People freak out over Gamespot GTA V review

[deloftie]

Grats, you also don't understand the game at all.

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS SATIRE, EVERYTHING. NOTHING IS EXEMPT FROM THAT.

That clear enough for you?

Please learn what the word "satire" means.

A display of sexism in a manner that highlights the flawed thinking of those who hold such sexists views is satire.

A display of sexism because sure isn't it funny, is not satire.

The developers of GTA 5 ALREADY KNOW THIS because they do actually do satire throughout the game, for example the talk shows on the radio satirise nutty right wing view points about things like immigration. Who is being targeted in with the "satire" of the display of women?

 

[shrekfan246]

@the one that posted the Youtube-Comments:

It's youtube. Be honest, did you expect anything BEYOND "Lets find out where she lives and rape her, because she rated this game ALMOST perfect!"? Youtube's Commentsection is as close as you can get to Internet-Hell.

Just as a point of note, the comments were just as bad at the actual written review over on Gamespot.

Honestly, I'm not buying criticism for a game that it's sexist (like Gamespot) or that you play as bad guys (Escapist).

I mean, sure, you don't have to like it, but it's the developers' story they want to tell.

Doesn't free them from criticism about how they executed it.

You're also oversimplifying the problems both reviewers had. In both cases, it wasn't the mere presence of "sexism and misogyny" or "playing as bad people", but rather, "sexism and misogyny" that didn't have any proper context within the game to establish that it wasn't actually sexist, or "playing as bad people" that didn't have any proper motivation to explain why they were bad people.

Not everyone will agree on these points, sure; Different people can get different interpretations of the same story. But the people who feel that way have every right to voice their opinions on the matter, just as you have every right to disagree with them--Ideally not by demanding they be fired, of course.

 

[carnex]

You're also oversimplifying the problems both reviewers had. In both cases, it wasn't the mere presence of "sexism and misogyny" or "playing as bad people", but rather, "sexism and misogyny" that didn't have any proper context within the game to establish that it wasn't actually sexist, or "playing as bad people" that didn't have any proper motivation to explain why they were bad people.

Let me put it this way

The good, the bad and the ugly is spagetti western by Sergio Leone. Out of three characters ine is smart and have higly questionable ethics, one is stupid and has even more questionabe ethic and third is perhaps the smartest of them all and is pure evil. None of them has much of a back story, if any, and they have no motivation beside greed. And yet it's considered to be one of the best westerns of all times, easily top 5.

 

[deloftie]

1) Review will always be subjective to some degree. Even if one should try to be objective, one can never remove itself from his opinion. From that side I can understand her statement.

2) On the other hand every single character or even a foot-note is on one level or another a joke and deprived human beeing. I never did play GTA4, but in all previous titles there were basically no character I wanted to be like. All of them are overblown caricatures of bat to horrible human beings. Men and Women. And given that, her complaint does not make any sense. It's a world where being decent human being means you don't even get a name, just a baseball bat to the face.

Could Rockstar have made one of three main protagonists female? Yes they could. But then again, would that decision serve them as company? I really don't think so.

The complaint isn't that the women characters are not nice characters. It is that they are not characters at all, they aren't developed characters in any sense. The writers have clearly spent a great deal of time developing the male characters, even if they are all horrible people, but no time developing the female characters beyond a small selection of cookie cutter "funny" archetypes.

I don't get why people find this so difficult to understand. If I played a Tomb Raider game as Lara where all the men in the story were just bumbling idiots and stereotypes who spouted a few words designed to make them look stupid before I went off to fight tigers I (and the vast majority of the Internet) would raise an eye brow and wonder what man hating feminazi pend this story. I wonder if the writer of such a game said "satire" over and over would that get her off the hook.

 

[shrekfan246]

You're also oversimplifying the problems both reviewers had. In both cases, it wasn't the mere presence of "sexism and misogyny" or "playing as bad people", but rather, "sexism and misogyny" that didn't have any proper context within the game to establish that it wasn't actually sexist, or "playing as bad people" that didn't have any proper motivation to explain why they were bad people.

Let me put it this way

The good, the bad and the ugly is spagetti western by Sergio Leone. Out of three characters ine is smart and have higly questionable ethics, one is stupid and has even more questionabe ethic and third is perhaps the smartest of them all and is pure evil. None of them has much of a back story, if any, and they have no motivation beside greed. And yet it's considered to be one of the best westerns of all times, easily top 5.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Much as games would love to be considered on the same playing field, they're not films. They shouldn't be judged the same way as films. They are narratives with similar length and potential depth as novels, and shouldn't squander that. A 90- or 120-minute story has very different priorities than a 20- or 30-hour one. In addition, the interactive nature of video games inherently makes the protagonists different than those in other entertainment mediums. We're not just viewing the actions these people do through some filter or camera, we're (usually) directly controlling them and have an immediate impact on the universe created around us. Conversely, as viewers we have no sway over the universe of a book or film.

A writer can justify an evil protagonist. But if they are looking to not have said protagonist criticized, they should attempt to justify why the protagonist is evil in the first pace. "It's the way the writer intended" does not protect something from being criticized. Even if it's a critical darling.

 

[carnex]

I don't get why people find this so difficult to understand. If I played a Tomb Raider game as Lara where all the men in the story were just bumbling idiots and stereotypes who spouted a few words designed to make them look stupid before I went off to fight tigers I (and the vast majority of the Internet) would raise an eye brow and wonder what man hating feminazi pend this story. I wonder if the writer of such a game said "satire" over and over would that get her off the hook.

She never made your point across. For all I knew there could have been several female characters that are cookie-cutter standard but still characters. Like that feminist or pychodelic wife. She never said othervise, just that they are that type of character.

And I wouldn't give two shits about that charaterization of men in Tomb Raider game. It's her game. If that's her world, that's her world. She still could be good character instead of terminator we got.

 

[carnex]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Much as games would love to be considered on the same playing field, they're not films. They shouldn't be judged the same way as films. They are narratives with similar length and potential depth as novels, and shouldn't squander that. A 90- or 120-minute story has very different priorities than a 20- or 30-hour one. In addition, the interactive nature of video games inherently makes the protagonists different than those in other entertainment mediums. We're not just viewing the actions these people do through some filter or camera, we're (usually) directly controlling them and have an immediate impact on the universe created around us. Conversely, as viewers we have no sway over the universe of a book or film.

A writer can justify an evil protagonist. But if they are looking to not have said protagonist criticized, they should attempt to justify why the protagonist is evil in the first pace. "It's the way the writer intended" does not protect something from being criticized. Even if it's a critical darling.

First off, it's GTA game. Game that took a name from legal name of certain criminal offense. Did you ever consider that you will play anything other than a criminal?
Other than that, no the do not have to explain why they are bad. All I needed to hear about background of characters I hear in the review. One is well-off middle-aged man who is bored with his stale family life and went on a crime spree. He pulled in his friend who is troubled individual and they made pact with a psycho. Reasons? Bored, manipulated, psycho. That is all you need. If you need more, use your imagination. I do, a lot.
It's funny that you comment on movie-games comparison. Because we are exactly where movies were in thirties. All "social justice and wisdom" of the world piled up on them and rules were set in that demanded that, among other things, every criminal has reasons for his actions and be punished in the end for them.

 

[shrekfan246]

First off, it's GTA game. Game that took a name from legal name of certain criminal offense. Did you ever consider that you will play anything other than a criminal?

You're missing the point.

A writer can justify an evil protagonist. But if they are looking to not have said protagonist criticized, they should attempt to justify why the protagonist is evil in the first pace.

Othe than that, no the do not have to explain why they are bad. All I needed to hear about background of characters I hear in the review. One is well-off middle-aged man who is bored with his stale family life and went on a crime spree. He pulled in his friend who is troubled individual and they made pact with a psycho. Resons? Bored, manipulated, pscyho. That is all you need. If you need more, use your imagination. I do, a lot.

That may be all you need. Don't assume everyone else will let it go just as easily. Perhaps some people like a little more characterization than "Oh, they're crazy and were feeling bored one day". Just because you have no problem with the writing of the characters doesn't automatically mean nobody else is allowed to take issue with it.

I'd just like to point out, I'm not specifically referring just to Grand Theft Auto here. I have no interest in the series, because sandbox games only really grab my attention when they're wacky and silly and I don't have to deal with "realistic" driving physics. I'm talking about video game writing as a whole; The author is permitted to write anything they want, but the critics are also perfectly entitled to criticize it if they don't feel enough was conveyed in a good enough manner.

 

[Zenn3k]

Grats, you also don't understand the game at all.

THE ENTIRE WORLD IS SATIRE, EVERYTHING. NOTHING IS EXEMPT FROM THAT.

That clear enough for you?

Please learn what the word "satire" means.

A display of sexism in a manner that highlights the flawed thinking of those who hold such sexists views is satire.

A display of sexism because sure isn't it funny, is not satire.

The developers of GTA 5 ALREADY KNOW THIS because they do actually do satire throughout the game, for example the talk shows on the radio satirise nutty right wing view points about things like immigration. Who is being targeted in with the "satire" of the display of women?

satire
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. See wit1.

Maybe YOU should learn what satire means, eh?

The only "sexism" in the game are the strippers/hookers, and those exist in real life...so its not sexist to re-create them in a the game.

And to answer your question, feminists.

 

[Yopaz]

Why are we still surprised by this?

Review scores will never please everyone. People will defend games they haven't played, people will argue that a game is getting too high scores even if they haven't played them.

We'll never see people happy.

 

[deloftie]

to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

And pray tell who's "stupidity or vices" are exposed and criticised by having all the women in GTA V be hookers, nagging wives or annoying feminists?

You appreciate you have to actually expose and criticise something for it to be satire. Simply putting sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever content into a game isn't satire unless it serves the purpose of exposing the sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever views held by some.

The only "sexism" in the game are the strippers/hookers, and those exist in real life...so its not sexist to re-create them in a the game.

Thank you for adequately demonstrating my point.

 

[carnex]

That may be all you need. Don't assume everyone else will let it go just as easily. Perhaps some people like a little more characterization than "Oh, they're crazy and were feeling bored one day". Just because you have no problem with the writing of the characters doesn't automatically mean nobody else is allowed to take issue with it.

I'd just like to point out, I'm not specifically referring just to Grand Theft Auto here. I have no interest in the series, because sandbox games only really grab my attention when they're wacky and silly and I don't have to deal with "realistic" driving physics. I'm talking about video game writing as a whole; The author is permitted to write anything they want, but the critics are also perfectly entitled to criticize it if they don't feel enough was conveyed in a good enough manner.

And we came to the heart of the problem. It's that you need reason for their actions, not that there is need for one. For me it's important to separate personal issues with object of critique from ojective problems.

 

[Zenn3k]

to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

And pray tell who's "stupidity or vices" are exposed and criticised by having all the women in GTA V be hookers, nagging wives or annoying feminists?

You appreciate you have to actually expose and criticise something for it to be satire. Simply putting sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever content into a game isn't satire unless it serves the purpose of exposing the sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever views held by some.

The only "sexism" in the game are the strippers/hookers, and those exist in real life...so its not sexist to re-create them in a the game.

Thank you for adequately demonstrating my point.

Its clear you haven't played the game at all yet. The first female character the game shows you, falls into NONE of those categories.

Instead of basing your entire opinion on a review that provided you no content outside of "I wanna be a women so bad I'm gonna be ultra feminists about it", maybe you should actually play the fucking game?

You have no point as far as I can see, your point so far...as best I can tell is "This reviewer said things, they must be true!!!" I'm done talking with you, you have no legs to stand on.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I have not played the game yet and probably wont until a pc version is released. That being said a 9/10 is still a great score. Who cares if its not a 10? What bothers me about the review is the reviewer feels the need to complain about misogyny. You are playing gta 5, a game that has gobs of violence, crime, racism and pretty much every other deplorable action humans can partake in. Why are all of those things no big deal but misogyny is worth complaining about? Feels pretty hypocritical if you ask me. Of course its a personal review and personal opinions are going to be a part of it. If you have a valid complaint about the review more power to you. If all that makes you mad is the game getting a 9 instead of a 10 you need to grow up. Now if the only reason the game got a 9 instead of a 10 from this reviewer is the "misogyny" then that could be a valid criticism. Critics should never be exempt from criticism.

 

[ERaptor]

I'm talking about video game writing as a whole; The author is permitted to write anything they want, but the critics are also perfectly entitled to criticize it if they don't feel enough was conveyed in a good enough manner.

Basically telling you that he/she isnt trying to prove you wrong on your opinion, but that everyone is entitled to voice their issues. Even if they arent issues in your book. At least that's what i got out of it.

And we came to the heart of the problem. It's that you need reason for their actions, not that there is need for one. For me it's important to separate personal issues with object of critique from ojective problems.

And here we go with Objectivity again. You cant just judge a game and ESPECIALLY its narrative _completely_ objective. Not even in a critique from the worlds most boring man. Not everyone goes into a sudden "murder / kill / burn" Crimespree when bored, thus some people may have an issue with somebody displaying a Character that just does that. On the other hand, you could say that this was also meant to be funny. "Lol, they are bored and went apesh*t". That alone is a subjective thing, everyone will see it differently. You cant just run around saying there is no need for a reason, when thats not the case for all people. Going by that, they could've potrayed the whole thing without a reason for them to go on a crimespree at all. "Fu*k it, they wanted to." Ofc, that may be an adequate reason for a complete nutjob, but it wont earn you Trophies for deep Storytelling. And the same goes for "Middle aged man being bored and turning into Scarface." pretty much all you said, that included "They dont have to explain/ do xy" can be turned around. Yes, they didnt have to. But that also means they have to deal with the people that didnt like that decision.

The whole "What is Sexist and what isnt"-debate on the other hand, as the two other Gentlemen (Or...Gentleladies *ahem*) are demonstrating, is another interesting issue. Only it's not about standards, its about the definition of the current word of the year "sexism". And just as the above, you could spend hours debating it. And they probably will. Im actually waiting for someone to join in on the "Let's quote dictionarys!"-Game and start posting 50 different interpretations of satire, irony or "Are Hookers sexist?

 

[Thr33X]

SNIP

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Game reviews can be objective and to prove my point here's Game Informer's review of the one of the hotbeds of gaming controversy the last few months, Dragon's Crown.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragons_crown/b/ps3/archive/2013/08/06/a-massive-adventure-fueled-by-nostalgia.aspx

Not once in the review is personal preference even brought up, nor do you see the any of the keywords that incite internet rage nowadays. It's clear and to to the point- here's the good about this game/here's the bad about this game/here's why you should or should not play this game.

Furthermore, their print review of the game gives mention of the art style ONCE...at the end of the article, and in doing so merely states that it might be off-putting for some. No long winded diatribes about sexualization, tropes, misogyny or anything else of the sort that you see almost everywhere else. That's textbook objectivity for you, and personally why GI is the only major game news source I ever pay attention to.

So by your definition reviews are subjective, but by proper definition they should be, and as GI proves time and again, they CAN be objective.

The review you linked to is full of the reviewers comments on how much he loved aspects of the game and how much fun it was. How is that "not once in the review is personal preference even brought up"?

If a reviewer is allowed comment on how much he, for example, loved a core game play mechanic, why is he not allowed comment on how he didn't enjoy elements of the story?

I never said that not report on faults in the core of a game's design, be they front end, story or otherwise shouldn't be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed is social commentary. As a reporter, which is essence a game reviewer is in a sense, they're job is to report. I remember a couple of years ago Bob Costas had made a commentary at halftime of a football game about gun violence the week after a player committed suicide. He got a social media backlash because his commentary and views, personal as they may be, had no place being said in the context of where it was said. It isn't an op/ed page, it's a sports broadcast...similarly in this case it's a game review. It's not very difficult to keep things in the perspective of what they're supposed to cover.

 

[Weaver]

This is what happens when your fanbase is comprised of angry teenagers who think they're all "straight thuggin'".
Yes this statement is hyperbolic.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Humans are the dumbest species on Earth. We don't even understand a very symple system that we made.

90% is horrible to them. Then maybe they're just mentally inable idiots who think that genuinely lowering a game's score because of the degredation of womens' portrayal is a horrible thing? Yes. They are.

 

[porous_shield]

SNIP

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Game reviews can be objective and to prove my point here's Game Informer's review of the one of the hotbeds of gaming controversy the last few months, Dragon's Crown.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragons_crown/b/ps3/archive/2013/08/06/a-massive-adventure-fueled-by-nostalgia.aspx

Not once in the review is personal preference even brought up, nor do you see the any of the keywords that incite internet rage nowadays. It's clear and to to the point- here's the good about this game/here's the bad about this game/here's why you should or should not play this game.

Furthermore, their print review of the game gives mention of the art style ONCE...at the end of the article, and in doing so merely states that it might be off-putting for some. No long winded diatribes about sexualization, tropes, misogyny or anything else of the sort that you see almost everywhere else. That's textbook objectivity for you, and personally why GI is the only major game news source I ever pay attention to.

So by your definition reviews are subjective, but by proper definition they should be, and as GI proves time and again, they CAN be objective.

The review you linked to is full of the reviewers comments on how much he loved aspects of the game and how much fun it was. How is that "not once in the review is personal preference even brought up"?

If a reviewer is allowed comment on how much he, for example, loved a core game play mechanic, why is he not allowed comment on how he didn't enjoy elements of the story?

I never said that not report on faults in the core of a game's design, be they front end, story or otherwise shouldn't be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed is social commentary. As a reporter, which is essence a game reviewer is in a sense, they're job is to report. I remember a couple of years ago Bob Costas had made a commentary at halftime of a football game about gun violence the week after a player committed suicide. He got a social media backlash because his commentary and views, personal as they may be, had no place being said in the context of where it was said. It isn't an op/ed page, it's a sports broadcast...similarly in this case it's a game review. It's not very difficult to keep things in the perspective of what they're supposed to cover.

But not including social commentary does not make a review objective. The review you linked to didn't include social commentary but it was still was far from objective. Even that "objective" review posted by Jim on Destructoid was subjective because he made choices about what elements some people may like and others don't.

I agree with you though that social commentary shouldn't just be shoehorned into things.