Calling a review biased is basically condemning it because you don't agree with it. Reviews are biased? Well yeah. What do you want? For all reviews to march in lockstep and all say the same thing? This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451 when the Firemen are all talking about how "How can you read those books? They all say different things!"
BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live
- Thread starter Calbeck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Isn't that generally what people criticizing games with sexist elements do?BloatedGuppy said:
For example we have the recent controversial thread about Fatal Frame's bouncy boobs physics.
Most people in that thread isn't criticizing, but advocating the removal of it and how you shouldn't be allowed to implement such mechanics.
That's why i generally don't indulge in criticism as it more often than not becomes something else.
Having bias is one this, having it influence the verdict you give to something is a completly different thing. If you are a reviewer, your goal isn't to say if you enjoyed it or not, it's to let your audience know if THEY will enjoy it or not. I don't like call of duty, but if I'm reviewing it I'm sure as hell not going to let that dictate what my verdict on the game is. The only lockstep I see anyone pushing is for personal political beliefs to influence the verdict given to games.erttheking said:
So you're allowed to have an opinion of the game, you're just supposed to tell the audience what they want to hear instead of what you actually think? How is this a plus?Zontar said:
No. It's what people who dislike their criticism like to CLAIM they do. Have you a long list of games that were banned or removed from existence due to sexist elements criticized by prominent games journalists or critics? Neither do I.Ushiromiya Battler said:
And yet Fatal Frame continues to exist.Ushiromiya Battler said:
Which is fair criticism. People want LFR removed from World of Warcraft. That is also fair criticism. People wanted Mass Effect 3's ending changed. That was fair criticism.Ushiromiya Battler said:
Changing an element of a game =/= denying that game's right to exist. We change and campaign for changes to games all the time.
You're criticizing criticism right now!Ushiromiya Battler said:
Seriously though, people tend to be outspoken about the things they want and the things they dislike, and that is perfectly okay. It is consumer feedback. I've shouted for years about wanting more turn based strategy and less brown military shooters. That doesn't mean I'm a fevered ideologue trying to control the narrative and force my predilections down your throat. It means I'm a customer who knows what I want. I view yapping at Ubisoft to include a female avatar in Assasins Creed the EXACT same way I view yapping at Bethesda to make an RPG that doesn't require 7500 community patches to work properly. It is a statement of preference.
No...just...no. That is NOT what reviews are for. Reviews are NOT to tell you whether or not you're going to like a game. They are to provide you with information so you can make informed decisions about purchases. Part of that process is understanding a reviewer's POV so you can determine whether or not their experience will reflect yours.Zontar said:
How the fuck is a reviewer supposed to know if his "audience" is going to like a game, when that audience is composed of thousands of individuals, all with their own preferences, likes, quirks, distastes, etc? All they can do is tell you what their experience was like, and what they thought of it. The rest is up to you.
Reviews are always opinion pieces.Nikolaz72 said:
You can't speak to anything but the experience you are going to have. It's not objective, no form of critisism is ever objective. If I read a review of a resertaunt, It is a review of their experience, not necessarily the one I will have. They may mark off for gaudy atmosphere, but as long as that rational is in the review that's fine. It gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.
If I read a review of a movie, and the movie critic doesn't particularly like the wide use of panning shots, but clearly marks it in the review It still gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.
If a games journalist has his experience negatively impact because of the portrayal of wemon in a game, and clearly marks it in their review, then it still gives me the information I need in order to make a decision.
That's not corruption. That's reviewing.
There is no such existent thing as an objective review, unless someone is double checking your math homework. Then you've got some objective review.
Lively discussion on the nature of reviews, I like it. Personal opinion: Reviews are opinions by nature. The fact that there is often an arbitrary "score" at the end of it means nothing.
On that note, when did companies paying their developers based on Metacritic scores become the journalist's problem?
On that note, when did companies paying their developers based on Metacritic scores become the journalist's problem?
How did you get "tell your audience what they want to hear" out of "tell your audience weather or not they will like it"?erttheking said:
It's simple: you use examples of elements within the game to let your audience know if they'll like it or not. The best reviwers I can think of brake what they review down to its components, and even when it's something they admit to greatly disliking they say all the positive and negative elements of what makes the game mechanics work. If done right it will have the same review make one person say "you know what, that sounds like my type of game", while another will say "that's just not for me". The best ones will also end with examples of "if you like X and Y, you'll probably like this game as well".BloatedGuppy said:
When journalists band together to launch an attack against their audience (see the 12 'gamers are over' articles) it becomes quite relevant when you think about what they can do if they decide to destroy a developer's livelihood for 'reasons'.altnameJag said:
DISCLAIMER: I have no keyboard to write with so I'll number your quotes as it is easier.BloatedGuppy said:
1.
It did in fact happen to RapeLay and that one Rockstar game.
2. and 3.
I never said they're denying the game's right to exist.
What they're denying is certain elements of the game and developers can end up feeling pressured to change parts they don't want to.
It happened to the devs of Divinity Original Sin and it can happen to others.
It is paradoxical actually as I have no problems with changes that haven't been forced.
Because what fan wants to be told that the next call of duty game is bad? Also in fact, who gets to decide if an audience would like a game or not? Plenty of halo fans love Halo 4. And as a Halo fan, I think it's shit because the story is bad. Is that biased?Zontar said:
When I said "tell your audience if they'll like it or not", I didn't mean literally tell them "you will like it" or "you won't like it", I was speaking about telling them using descriptions of the game to let them figure it out on their own if they'll like it or not.erttheking said:
Really? I just revisited that thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862098-Thoughts-on-the-sexualization-of-the-new-Fatal-Frame?page=4], and couldn't find a single person saying developers shouldn't be allowed to implement it.Ushiromiya Battler said:
In the entire thread, the words 'allowed', 'remove', 'ban', and even 'shouldn't' were never said.
And the Tea Party sometimes trots out black supporters to prove how not racist they are.
... your point?
... your point?
uh... last I checked, no-one was interested in releasing rapelay outside of japan, O I don't think the controversy over it in the west 'stopped' it coming out here.Ushiromiya Battler said:
And which Rockstar game are you talking about? the only rockstar gamez I remember not coming out was the manhunt games in the UK, and that was more that the BBFC - the government certification body - refused to certify it due to content. That was a government body, not journalists.
How am I distorting anything? I simply described my interpretation of this phenomenon. Feel free to disagree with it if you want.redlemon said:
Not familiar with the Rockstar title you are referring to, but RapeLay kind of exists outside this argument. I am not actually sure if it is formally banned in the US, but if it is it's likely because it has been deemed as "obscene". Obscenity law is tricky, and implies that the work in question does not qualify as art and can only hurt those that consume it and the community that allows it to exist. Basically that means it is something explicitly not protected by the First Amendment.Ushiromiya Battler said: