that dont involve reviews, hell if they were better made and more open to criticism, id say videos similar to anita's would be a way, or editorials, etc. hell for all the bullshit anita has said atleast ive heard her recognize we can enjoy games despite this perceived sexism, and here comes polygon and says, no the game is less good because of sexism, literally their metacritic quote goes as follows:

"I won't guess why the blatant over-sexualization is still there, often more intensely than before. But it causes an otherwise great game to require a much bigger mental compromise to enjoy."

so the game is not great because it doesnt convey the message you want? these kind of reviews dont help anybody, is not fair to the artist and its creation, and it can misinform customers

ive seen the word triggered being reduced to almost nothing by certain people who thing everything is a trigger i was making fun of that people

the issue with the bayonetta 2 review is that is both, one of the lowest scores the game has got and not the first time polygon does something like this

Story is part of the game. If sexism is part of the game, then the reviewer is informing you of the quality of the game. Sexism can easily reduce my enjoyment of a game, so learning about sexism in a game does inform me of it.

Why not? Why is mentioned sexism in reviews so god damn taboo? Kanagoo, not everyone is going to like playing as a woman who is apparently half giraffe and fights by making sexual posses. NOT EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE THE SAME THING!

What message? He didn't say anything about a message. He said that the sexualization was annoying. Because for a lot of people it IS annoying. It can break the illusion of the game. For example, Miranda's ass in ME2. It's not a world view, shoving that thing into the camera during a dramatic moment is fucking stupid and juvenile.

I see the same with SJW. Doesn't stop people from using that. And you should probably make that more clear.

And? It's the lowest score it got. So what? The reviewer is under no obligation to change his score based on what other people gave it.

 

[Grampy_bone]

dude a SJW is a term used to describe someone who take the whole fighting for equality thing way too far.

We already have lots of words for that. Extremist. Fundamentalist. Ideologue. There is no shortage of words in the English language to describe people who are rigid and inflexible in their belief system.

"SJW", though, is a pejorative coined by idiots to throw a blanket over a varied cross section of people whom they disagree with. It is the new "White Knight", as modified to apply to both genders equally. Don't agree with someone? Poison the well by calling them a name first, a term designed purely to insult, and to imply membership in a group with presumed characteristics. Then you don't HAVE to debate them point by point, or try to understand their point of view, or come to an understanding. You can just call them a name, and dismiss them off-hand. This kind of labeling allows for a greatly simplified world view. You're not disagreeing with PEOPLE, who have a variety of opinions, motivations, rationale, etc, etc. You're disagreeing with an IDEA that you invented. The idea of the "social justice warrior", a blinkered idiot who believes in lazy, unfocused activism, the cause of the week, and soap-boxing on the internet about issues they barely understand. Much easier to dismiss. You know everything you need to know about them! They're a SJW! It's an open and shut case!

This is the essence of prejudice and bigotry. Invent a group with presumed characteristics, give it a name, assign people you disagree with to that group, and sneer at it at every given opportunity. You can put a little jacket and hat on it and say you're doing it because you believe in "ethical transparency in game journalism" or engage in slippery slope hysteria about the death of the hobby at the hands of meddling beatniks, but at the end of the day you are just rationalizing bigotry.

So while calling someone who uses the term "a moron" would be throwing wild punches, calling someone who uses the term prejudiced would be entirely accurate.

Now, I have no idea about you, but I tend to disregard obvious prejudice when I hear it. If you want to keep using the term because you think it's a cute way to ridicule people you dislike, you may continue to do so, but don't be under any illusions about what you're doing.

I've pointed this out numerous times, but you're simply wrong. SJW is not a term that was applied to these people by their opponents, it's a term they apply to themselves. Stop lying.

You imply that it's bigotry to disagree with a person or their ideology. Disagreeing with someone or an ideology is not bigotry.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I've pointed this out numerous times, but you're simply wrong. SJW is not a term that was applied to these people by their opponents, it's a term they apply to themselves. Stop lying.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior

Don't like urban dictionary? That's fine, although there's not a lot of other sources out there to provide definitions for slang or cultural colloquialism. Provide a citation of your own. One that isn't one person's opinion.

You imply that it's bigotry to disagree with a person or their ideology. Disagreeing with someone or an ideology is not bigotry.

No, I imply it's prejudiced to presume characteristics about someone by assigning them to a group. When the definition you've created for that group is entirely hostile, then your prejudice has taken the form of bigotry.

 

[The Lunatic]

I think you guys are being a bit SJWish about this whole SJW term thing.


(Sorry, I really couldn't resist.)


It's an interesting article, honestly.

I've always wondered what leads people to get into the whole SJW thing in the first place, honestly.

I tend to consider if it's just the echo-chambery nature of places like Tumblr, but, perhaps there's more to it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

it wasnt my intention to belittle EVERYONE, sorry for that, but it just pisses me off to see someone whose job is supposed to be inform the customer about the quality of a product and instead use this product as a soapbox

"Quality" is subjective. What informs "quality" for you might be entirely different for someone else. Not everyone shares the same opinions about games, or even what their respective merits might be. Even with non-polarizing titles like Skyrim, you'll find everything from "Best Game of All Time" to "Shallow piece of shit". Who is correct about the "quality"? The answer is everyone. There is no metric for the overall "quality" of an experience. It's entirely down to the person having it.

so the game is not great because it doesnt convey the message you want?

Not to the person who wrote that review, no.

these kind of reviews dont help anybody

They would "help" anyone who shared that reviewer's outlook. This is how audiences self-select and come to find reviewers they trust to inform purchases. By locating people who share their tastes and outlook.

is not fair to the artist and its creation

How is it "not fair" to artists to criticize the thing they've made? What constitutes "fair criticism" and "unfair criticism"?

and it can misinform customers

It is to the people reading reviews to think critically about what they're reading, identify the voice delivering the message, and determine whether or not their criticism is relevant to you. You plainly dislike that criticism and disagree with it, so you wouldn't let that review influence your decisions.

I've always wondered what leads people to get into the whole SJW thing in the first place, honestly.

I tend to consider if it's just the echo-chambery nature of places like Tumblr, but, perhaps there's more to it.

Not that I enjoy indulging the term, but it's just polarized thinking, and it's often driven by strong emotion. Person encounters a cause, person has strong feelings about said cause for variable reasons, person expresses said feelings in uncompromising language. Throw in confirmation biases...the propensity for people to seek out and favor information that supports and reinforces their beliefs...and that person's position on the issue in question will calcify further. You can add in on top of this that a great many people have difficulty with self-expression, particularly when emotional, and you can add "poorly argued" to "polarized" for a potent stew.

The irony is that while people most definitely do engage in this sort of behavior, I've witnessed a depressing majority of their critics engaging in the exact same behavior. Two sides of the same coin. The same mentality (polarized, entrenched thinking and combative language) as approached from two sides of an ideological divide.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

Where are you getting the "instead" from.

when you substract points froma game because its "sexist" yes, you are giving giving those character models more credit than the gameplay itself

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

No. Not if you explained why you were doing that and didn't outright lie about features of the game.

I'd say you think very little of gamers as consumers if you assume that they are incapable of making up their own mind without simply absorbing a reviewer's/critics opinions. A review/critique is always an opinion, noone in their right mind reads it as anything but.

you understand why people read reviews right? they want to know if a game is worth their cash, they arent meant to replace someone's opinion but to help them not waste their money on worthless games

is baffling how a FREAKIN' CHRISTIAN GAMING SITE, does a better job at separating their on personal bias from the product

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5587-gone-home

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/47-handhelds/vita/5582-dragon-s-crown-vita

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/68-console/playstation-4/5693-child-of-light-ps4

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5670-south-park-the-stick-of-truth-pc

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5401-crusader-kings-ii

a game can score 0% in their morality score but still earn 86% gameplay wise

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

You know.. when you misuse the word "triggered" in order to insult someone for being easily offended, you are taking the piss out of people with PTSD.

Triggers are, contrary to popular opinion, not something which people on tumblr made up.

well im making fun of the people who misuse the word, thatd the whole bloody point

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

There is nothing to refute.

You don't have the right to demand that people stop talking when you don't agree with them. You may think you do, but you don't. Your argument is your feelings, and I owe your feelings nothing. No explanation, no refutation, nothing. Deal with it.

..is how you respond to "censorship".

"i dont have to defend my arguments"

well you obviously wasnt even trying to

-use things completely proven to be facts to support my argument
-that means my argument is wrong

sure buddy

What exactly do you think has been "proven" to be fact?

Because your opinions certainly haven't.

the terms and words i use, those things you were criticing a minute ago

-game devs are entitled to be free
-im entitled to say they shouldnt be free

Exactly.

Welcome to freedom of expression.

so, you know they are antitled to be free, and yet you dont want them to be entitled to be free

yes its freedom of expression, that doesnt mean your argument makes ANY sense

you can argue they dont deserve freedom, but you already said they do

of course asking for proper and FAIR reviews

I.e. reviews which conform to your opinion that various things you aren't interested in aren't important and people who think they are are, and I quote, "massive wusses".

Do you honestly actually believe that when you say something, it's factually true because you said it?

see, that christian gaming site i showed you

back to the "censorship is ok as long as its legal" argument i see

You still haven't actually argued against that argument.

How would you judge when censorship is not okay?

because is totally not awesome to live in a society in which dissenting opinions are silenced?

i dont think you know what you are saying, killing jews was legal in nazi germany, does that means it was right?

did you know in countries like north korean censorship IS legal, or rather the freedom of freespeech take a backseat to "defending the revolution", thats a thing

Right, but if people in North Korea were able to advocate for legal rights (which they are not), they would - one hopes, if they wished to succeed - do so based on some established (or at worst, theoretical) legal model which would have to at least be coherent, because that's how you win arguments. You don't win arguments by randomly proclaiming that you have the right to eat free hamburgers whenever you want a hamburger.

I was involved in campaign for gay marriage here in the UK, and you know what, the other side (including your wonderful, progressive friend Milo) argued that giving gay people equal rights was itself an attack on the human rights of heterosexuals and the religious. They lost, despite arguing from a position of the legal status quo, because our argument was more coherent.

What you seem to want is the right to make other people, people who pay to put sites online, allow you access to those sites simply because. That is not a coherent right. The internet is not a state-funded platform for public speech.

so asking for both sides of the argument to be heard is not coherent?

"Blacks are a bunch of thiefs"
"Jews are greedy and cant be trusted"

Still not slander.

Depending on the specific legal situation, they may constitute hatespeech.

yeah you are grasping straws now

"is not slander becuase they are actually lying and making false statement about more than ONE person"

we are not discussing whenever something is legal or not, tough we do know many of the things done by both sides arent, we are discussing the morality of these actions

Ah! Great!

We finally got there!

So, how is your sense of "morality" anything more than your opinion, and why should I have to take it seriously?

i got a much better argument since i sense you are going to try to go on a tangent and say "everything is subjective"

can you tell me if silencing dissenting opinions, via doxxing, hacking and abuse of influences is right?

i mean if you think so we can stop our discussion here

"im free to provide inaccurate information and have conflicts of interests"

"I'm free to tell everyone what 'accurate information' is and if they disagree they're objectively wrong because my opinions are facts."

facts are subjective now?

theres plenty of evidence behind what gamergate is defending

that doesnt mean their changes are right, the changes GG asks of journalists are 100% justified, because all we are asking is journalistic integrity

Right, just like the changes the "SJWs" are asking of the game industry are 100% justified, because all they are asking is an end to sexism.

Rhetoric hides a multitude of sins.

what they arent is trying to limit the artistic freedom of game developers, they can argue all day about sexism and stuff, but their actions are to encourage self-censorship

what is clear is that many game journalists simply lack integrity based on such simple concepts like conflict of interests, and what are on actions? to show or disconform, to condemn what is clearly an unethical journalistic behaviour

it would be like me saying "im not nuclear kangaroo", i AM nuclear kangaroo, the fact i exist is proof of that, how can you have a group of diverse people, from all sorts of background and argue they are not diverse because of what they say?

Because what they're saying isn't particularly diverse, nor is it particularly friendly to the concept of diversity itself.

so im less latino because i supprot gamergate? yeah, it makes no sense, you dotn get to decide what diversity is, diversity is having people from all sorts of background in our movement, when you condemn people from the right and christians, you are actually acting agaisnt diversity

 

[Terminal Blue]

when you substract points froma game because its "sexist" yes, you are giving giving those character models more credit than the gameplay itself

What "points" are we talking about.

There are many ways to write a review. Not all of them have to include "scores", and those that do don't have to aggregate their scores in the same way. There is no fixed understanding of what "points" have to mean.

you understand why people read reviews right? they want to know if a game is worth their cash, they arent meant to replace someone's opinion but to help them not waste their money on worthless games

Well.. no. That's the purpose of one specific type of review. There are reviews primarily intended for entertainment purposes (like Zero Punctuation, or most of the stuff produced by Channel Awesome). There are reviews which simply exist to give a visual or audio slice of a particular experience so that the audience can see the game for themselves. There are reviews meant to specifically assess the suitability of a game for a particular audience.

Also, I have a feeling you're confusing critique with review. Critique, or media criticism, is not really related to consumer advice at all. What it's meant to do is to provide a supplementary discussion about the piece of media in question, including potentially discussing its social impact, issues of representation, metatextuality (how it fits in with other media) and so forth which wouldn't necessarily come up in the simple review. Critique is not there to give you a score or to tell you whether you should buy a game, that's your decision, it's there to provoke or contribute to a public discussion about games.

Now, I guess you could make the point that the line between the two is blurred, and yes it is. But it always has been. If you watch some old Siskel and Ebert, you'll notice that they're often reviewing and critiquing films at the same time. They will give consumer advice, but they will also lace it with their opinions, impressions and background discussion. That is the normal role of a media critic, it is nothing exceptional, unique or sinister.

well im making fun of the people who misuse the word, thatd the whole bloody point

Well, that's not relevant to me, is it. So I don't see how it's "the whole bloody point" at all, since right now you're talking to me. I haven't misused the word.

When you talk about people being triggered and being "wusses", what exactly am I meant to think? Maybe there's some imaginary context which is going on in your mind, maybe you're so obsessed with the "SJWs" that you just assume that that's the first thing that comes into our heads when you use the word. It isn't, and the fact that you think it is is doesn't exactly fill me with a great deal of confidence.

"i dont have to defend my arguments"

No. I don't.

For one, you've been putting words in my mouth and twisting everything I say into your ridiculous, black and white notions of how the world works since this whole thing began. I'm not inclined to argue with someone who cannot argue in good faith.

the terms and words i use, those things you were criticing a minute ago

Oh wow. Are you claiming that you've prooved the philosophical objectivity of language, now?

Hang on. Let me call the entirety of the Western philosophical tradition. They're going to want to know about this. I mean, fucking google image search, that's some true mic dropping genius right there!

so, you know they are antitled to be free, and yet you dont want them to be entitled to be free

Yes.

The purpose of any human rights discourse is to balance the conflicting needs of individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to say that people should be denied certain freedoms provided the case can still be made by reference to a liberal ideal in which freedom is valuable. Wanting to limit certain freedoms in no way implies a disdain for the concept of freedom itself.

Or did the last few hundred years of liberalism pass you by, because this is how it works.

because is totally not awesome to live in a society in which dissenting opinions are silenced?

i dont think you know what you are saying, killing jews was legal in nazi germany, does that means it was right?

Killing jews was made legal because many people bought into a Nazi ideology which was cynically propagated under the guise of protected speech. Does that mean it was wrong to treat it as protected speech?

Unlike your question. That's not a rhetorical one. I don't have a preconception of what is "objectively" right and wrong to which I can refer, I think it has to come out of some coherent theoretical position. If Nazi Germany showed us anything, it's how little the concept of human dignity means when it is stripped of legal substance.

so asking for both sides of the argument to be heard is not coherent?

Not when you must violate other people's right to autonomous control over their own property.

By the same token, if game devs don't want people to talk about sexism in their games, they can delete threads discussing it from their own public forums if they want. Again, the ability to use a platform is contingent on the approval of the person who actually controls the platform. The internet is not a public space.

"is not slander becuase they are actually lying and making false statement about more than ONE person"

A) Proove they were lying. Not just ill-informed, but maliciously lying.
B) Proove that "gamers" actually constitute a category of people. What essentially defines a gamer?

Because as I read it, the whole point of the articles was that actually nothing does. The stereotypes about fat nerds in their parents' basement are just that, stereotypes. Now, if you want to say that that's not true, that that stereotype absolutely and essentially defines gamer, then make that case.

can you tell me if silencing dissenting opinions, via doxxing, hacking and abuse of influences is right?

Legally, it isn't, which reflects a liberal understanding that it is not in the public interest for that to be happening.

You still haven't shown me how "morality" matters though, or why it's anything other than a tool you're using to bludgeon people with your opinions.

facts are subjective now?

Do you really think there is a yes or no answer to that question?

what is clear is that many game journalists simply lack integrity based on such simple concepts like conflict of interests, and what are on actions? to show or disconform, to condemn what is clearly an unethical journalistic behaviour

Which doesn't explain why we're sitting here discussing what you can or can't put in a review.

so im less latino because i supprot gamergate?

You like making up statements, don't you.

yeah, it makes no sense, you dotn get to decide what diversity is, diversity is having people from all sorts of background in our movement, when you condemn people from the right and christians, you are actually acting agaisnt diversity

I'm not condemning your diversity. I'm pointing out that what you seem to think diversity is is completely meaningless. You're still pulling the equivalent of "I can't be a homophobe, I have loads of gay friends!" Do you see and understand why that argument is extremely flawed?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

when you substract points froma game because its "sexist" yes, you are giving giving those character models more credit than the gameplay itself

No. No you don't. You give it equal value. Like you give story, artstyle, performance etc.

mario has a shit story, and nobody rates those games lower for it, because nobody puts story before gameplay, story can complement gameplay, never detract from it, unless the story gets IN THE WAY, things like forced cutscenes and such

is the character design of bayonetta getting in the way of gameplay?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

when you substract points froma game because its "sexist" yes, you are giving giving those character models more credit than the gameplay itself

What "points" are we talking about.

There are many ways to write a review. Not all of them have to include "scores", and those that do don't have to aggregate their scores in the same way. There is no fixed understanding of what "points" have to mean.

when you give a lower score of a game because "sexism" you are writing an awful reviews, you are not judging a GAME based on its GAMEplay first and foremost

you understand why people read reviews right? they want to know if a game is worth their cash, they arent meant to replace someone's opinion but to help them not waste their money on worthless games

Well.. no. That's the purpose of one specific type of review. There are reviews primarily intended for entertainment purposes (like Zero Punctuation, or most of the stuff produced by Channel Awesome). There are reviews which simply exist to give a visual or audio slice of a particular experience so that the audience can see the game for themselves. There are reviews meant to specifically assess the suitability of a game for a particular audience.

Also, I have a feeling you're confusing critique with review. Critique, or media criticism, is not really related to consumer advice at all. What it's meant to do is to provide a supplementary discussion about the piece of media in question, including potentially discussing its social impact, issues of representation, metatextuality (how it fits in with other media) and so forth which wouldn't necessarily come up in the simple review. Critique is not there to give you a score or to tell you whether you should buy a game, that's your decision, it's there to provoke or contribute to a public discussion about games.

Now, I guess you could make the point that the line between the two is blurred, and yes it is. But it always has been. If you watch some old Siskel and Ebert, you'll notice that they're often reviewing and critiquing films at the same time. They will give consumer advice, but they will also lace it with their opinions, impressions and background discussion. That is the normal role of a media critic, it is nothing exceptional, unique or sinister.

then why the fuck do they call it a review, if they want to say dumb things about how bayonetta is "sexualized" wirte an editorial, do not argue the game is less because it doesnt share your twisted political views

if a christian site can judge a game and its message separately, i sure as fucking hell expect major gaming sites to do the same

well im making fun of the people who misuse the word, thatd the whole bloody point

Well, that's not relevant to me, is it. So I don't see how it's "the whole bloody point" at all, since right now you're talking to me. I haven't misused the word.

When you talk about people being triggered and being "wusses", what exactly am I meant to think? Maybe there's some imaginary context which is going on in your mind, maybe you're so obsessed with the "SJWs" that you just assume that that's the first thing that comes into our heads when you use the word. It isn't, and the fact that you think it is is doesn't exactly fill me with a great deal of confidence.

i was refering to the polygon reviewer and other reviewers like him, which do look like the kind of person who cries "misogyny" at every oportunity and reduces words like "trigger" to meaninglessness

if you felt identified thats not my problem

"i dont have to defend my arguments"

No. I don't.

For one, you've been putting words in my mouth and twisting everything I say into your ridiculous, black and white notions of how the world works since this whole thing began. I'm not inclined to argue with someone who cannot argue in good faith.

says the person who ignores every single one of my arguments

the terms and words i use, those things you were criticing a minute ago

Oh wow. Are you claiming that you've prooved the philosophical objectivity of language, now?

Hang on. Let me call the entirety of the Western philosophical tradition. They're going to want to know about this. I mean, fucking google image search, that's some true mic dropping genius right there!

im using what is commonly assotiated with sexy men and sexy women in my argument, so yeah, a simple google search is more than enough to defend my argument

when i was talking about "chess with sexy pieces" i mean what mas people consider sexy, it is that painfully obvious and yet you still try to defend the indefensible

so, you know they are antitled to be free, and yet you dont want them to be entitled to be free

Yes.

The purpose of any human rights discourse is to balance the conflicting needs of individuals. It is perfectly acceptable to say that people should be denied certain freedoms provided the case can still be made by reference to a liberal ideal in which freedom is valuable. Wanting to limit certain freedoms in no way implies a disdain for the concept of freedom itself.

Or did the last few hundred years of liberalism pass you by, because this is how it works.

the big brother is watching you... you know if you are not going to defend or even respect the freedom of others i dont think ill ever convince you that our claims in gamergate are legit, if you think your freedoms end where other's feelings begins i cant do much for you, believe what you want, hopefully time will make you forget this childish and selfish idea

lets leave it like this

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

dude we had this conversation already

look i respect you, and i can see you are a sensible man and stuff, but our point of discrepancy can be boiled down to you think perceived sexism in character design is valid criticism, i think not

we have our stances on the matter and i dont think thats going to change any time soon

i do like so see characters being critized as well, but not on whenever or not the reviewer thinks is sexist or not, neither i want them to argue the game is worse because of it

Your priorities are perfectly fair and understandable, don't get me wrong. Still, it's just a matter of opinion. A reviewer is under no obligation to exclude aspects of the product on that basis.

but there are other ways to make those kind of observations, inform the player about themes in the game, without necessarily calling the game worse for it

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Story is part of the game. If sexism is part of the game, then the reviewer is informing you of the quality of the game. Sexism can easily reduce my enjoyment of a game, so learning about sexism in a game does inform me of it.

Why not? Why is mentioned sexism in reviews so god damn taboo? Kanagoo, not everyone is going to like playing as a woman who is apparently half giraffe and fights by making sexual posses. NOT EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE THE SAME THING!

What message? He didn't say anything about a message. He said that the sexualization was annoying. Because for a lot of people it IS annoying. It can break the illusion of the game. For example, Miranda's ass in ME2. It's not a world view, shoving that thing into the camera during a dramatic moment is fucking stupid and juvenile.

I see the same with SJW. Doesn't stop people from using that. And you should probably make that more clear.

And? It's the lowest score it got. So what? The reviewer is under no obligation to change his score based on what other people gave it.

look dude there are other ways to inform players about certain themes they might feel unconfortable with in a game, without having to argue the game is worse for including those themes, be it violence, sexuality, etc

look at this christian gaming site

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5587-gone-home

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/47-handhelds/vita/5582-dragon-s-crown-vita

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/68-console/playstation-4/5693-child-of-light-ps4

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5670-south-park-the-stick-of-truth-pc

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5401-crusader-kings-ii

they assign 2 types of scores to games, the game score and the morality score, the reviewer is clear about his personal bias and can still judge a game regardless of its message, here we have south park the stick of truth scoring a 0% in the morality score and still earning a 86% in gameplay score

this means a customer like, say a christian parent can choose game that provides both entertainment and appropiate christian values to their kids, if that is what he desires, or if some customer is very sensible about unchristian themes in games but still wants to enjoy them he can check the site to make an informed buying decision

there ARE ways, editorials, comments in the review, a critique besides the review, etc, you can let customers know that they might feel unconfortable with some themes being dealt in the game

i am aware not everyone likes the same thing, but thats besides the point of providing a fair review, take me for instance

i suck at horror games, im a huge wuss, i was even scared by okami at one point, i am clearly not the most appropiate person to review a horror game, i wouldnt provide a fair analysis of it

 

[Erttheking]

Story is part of the game. If sexism is part of the game, then the reviewer is informing you of the quality of the game. Sexism can easily reduce my enjoyment of a game, so learning about sexism in a game does inform me of it.

Why not? Why is mentioned sexism in reviews so god damn taboo? Kanagoo, not everyone is going to like playing as a woman who is apparently half giraffe and fights by making sexual posses. NOT EVERYONE HAS TO LIKE THE SAME THING!

What message? He didn't say anything about a message. He said that the sexualization was annoying. Because for a lot of people it IS annoying. It can break the illusion of the game. For example, Miranda's ass in ME2. It's not a world view, shoving that thing into the camera during a dramatic moment is fucking stupid and juvenile.

I see the same with SJW. Doesn't stop people from using that. And you should probably make that more clear.

And? It's the lowest score it got. So what? The reviewer is under no obligation to change his score based on what other people gave it.

look dude there are other ways to inform players about certain themes they might feel unconfortable with in a game, without having to argue the game is worse for including those themes, be it violence, sexuality, etc

look at this christian gaming site

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5587-gone-home

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/47-handhelds/vita/5582-dragon-s-crown-vita

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/68-console/playstation-4/5693-child-of-light-ps4

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5670-south-park-the-stick-of-truth-pc

https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/18-computer/5401-crusader-kings-ii

they assign 2 types of scores to games, the game score and the morality score, the reviewer is clear about his personal bias and can still judge a game regardless of its message, here we have south park the stick of truth scoring a 0% in the morality score and still earning a 86% in gameplay score

this means a customer like, say a christian parent can choose game that provides both entertainment and appropiate christian values to their kids, if that is what he desires, or if some customer is very sensible about unchristian themes in games but still wants to enjoy them he can check the site to make an informed buying decision

there ARE ways, editorials, comments in the review, a critique besides the review, etc, you can let customers know that they might feel unconfortable with some themes being dealt in the game

i am aware not everyone likes the same thing, but thats besides the point of providing a fair review, take me for instance

i suck at horror games, im a huge wuss, i was even scared by okami at one point, i am clearly not the most appropiate person to review a horror game, i wouldnt provide a fair analysis of it

The two aren't necessarily separate though. For example say a game has story as a main focus. Now that there's a female character, the only one with a name, and despite being made out to be a great soldier, she contributes minimally to the plot, helps you on two occasions, one of which I never really felt like she was making a difference, gets kidnapped and has to be rescued by the less experienced main hero, she has sex with the hero despite the fact that she was coldly mocking him when they were first partnered up and flat out said that "(my ass) is way out of your league" and then drops off the face of the Earth right before the big final battle.

Because that word for word is my experience with Metro Last Light. The writing is a major selling point for me in that game, and 95% of the time it handled it beautifully, but MAN did they drop the ball with Anna. When she's the only female character that gets a name, and all the other women in the Metro are caretakers, prostitutes or victims, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not even at least one guarding her home with a shotgun? No conscripts in the Communist army that has clearly shown it doesn't care about preserving its population and is based on the Red Army? Which actually had women in its ranks? The problem is that sexism and bad writing tend to go hand in hand. Like it did here. I'm glad Angry Joe brought this up in his review, because it takes me out of the story when you're forced to go into a strip club (Even in the post apocalyptic Russian Metro I can't be free of strip clubs can i?) and are treated to a mandatory close up of a dancer's tits, it makes me want to roll my eyes so hard they pop out. Because it's very immature writing in a game that sells itself on mature writing. It hurts the game as a whole and can't really be separated from the rest.

Fear has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I suck at horror games to, and while I would think I would try to force my way through one, I can understand abstaining if you just can't get through it. But that's because the reviewer simply can't get through it and implies he's just not good with horror games. I imagine plenty of people who criticize sexism in games are plenty familiar with the games they play. Heck, the Bayonetta 2 review all but states that the reviewer played the last one.

 

[Silvanus]

but there are other ways to make those kind of observations, inform the player about themes in the game, without necessarily calling the game worse for it

There are, but as "worse" is subjective, anybody's criteria are valid-- so long as they relate to a fundamental part of the game.

If I was to read a review, I would want it to focus on narrative, as it's an important element in my enjoyment of the product.

i suck at horror games, im a huge wuss, i was even scared by okami at one point

Out of interest, which part was it? If it was the sunken ghost ship, that's fair enough, that part's pretty spoopy.

 

[Terminal Blue]

when you give a lower score of a game because "sexism" you are writing an awful reviews, you are not judging a GAME based on its GAMEplay first and foremost

That's your opinion.

No amount of wordplay will stop it being so.

then why the fuck do they call it a review, if they want to say dumb things about how bayonetta is "sexualized" wirte an editorial, do not argue the game is less because it doesnt share your twisted political views

Biases shining through, are they?

You know, for all this, I'm pretty sure if they were saying thing like how Bayonetta has a lot to teach us or how it represents women really well, noone would be up in arms about "twisted political views".

In fact, most of what actually bothers me, personally, about gamergate and the whole "objective review" bullshit is that it seems to be predicated on always writing for an audience of fans. I mean, if it can't be an honest assessment of the reviewer's impression, then they're going to need to have someone in mind at whom the product is aimed and for whom they can then judge the suitability of what they're playing, and in practice that seems to me that it would mean writing every single review from the perspective of a fan (unless it's some no-name indie title which doesn't have enough fans to kick up a stink if their pet game is criticized).

In reality, of course, nope. You don't get to tell people what they can and can't talk about. You don't get to decide which political views are "twisted" or not. Don't be a hypocrite, that's all I ask. Don't spit on journalistic freedom while demanding artistic freedom, because there is a balance there which has to be preserved.

i was refering to the polygon reviewer and other reviewers like him, which do look like the kind of person who cries "misogyny" at every oportunity and reduces words like "trigger" to meaninglessness

Well, not only did you not make that clear, I also don't care what you think someone "looks" like. That's prejudice, and prejudice is bullshit.

if you felt identified thats not my problem

Well it is if you (and gamergate) are going to claim to be speaking for gamers, because you've just lost me.

says the person who ignores every single one of my arguments

Only the ones which are responses to things you made up.

im using what is commonly assotiated with sexy men and sexy women in my argument, so yeah, a simple google search is more than enough to defend my argument

Nope. That's lying, see. You simply asked me how I would feel if sexy men were featured on a chess set, and I asked you for clarification on what you meant at which point you directed me to a google image search. You have never suggested that you were referring to "what is commonly associated with sexy men", neither have you in any way demonstrated how a google image search would be the appropriate way to find that out. This is the first I have heard of "common associations".

See what I mean? There is this whole secondary argument which seems to be going on in your head and which is simply not expressed here, perhaps because you assume it's all common sense or common knowledge. If that's what you're doing, then I'm afraid that is bias.

the big brother is watching you... you know if you are not going to defend or even respect the freedom of others i dont think ill ever convince you that our claims in gamergate are legit, if you think your freedoms end where other's feelings begins i cant do much for you, believe what you want, hopefully time will make you forget this childish and selfish idea

I could turn this argument around and repeat it, word for word to you, but I suspect you would find it just as meaningless, just as simplistic, just as much a hollow, black and white imposition of logic you never used as I find it.

I don't ask much, but I do think it's acceptable to ask people not to be hypocrites. I don't pretend that freedom has to be absolute, but that's exactly what you seem to be saying, which makes your willingness to throw journalistic freedom under the bus to essentially appease fanboy rage incredibly hypocritical from where I'm sitting.

 

[Dizchu]

I used to be more of an "SJW" when I was a teenager. I'd think that men were inherently more destructive and troublesome than women, I'd find it easier to trust LGBT people than straight people, I'd constantly criticise religious people for supporting an institution that spreads homophobia, transphobia and any other kind of sex-based discrimination. I'd feel immense pride for my "progressive", "civilised" opinions.

But recently it's become more complicated. I champion social justice wherever possible but there are a troubling amount of people that use their positions of privilege (middle class white hipsters whose moderately rich parents fund them) just to brag about how much better and more tolerant they are than anyone else. Then they have the nerve to claim that they are victims of oppression (female oppression in the Western world? Please.)

Everything anyone does is selfish to a certain extent. Even when it comes to advocating social justice. Some people do it because the improvement of the lives of those less understood/fortunate gives them a degree of inner peace. Some people do it to make themselves look good. The latter group won't hesitate to use ableist/sexist/homophobic/racist language against their opponents.

The former group actually cares about social justice. The latter are what is known as "SJW"s.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

mario has a shit story, and nobody rates those games lower for it, because nobody puts story before gameplay, story can complement gameplay, never detract from it, unless the story gets IN THE WAY, things like forced cutscenes and such

is the character design of bayonetta getting in the way of gameplay?

Ehm, context. Mario is a platformer from a series of games that started there. The main appeal is from the gameplay. Other games get points for story, as well as points detracted.

and who gets to decide that?

who gets to decide what games are about story and what games arent?

there are platforms with sotry i have no idea what made you think otherwise

And please, any evidence for your absolute statement that story never detracts from gameplay?

im gonna write a 200 page backstory for chess, its going to be sonic fan fiction levels of garbage, but im not going to force you to read it

did chess become a worse game because i wrote a terrible story for it?

now if i MADE you read that each time you wanted to play chess, then yes you would be affecting the flow of gameplay

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

The two aren't necessarily separate though. For example say a game has story as a main focus. Now that there's a female character, the only one with a name, and despite being made out to be a great soldier, she contributes minimally to the plot, helps you on two occasions, one of which I never really felt like she was making a difference, gets kidnapped and has to be rescued by the less experienced main hero, she has sex with the hero despite the fact that she was coldly mocking him when they were first partnered up and flat out said that "(my ass) is way out of your league" and then drops off the face of the Earth right before the big final battle.

Because that word for word is my experience with Metro Last Light. The writing is a major selling point for me in that game, and 95% of the time it handled it beautifully, but MAN did they drop the ball with Anna. When she's the only female character that gets a name, and all the other women in the Metro are caretakers, prostitutes or victims, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not even at least one guarding her home with a shotgun? No conscripts in the Communist army that has clearly shown it doesn't care about preserving its population and is based on the Red Army? Which actually had women in its ranks? The problem is that sexism and bad writing tend to go hand in hand. Like it did here. I'm glad Angry Joe brought this up in his review, because it takes me out of the story when you're forced to go into a strip club (Even in the post apocalyptic Russian Metro I can't be free of strip clubs can i?) and are treated to a mandatory close up of a dancer's tits, it makes me want to roll my eyes so hard they pop out. Because it's very immature writing in a game that sells itself on mature writing. It hurts the game as a whole and can't really be separated from the rest.

Fear has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I suck at horror games to, and while I would think I would try to force my way through one, I can understand abstaining if you just can't get through it. But that's because the reviewer simply can't get through it and implies he's just not good with horror games. I imagine plenty of people who criticize sexism in games are plenty familiar with the games they play. Heck, the Bayonetta 2 review all but states that the reviewer played the last one.

in that case is a matter of bad characters from what i can see, would the game be any better if the roles were reversed?

a game can be "sexist" and have a good story, theres no reason for it not to, hell sometimes reality is sexist itself, i can imagine a post apocalyptic future where few women end up in the army and many end up as sex workers, like they said "its the oldest job in the world" and many women in need have found themselves forced to do it to survive, in a place where survival is a commodity i can see this happening. men are also naturally stronger and more fit than women, it makes sense an army is mostly composed of men, hell conscription might even be mandatory for all males, as it was in the soviet union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia

tough being forced to die in a dark miserable tunnel is hardly anything most of those men would be grateful for

what happens with games that focus on the story, these games SACRIFICE gameplay, in order to have time to tell a better story, i havent played last light but i played a bit of metro 2033, the gameplay was contantly paused so the game could throw exposition into your face, now this is ACCEPTABLE, this is a perfectly valid way to design a game, a designer may believe that whatever story they want to tell is easily worth the amount of gameplay they are cutting from certain sections, but when the story actually sucks, the game becomes worse, because you sacrificed good gameplay to push that awful story in

whate never happens is that good games become worse if you add a bad story, if this story does not interfere with the gameplay

did bayonettas design interfere with the gameplay?