The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review

[Scootinfroodie]

As much as I have grown wary of "official" scores, user scores are just useless jungle noises. The volume of 10/10 and 1/10 alone would be evidence that something was wrong. That most turn up the day the game hits the market is just icing on the cake. We talk about "professionals" being unable to divorce their bias from their review...users are functionally worthless at it. You have to mine really hard to find jewels amongst the turd. But, as I said, even score bombers and plumpers can have SOME value. Someone reading day one score bombing of, say, SimCity, would at least get informed as to some of the design elements that inflamed the audience, if not having any actual idea how they impacted game play.

They are useless to the extent that they tend to be reactionary, but the reaction doesn't come from nowhere. Additionally, it's very easy to filter out the one-line 10's and 0's and look at what is left over. It's a bit like looking through the steam reviews of a product after getting a cursory glance at the "general reception" score

I will tentatively say "that's fair" (although you know I don't believe "Feminism" to follow any particular political doctrine) whilst at the same time say "You have identified a gap in the marketplace and a potential opportunity". Gamer Gate could easily put some time and energy into starting their own website. With hookers, and blackjack. Unlike the calls for game critics to "make their own games", running a website and writing copy is a significantly less taxing and skill-specific endeavor. Indeed, depending on how ambitious one wanted to be, it could be argued that "anyone could do it".

There are sites that have been started by gamergate sympathizers and advocates, as well as sites promoted by the same groups. They're currently on the GG whitelist

I *do* feel that the review was about the game, though. You can argue it was overly focused on one element, but it was an element that stood out to THAT reviewer. A bad score can't be viewed as wrong, even if it becomes an outlier or runs against common sentiment. A game's tone is still very relevant to the experience of playing it, and if a reviewer hated it I want them to be honest with me about that.

It's not about the score being "wrong" it's about the review being appropriately informative for the audience. A 6.5 in modern journo conveyance is a suggestion that the game is borderline unplayable. Is this solely because of what the reviewer (somewhat ignorantly) decided the game was about? Will the audience recognize that this is a case of the reviewer not understanding the franchise when they themselves probably don't know much about it either?

As you've stated below, the review was pretty short. The other issue is that a large portion of that is dedicated to "muh game feels" and those seem to trump both what the game is actually saying and the reality of what it is depicting. This is both a missed opportunity to truly explore the mechanics of the game, and, potentially in a follow-up piece, a chance to garner interest in and educate people on the real world parallels of the island nation in Tropico

My major issue with that review was how short it was, really. I've generally started moving away from written reviews to Let's Plays and demonstrations for the specific reason that review length tends to be truncated and the amount of information available tends to be a bit short-changed as a result. It's possible I'm slowly turning into a reader who would PREFER a biased view of a game just because it gives me an article I consider worth reading, and a viewpoint I couldn't get from just watching the game in action.

I am similarly being driven away from many reviewers, but moreso because of a lack of respect for and experience with the material and its origins. I don't think either of us are alone in our outlook either, and I suspect there's a few things these writers could do to bring back a number of their deserting readers.

Game criticism has been migrating from written form to YouTube and Twitch and their like for a while now. I expect that migration to continue.

I agree to an extent. I still feel, however, that there's space for written work on gaming and that there's still untapped potential for well-thought out written work. The issue is that we aren't going to get that kind of work on the scale we ought to if talented writers are being utilized for clickbait and given elevated status and praise for following a mainstream clickbait narrative. These things are perfectly capable of existing insofar as there's nothing illegal about them, but I do consider a campaign to inform people of the kind of content they're reading to be worth putting some amount of effort into

But then how do you distinguish between Skyrim and Dear Esther?!

I kid. I kid the Skyrim.

On a personal level, I manage because Skyrim is in my hidden folder

It's a pity, because I'm of the mind that the industry needs more "Gone Homes". Not more games about lesbians running away from home, per se, but more games straining at the calcified notions of what "games" are supposed to be. They won't all be winners but the medium will only grow through experimentation.

I don't think there's going to be an end to software like Gone Home, Dear Esther and the innumerable Twine projects that are out there
I do, however, think that they're probably not going to find as large an audience

Part of the growing pains when a hobbyist press wants to put on the Big Boy pants and participate in Serious Journalism, I guess.

Sure, but it's interesting to see how the rhetoric has changed since the Jack Thompson saga. Check out some of the articles on Hatred. All this mention of 'murder simulation' and moral outrage could bring a tear to the eye of a disbarred lawyer and media violence crusader.