The Big Picture: Baggage

[Something Amyss]

Honestly? I wonder how many people this sort of criticism reaches. Because it seems like even mentioning race/gender/sexuality/politics in gaming causes people to dig their heels in. Without taking any harsh stances. To use the Anita Sarkeesian example, they've turned a rather bland, generic retellings of tropes from a woman who may or may not be lazy in her tellings into a series of polemics from a radical feminazi.

Is anyone being taught by Sarkeesian? The only people I see being receptive to her are ones who were already receptive. And fuck, I can't catch a break. I get yelled at for being a radical feminist who thinks Anita can do no wrong on the occasions when I'm supportive, and called a misogynist on occasions when I do disagree with her by some fringe asshats who are what the Anti-Anita crowd thyinks is the entire base of people who don't immediately wish to burn her at the stake.

And honestly, this has become more the norm in society in general. By the time I was a teen we had Fox News, which (regardless of its specific politics) set the norm that those who screamed the loudest were the winners of an argument. That people who disagree with you are TEH BIAS. that there are always two sides, and only two sides: with us or against us. People started adopting this model of criticism, and it probably didn't take much pushing. And especially not in the generally insecure, often perceived as childish world of nerds.

So I'm not sure. Is Anita really exposing anyone? More locally, what about Critical Miss? Grey writes generally funny critiques, but if it says something someone doesn't agree with, they tend to dig their heels in and complain about the author, or try and invalidate it for nto telling them what they want to hear. Same with Bob himself. I don't always agree with Bob's arguments but I don't think that invalidates him or his points automatically. It's why I love The Big Picture, even if his movie reviews aren't for me (generally). But I'm already "on his side" more often than not, so....

also, if I might touch on something else, the "Just the facts" argument only applies if we like the subject despite criticism. If the game/movie is technically inferior but we still like it, it's the exact opposite.

Well, not me specifically. I don't believe in "just the facts" reviews period.

In this episode: Bob describes the history behind how CoD keeps getting good reviews.

Okay, that was brilliant.

 

[Kingjackl]

Okay, this is possibly one of the best and most comprehensive videos he's ever done, and that's saying something. Well done Bob, well done.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'm pretty much disagree completely. Thrusting stuff into the review that doesn't belong there isn't mature at all. It isn't a question of thinking about things from a different perspective, as much as forcing a certain perspective on to something. Ender's Game made no attempt to have an opinion on the issues Card himself has associated with. In my opinion, boycotting because of Card's stance is just being butthurt. In the end though, I respect people's right to not see or see whatever they want. It's their opinion; they can have theirs as long as I can have mine.

Let's use a very very extreme example here. If, say, Hitler were to make a film. And say it was the most fantastic film ever, that had absolutely nothing to do with killing jews or taking over the world or oppression or anything bad. BUT, all the money that Hitler made off this film, he then used to help fund the holocaust. Would you buy a ticket to go see this film? Would you help fund the holocaust under the justification that 'well, the movie doesn't promote genocide or anyway or have anything to do with it, so to boycott the film because of the beliefs of Hitler is just being butthurt'. Is that a thing you would say?

Now, like I said, that is a very extreme example. Card is not as bad as Hitler (though he IS really bad). But it's a similar situation. Card has very anti-homosexual beliefs, and if you support the movie, you are in a way funding him and contributing to his success. And considering his beliefs, he is likely to use that success and those funds to help promote his bigoted views. And maybe you don't care, but a lot of people don't want to contribute to that in any way.

I guess I could ask you the same question about the kinds of clothes you buy-considering how those who make said clothes have to work- or I could ask you the same question in regards to whether you choose to by an Apple product- considering how treats their workers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Poor_working_conditionsFoxconn(the company that makes those products]?

Better yet, I could ask you if think that NASA needs to mention every time they sent a person to space, that their rocket technology comes from the work and ideas of a Nazi scientist?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I love this video. My friends keep telling me to "get over myself" when I say I'm not going to watch or read an Orson Scott Card work (for personal reasons, not even that I want to - or can - hurt the man financially or anything) and I keep coming up at a loss when I desperately try to make them understand that I boycott this stuff because of my bias towards him and his views and his actions, and who the hell are you to invalidate that bias? I'm glad to be legitimized, Bob, so, thankyou.

Also: I fucking loved the flashes to TV's Frank when you said "frank". Good gag.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

That's called giving an example. You know when you criticise a movie for doing something badly, then show a clip from another movie where they did the same thing much better. For example in the first prequel they point out that there's no clear protagonist and we know every little about the characters, unlike "A New Hope" where Luke was clearly the protagonist and we know a lot about his life.

They also do this to show plot inconsistencies, such as highlighting that in "A New Hope" Obi Wan describes Anakin as a good friend, yet in the prequels they never act like friends.

Comparing and contrasting one movie to another movie is a standard way to review them. Especially when showing how a series has declined.

Okay... with your example, if I watched the prequels only and never watched the Original series, could I give an objective review of the prequels? Or suppose, I watched the prequels first then watched the originals but found that the prequels depiction fit the flow from prequel to original then Obi Wans "good friends" line? Does that mean I'm objectively wrong? Is chronological release more important then chronological sequence?

The problems they had with the prequels were:
- Lack of a coherent plot.
- Poor decisions by character.
- Boring characters.
- Inconsistent characters.
- Poorly implemented romances.
- Characters who just happen to know things.

All of which are objective problems, not subjective ones. The fact that they compared one film to another film to highlight just how bad these things were doesn't magically make them subjective.

I've already addressed this and said that they used objective analyses to break down aspects of the plot.
But:
-What is an objectively boring character? Do we consider demographics when we make this call? Suppose we are talking about young teens and preteens. If they enjoy those characters are they objectively wrong for doing so?

-A character can make an objectively bad decision and it be completely intentional on the part of the creator. Obi Wan, while completely off character, jumped at the drone due to time constraints and desperation (something more befitting of anakin). The literal decision to jump was bad, the narrative use for it isn't, the character scripted to do it was a poor fit.

-Characters who just so happen to know things are cheap narrative tricks to push the plot forward. They aren't objectively good or bad, but can be used poorly. Oracles, Seers, Psychics, Diviners, wise hobos etc. are all popular figures in fantasy and all "just so happen to know things". By design they exist solely to give a character necessary information to push the plot forward. In star wars, if your referring the the big cockroach in the diner, he is meant to be someone with experience, that we know little of, which is why Obi Wan values his judgement. While it is a cheap plot device, and in this case poorly executed, it isn't objectively bad just because "he knows things" (unless you think that trope is bad in general... which isn't objective).

The TNG movies were made using the original cast for fans of TNG, so the characters in the movies shouldn't be acting in the opposite way they acted in the show. Criticising a movie because it turns a peaceful character into a genocidal one isn't a subjective criticism, because it's not based on feelings or emotions. It's an objective criticism because there's clear evidence that a character is behaving inconsistently.

Again the question of order matters. If I watched the films first, am I objectively wrong for liking that Picard over the Series Picard?

What are you talking about? If a character differs between the movie and the TV show pointing this out is an objective criticism because it's based on facts. If you prefer Picard from the movies or the TV show this is your subjective preference. You seem to be confusing objective reasoning with subjective preferences.

Again whether this is a problem or not depends on whether you value one over the other. Yes, objectively they did change, no it isn't objectively bad if it works for the movie. It's objectively bad for continuity, but when reviewing a film are we reviewing continuity of an entire series or are we reviewing the film on its own?

For something to be unambiguously subjective it can't have any objective parts, it has to be entirely subjective.

Also here's a list of criticisms Plinkett had with the Star Wars prequels, would you mind explaining how the criticism of any of these things is subjective. Remember it's only subjective if it's based on emotions or feelings, rather than evidence.

- Lack of a coherent plot.
- Poor decisions by character.
- Boring characters.
- Inconsistent characters.
- Poorly implemented romances.
- Characters who just happen to know things.

Ehh, I don't think that's how it works. Objectivity is spoiled by subjectivity, not the other way around. A statement can be entirely subjective whilst still containing objective points (facts or statistics, manipulated to push ones own agenda). Something CAN'T be objective whilst containing subjective elements. How on earth did you rationalise that?

- Depends on how anal you are about coherency. Subsequent viewings of the movies makes me see the flaws in the narrative more and more, but I never got lost watching them.
- Same as start wars. The fact they make poor decisions isn't bad if it's written in as such into the narrative. It's whether it makes narrative sense or fits character. TNG films have some awful moments though.
- What's an objectively boring character?
- Talked about this above.
- Oracles, Seers, Psychics and Wise Hobos. TNG wasn't reluctant to use ass pull to resovle its more conoluted plot lines, doesn't make the episodes less engaging.

The question is why do these things impact the movies so much, where in the series they aren't as criticised? The series is rife with terrible romances (one or two good ones though), boring characters (wesley), poor decisions (anyhting worf does outside of his own plot centred episodes) etc.

It's irrelevant whether it's a review or an analysis. The fact is that it can be done objectively.

Eh, it is relevant. First off, you are the one who posted the guy videos and secondly, Reviews and analyses are 2 different things... they aren't interchangeable (but aren't mutually exclusive either). Slapping a review label over an analyses does not make it a review, it makes it a mislabelled analyses.

A review will tell me whether I might like it or not, an Analyses will tell me if something functions as intended or not. An Analyses of a movie might say that it had problems, but if I liked it and reviewed the movie I will likely say why I liked it. Can I be objectively wrong for liking something.

Look, in Theory a review can be objective, but in practice it just isn't possible nor is it even desired. Bob wants to talk good about stuff he likes and bad about stuff he doesn't. ERMAGERD HE'S A BIASED REVIEWER WHO'S JOB IS TO TELL US WHAT HE liked or disliked about a film... err?

Objectivity requires more then just consuming the source material then cranking out a thesis. You need a repertoire of knowledge (which requires immense amounts of time researching) and a good analytic method (there is no one right way to review something) and metric (there is no standard for games, movies, music) to attain an objective evaluation. The most revered reviewers, papers, publishers, wise hobos, bloggers, vloggers and journalists will always give their OPINION, when talking about something as subjectively valued as art, film, music or games.

Objective reviews are a pipe dream.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I'm pretty much disagree completely. Thrusting stuff into the review that doesn't belong there isn't mature at all. It isn't a question of thinking about things from a different perspective, as much as forcing a certain perspective on to something. Ender's Game made no attempt to have an opinion on the issues Card himself has associated with. In my opinion, boycotting because of Card's stance is just being butthurt. In the end though, I respect people's right to not see or see whatever they want. It's their opinion; they can have theirs as long as I can have mine.

Let's use a very very extreme example here. If, say, Hitler were to make a film. And say it was the most fantastic film ever, that had absolutely nothing to do with killing jews or taking over the world or oppression or anything bad. BUT, all the money that Hitler made off this film, he then used to help fund the holocaust. Would you buy a ticket to go see this film? Would you help fund the holocaust under the justification that 'well, the movie doesn't promote genocide or anyway or have anything to do with it, so to boycott the film because of the beliefs of Hitler is just being butthurt'. Is that a thing you would say?

Now, like I said, that is a very extreme example. Card is not as bad as Hitler (though he IS really bad). But it's a similar situation. Card has very anti-homosexual beliefs, and if you support the movie, you are in a way funding him and contributing to his success. And considering his beliefs, he is likely to use that success and those funds to help promote his bigoted views. And maybe you don't care, but a lot of people don't want to contribute to that in any way.

I guess I could ask you the same question about the kinds of clothes you buy-considering how those who make said clothes have to work- or I could ask you the same question in regards to whether you choose to by an Apple product- considering how treats their workers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Poor_working_conditionsFoxconn(the company that makes those products]?

Better yet, I could ask you if think that NASA needs to mention every time they sent a person to space, that their rocket technology comes from the work and ideas of a Nazi scientist?

Well, I mean, there's a personal threshold... everything we touch and use in some way goes back to someone's suffering or loss, most war-age technology is what drives the very computers we use and vehicles we drive. But some stuff is closer - or perceived as closer - to us than other things. If you're gay, and struggling with rights movements, Orscon Scott Card will seem (and rightly so) like the bigger bad than the sweatshops. If you're black, casual racism will probably seem closer. If you're a Jew, Nazi-era holdovers might be offensive. We all have bias and we all have things that cross that bias. Bob's point here is that personal bias, position in society, and so on, influences both the creation and viewing of media; to ignore it in critique is to be dishonest.

It is true that it can be petty, but that's the thing about subjective perspective - what may be petty to you, may mean the world to someone else, and vice versa. To put a lid on it would be to stifle intelligent discourse.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Wow, I had no idea the critiquing of media had such a deep origin. Count me among those who just thought it was always about giving consumers a yay or nay about consuming a piece of media. That was quite informative.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

What's annoying is Bob doesn't seem to understand that it's not really the "criticism" of Card, or anything else for that matter, but how he tosses in little snipes here and there like he is some sort of authority on anything.

Example given is that the feedback being more centered on the preface about Card (in which a minute or more was spent doing nothing but pontificating in derogatory fashion a person which Bob has never met) was met with Bob's opinion that those doing the "feedbacking" were a bunch of fat basement dwelling trolls.

No Bob, maybe some of us just thought you were out of bounds, don't believe you are the penultimate authority on all things pop culture (or any other culture) and thought maybe you should just stick to the fucking movie reviews instead of bashing the creator of such works in ways that are irrelevant to the work itself.

That's all...

 

[Gizen]

I'm pretty much disagree completely. Thrusting stuff into the review that doesn't belong there isn't mature at all. It isn't a question of thinking about things from a different perspective, as much as forcing a certain perspective on to something. Ender's Game made no attempt to have an opinion on the issues Card himself has associated with. In my opinion, boycotting because of Card's stance is just being butthurt. In the end though, I respect people's right to not see or see whatever they want. It's their opinion; they can have theirs as long as I can have mine.

Let's use a very very extreme example here. If, say, Hitler were to make a film. And say it was the most fantastic film ever, that had absolutely nothing to do with killing jews or taking over the world or oppression or anything bad. BUT, all the money that Hitler made off this film, he then used to help fund the holocaust. Would you buy a ticket to go see this film? Would you help fund the holocaust under the justification that 'well, the movie doesn't promote genocide or anyway or have anything to do with it, so to boycott the film because of the beliefs of Hitler is just being butthurt'. Is that a thing you would say?

Now, like I said, that is a very extreme example. Card is not as bad as Hitler (though he IS really bad). But it's a similar situation. Card has very anti-homosexual beliefs, and if you support the movie, you are in a way funding him and contributing to his success. And considering his beliefs, he is likely to use that success and those funds to help promote his bigoted views. And maybe you don't care, but a lot of people don't want to contribute to that in any way.

I guess I could ask you the same question about the kinds of clothes you buy-considering how those who make said clothes have to work- or I could ask you the same question in regards to whether you choose to by an Apple product- considering how treats their workers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Poor_working_conditionsFoxconn(the company that makes those products]?

Better yet, I could ask you if think that NASA needs to mention every time they sent a person to space, that their rocket technology comes from the work and ideas of a Nazi scientist?

I don't buy clothes. I think I bought a t-shirt once, that's about it. I've gotten by my whole life wearing only the clothes I receive as gifts for my birthday/christmas. I also do not own a single Apple product either and go out of my way to buy alternatives or to just go without. That said, I get your point, but it seems to be agreeing with me? Apple and clothing companies are just as valid boycott targets as a film if you happen to disagree with the way they do things. In fact, boycotts are probably the most effective way to make your voice heard by companies, because if enough people do it, and it affects their bottom line enough that it costs them money, they're more liable to change their ways.

As for the NASA thing, that's actually a completely different issue, mainly because the nazis are long gone and using their technology no longer provides them with support in any way, whereas Card is still around and actually benefits from people paying to see a film about his work.

 

[Ferisar]

By "grew up" he means "My opinion changed", but he wont phrase it that way because he's a hypocrite.

Growing up often has that effect on people. It involves changing opinions and having a broader world-view.

The fucking hypocrites. Why can't they say one thing, and never change their stance for the rest of their lives to be totally consistent FOREVER

Human beings, how do they work?

OT:
Interesting stuff. Glad that even mentioning Sarkeesian got all the guard-dogs on alert again like they've been trained for it.

 

[RTR]

This is an easy contender for one of the Top 10 best BPs ever.

 

[wulf3n]

By "grew up" he means "My opinion changed", but he wont phrase it that way because he's a hypocrite.

Growing up often has that effect on people. It involves changing opinions and having a broader world-view.

The fucking hypocrites. Why can't they say one thing, and never change their stance for the rest of their lives to be totally consistent FOREVER

I believe the hypocrisy comes from equating "changing opinions" with maturity and the notion that he "grew up" as a result, a somewhat childish notion.

 

[The Ubermensch]

A) There should be a line, or you should be able to segregate thematic elements from the narrative, score, acting etcetera. You fail to do this a lot and lean heavily on your bias too much.

B) Any argument you make is undermined by the mentioning of whats her face (Hurray, I forgot her name). What's-her-face just did the whole tropes vs women thing. It shows when she talks about Zelda and fails to mention the changing of her role in the Zelda narratives. She's also admitted in her lectures that she doesn't play games (I have a video that I can't be bothered to find).

We get what you're saying Bob, but sometimes YOU take subjectivity too far, and YOU forget that the movements you support, like feminism and LGBT all have the same Saint to Scum ratio as all the others.

Well, maybe not evangelicals...

 

[Saltyk]

I think there is a healthy middle ground to be had. I think that in the example of Ender's Game, we should talk about the movie and anything that is relevant to the movie itself. That should be the focus. But mentioning the controversy of the author or originally penned the book isn't taboo. It just shouldn't be the whole point of the review.

When it comes to games, I want you to tell me if the game is good. But telling me about something a little odd, like the African village in RE5, shouldn't be frowned upon. It should be mentioned.

Yes, I do think there is a healthy middle ground we can reach. And those who want to focus on one aspect, I'm free to ignore if I desire.

As for the old white man comment, that reminds me of a joke I always made about critical reviews of movies in years past.
"I only care to know if a critic loves or hates the movie. If they loved it, I will hate it. If they hated it, I will love it."

 

[hentropy]

What about the reviewer who gave Dragon Crown a bad score because they didn't like how some character looked. They didn't go into any detail as to how exactly this ruined Dragon Crown.

Do you mind providing a link? Most of the reviews around Dragon's Crown were glowing- some people just pointed out that the booby witch was ridiculous. Personally I don't think it's something sexist, but it was ridiculous and I can see how it may had detracted from the game for some people.

The fact that sexism and racism existed in the past doesn't mean it exists today.

You're missing the point; 1869 was the year blacks were given the right to vote, and in the years prior they were also freed and made citizens. They had all the same legal rights under federal law at the time, but racism was still very common. The point being that just because women can vote and go to college doesn't mean sexism no longer exists. It's always been a cultural thing, and culture tends to inform politics.

I have no problems if a reviewer is able to provide clear reasons why they don't like a game. I do object when they provide little or no reason why they dislike a game, then claim that because they don't like this game that everyone else should dislike it.

Again, waiting on some kind of example of what you're talking about. I've never heard a critic say "you should dislike this game" in a serious tone, just "I disliked it". You seem to have this persecution complex, "they're forcing their opinions on me" or "trying to make me believe things". No, there's a difference between that and someone simply stating their opinion, which should never be discouraged in and of itself. If you don't think the critic is very good, no one is forcing you to read any further reviews from them. It's really that simple.

How exactly is the way women are treated in games affecting anything in real life? I doubt that because there are damsels in distress in video games that men will believe that all women need to be protected from monsters or that they'll be able to fight said monsters.

The issue is when it is ubiquitous and uniform and theme. If every character in TV, movies, video games, and other entertainment are helpless, dumb, emotional, irrational, weak, overly-dramatic, incompetent, incapable, and obsessed with what guys around her thinks, then that perpetuates negative stereotypes. While that may not affect an adult, it may very well affect children, and grow up seeing the girls and women around them in such terms.

It just sort of seems like instead of real debate, you're advocating that people just stick their fingers in their ears and refuse any political or social idea that is not their own, which is never good.

 

[Mahoshonen]

I got three big issues with the idea that reviews of 'art' should be without context of controversy or politics:

1. There really is no way to define what's off topic and what's not. Is there some act or belief you find appalling? Spend an hour on the internet and you'll find someone and his friends ready to defend it. If they make a film glorifying it ("GOD LOVES BABY RAPE!") then are we forbidden from saying that it's fucked up?

2. Designating certain criticism as unallowed can serve as a shield from any criticism. Imagine if Movie Bob did his review of Ender's Game without at all addressing the controversy surrounding Orson Scott Card. Imagine if all he did was post his review saying the movie wasn't good. Do you think that the subsequent forum would be devoid of discussion of Bob's personal beliefs? Personally, I doubt it. The same folks that disliked Bob for openly interjecting the controversy into the review would instead say that the real reason he dislikes the film is because of the creator's political stances.

3. The lack of a political statement can itself be a statement. Let's face it: you'd have to be pretty deaf to not have heard about the criticism regarding Card. So if Bob had left out any mention of the controversy and instead recommended the film, then many of the posters here would rightly wonder if Bob doesn't in fact support Card's viewpoint. The fact that it would contradict his other stances would only reinforce suspicions that he's insincere about his beliefs ("equality for all!-except them, they're icky!")

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Well, I mean, there's a personal threshold... everything we touch and use in some way goes back to someone's suffering or loss, most war-age technology is what drives the very computers we use and vehicles we drive. But some stuff is closer - or perceived as closer - to us than other things. If you're gay, and struggling with rights movements, Orscon Scott Card will seem (and rightly so) like the bigger bad than the sweatshops. If you're black, casual racism will probably seem closer. If you're a Jew, Nazi-era holdovers might be offensive. We all have bias and we all have things that cross that bias. Bob's point here is that personal bias, position in society, and so on, influences both the creation and viewing of media; to ignore it in critique is to be dishonest.

It is true that it can be petty, but that's the thing about subjective perspective - what may be petty to you, may mean the world to someone else, and vice versa. To put a lid on it would be to stifle intelligent discourse.

I have to say, IMO it strikes me as a horrible example of "first-world-problem" for people to say that not getting special tax and hospital visitation benefits(i.e. gay marriage) is of more importance than a company who works their employees so much that there is massive suicide and the company has nets put around the edges of all their building [http://www.dailytech.com/Foxconn+Installs+AntiSuicide+Nets+at+Its+Facilities/article18877.htm] because so many people would rather kill themselves than work another day in horrible conditions [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html](i.e. Apple products/Foxconn).

This isn't to say that people can't care about more than one thing at a time, just that if you are going to ignore an issue, it would seem like slavish working conditions causing mass suicide would be of greater signifigance than changes in tax benefits/hospital visitation rules for a select few people.

 

[1337mokro]

Feminist theory: "Promote women's rights and blame the patriarchy for any inequality that exists."

There we go the entire theory in one sentence. We did not need a video series with a subtext of feminist theory so subtle that it slaps you in the face the first minute in.

That aside I have always looked for opinions on movies. Never for objective reviews or artificial recommendations. I tend to gravitate towards people that have similar tastes to me and with the advent of youtube this is easier than ever. So there really is only a small circle of critics that I usually consult on whether a movie is good or bad.

Critic A through D liked it. Critic E and F though... they hated it. Usually when E hates a movie I also hate it, but both A and B recommended it and it does sound interesting. Let's go see it!

The best critique is an opinion because here little preferences and dislikes can shine through and you get a far better idea for what you are in for. For example Prometheus, stupidest movie of 2012, I was warned by critic C who usually goes off on the smaller details but was roped in by friends to still see it. Everything critic C mentioned bugged the living shit out of me and more.

Had it been just a dry by the numbers review I would have probably voluntarily gone to see that shitpile and leave the theatre pissed off rather than getting exactly what I expected.