The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review

[Scootinfroodie]

Split the post in two. If that's an issue I can take this portion to PM's, however I felt that productive discussion was being had here

Yes and no. There is definitely room and an audience for "expert opinions" and deep analysis. But there are also people who play and enjoy games casually, and may prefer a more surface analysis. Reviews shouldn't necessarily be rated by the degree to which they appeal to grognards.

There's, once again, a middle ground here
A game like Godhand, Quake or (insert fighting game here), isn't going to be appropriately conveyed by surface level analysis by someone whose total sum of experience is playing sorta-similar games purely for review purposes. While it's important to note the learning curve (one that some would consider a barrier to entry) it does the audience no good to only hear of that, and to hear of it every time. The solution to this could be reviews by multiple individuals, a specific section of each review dedicated to one or the other, etc.
The problem is that there are very few expert opinions currently (MoreThanMashing on GyP is one of the few that I've found outside of fansites like Shoryuken and ESReality). As someone who has recently attempted to branch out into more skill/gameplay focused titles, it is immensely frustrating that most games analysis is the equivalent of asking a dude on the street what he thought of (insert movie here) when it comes to asking about the core feature of the medium.

No shit. That's not what reviews are for. "Good" is not an objective assessment, and cannot be determined by a metric. I see this crop up a lot. "XX game got 9/10...I played it, and it wasn't good. That was a terrible review!"

What's being said (or at least what I got out of it) is that the review isn't even touching on the subject matter that would inform them of the game's potential quality. If I wanna get a game like Mario, and the whole review centers around split screen, graphics, and an in depth analysis of the game from the perspective of a radical PETA member, I wont know if the game is actually worth *playing*
RPS continues to be an excellent example of this. If I didn't already have Skullgirls, I would not have known what to make of it after reading the review in question. If I hadn't seen the fact that the game was more than tutorials, boobs and short stories, I might think that was where the experience ended (outside of getting wrecked in MP of course).

That said, I think games with strong narrative content merit praise. It's incumbent on readers to determine why the game is getting praised by reading the review (and for the reviewer to communicate that, obviously), so people don't buy "Gone Home" anticipating "Resident Evil".

I think it may just be a case of different metrics for different styles of game or software creation. I've never seen Spec Ops the Line recommended for its gameplay, but if writers are going to go from a traditional perspective for both it and Vanquish, Vanquish will lose every time despite seeking an entirely different audience. The difficulty in determining where praise is/ought to be aimed is in the fact that at times, the actual central portion of the medium (gameplay) isn't really mentioned at all. That this is happening on major games media sites is of some concern to the consumer, as these are the most readily available sources they can use to inform themselves

Some of the best "reviews" I ever read were Kieron Gillen's Onionbog and Captain Smith series on RPS back in the day. They say absolutely sweet fuck all about mechanics or how the game "feels to play". They're just descriptive, and funny, and communicate the spirit of the game in question. At no point does Gillen weigh in with "THIS IS GOOD" or give it a numerical score.

You don't need to outright state "I think Game X is a quality game(tm)" or give it a numerical score. However, if a game's draw is its mechanics (Arena Shooters, Fighting games, Spectacle Fighters, Grand Strategy and Comp. RTS games etc.) and the entirety of a review (read: the piece designed to analyze a product to inform a potential consumer) ignores that portion, then it has failed in a sense. While I'm sure there are people out there who will only buy DMC games with the most sophisticated of stories, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably not the majority. If one wishes to write a Freudian analysis of Super Metroid (also known as "having a field day"), my suggestion would be to make that a separate piece than the actual review. It can exist on the exact same site, with the exact same viewpoint written by the exact same writer, but as an editorial and not as a promotion or condemnation of a title specifically aimed at informing potential consumers of their potential enjoyment.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Split the post in two. If that's an issue I can take this portion to PM's, however I felt that productive discussion was being had here

Nope, no problem. Will respond to PM half later.

There's, once again, a middle ground here

I'm not a fighting game fan. The closest comparative I have in terms of a systemically complex and mechanically deep experience is DOTA 2. My introduction to the game did not come through Purge's excellent "Welcome to DOTA, You Suck" guide, because it was loaded with impenetrable genre jargon and presented the game as a colossally intimidating undertaking. Rather, my introduction came through Total Biscuit's "Singe Draft Disaster" series. In which TB, with only a beginner's comprehension of the game play and mechanics, fumbled his way through a lot of low MMR games whilst playing badly and making mistakes. I could relate to that MUCH more easily. Many games later, I could read Purge's guide and be properly informed by it.

As you say, there is a middle ground, and the middle ground I occupy is that different people are going to come to reviews wanting different things.

What's being said (or at least what I got out of it) is that the review isn't even touching on the subject matter that would inform them of the game's potential quality. If I wanna get a game like Mario, and the whole review centers around split screen, graphics, and an in depth analysis of the game from the perspective of a radical PETA member, I wont know if the game is actually worth *playing*

You won't, no. But if there was, say, a statistically significant portion of the audience that WAS deeply invested in PETA's policies, that information would be rather germane to them, and that review might be all they needed. I have a friend with two young kids. Sometimes I've recommended animated films to him, and his first step is to check a review site that breaks down whether or not they're suitable for young kids. He trusts it. If the site suggests Spirited Away might frighten his daughter, he's not going to show it to her. To me, it's one of the best films ever made. To him, it's a complete non-starter, because we're both coming at it from completely different perspectives.

Naturally, if someone's perspective is completely radicalized and highly unique to them, they're going to struggle to find anyone who wants to read their input. That's on them, though. Particularly if they're trying to put food on the table with their writing.

I think it may just be a case of different metrics for different styles of game or software creation. I've never seen Spec Ops the Line recommended for its gameplay, but if writers are going to go from a traditional perspective for both it and Vanquish, Vanquish will lose every time despite seeking an entirely different audience. The difficulty in determining where praise is/ought to be aimed is in the fact that at times, the actual central portion of the medium (gameplay) isn't really mentioned at all. That this is happening on major games media sites is of some concern to the consumer, as these are the most readily available sources they can use to inform themselves.

What the central portion of the medium is will differ from person to person, will it not? Those seeking or primarily drawn to narrative experiences won't necessarily give a fig that the game play in To the Moon or The Walking Dead is poor to non-existent.

To pursue an example, I went back looking for a particular review on RPS, and lo and behold it was penned by the loathed John Walker. It is here:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/03/wot-i-think-to-the-moon/

This review doesn't devote even a single paragraph to hammering the game for its non-existent play mechanics. Based on this strong review, I bought the game, and it was one of if not my favorite gaming experience from that year, and a candidate for high placement among my favorite games of all time...a list stretching back thirty years. This review is exactly the kind of problem review you are identifying, and yet it was invaluable to me. And if I don't qualify as part of the core gamer demographic, I have no idea who does.

You don't need to outright state "I think Game X is a quality game(tm)" or give it a numerical score. However, if a game's draw is its mechanics (Arena Shooters, Fighting games, Spectacle Fighters, Grand Strategy and Comp. RTS games etc.) and the entirety of a review (read: the piece designed to analyze a product to inform a potential consumer) ignores that portion, then it has failed in a sense.

I think you can certainly make a cogent argument that the review "missed the point", but there are likely audiences out there who would similarly miss the point. If Johnny GameReview docks 5 points off Titfighter 3 for overly judicious employment of jiggle physics, it's quite probably that there is a demographic out there who would share his distaste. Naturally, Johnny's opinion will not appeal to Titfighter 3's core audience, so they will likely dismiss his review as irrelevant. I intend no umbrage with "Titfighter 3", by the way, I'm just trying to paint a broad analogy.

While I'm sure there are people out there who will only buy DMC games with the most sophisticated of stories, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably not the majority. If one wishes to write a Freudian analysis of Super Metroid (also known as "having a field day"), my suggestion would be to make that a separate piece than the actual review. It can exist on the exact same site, with the exact same viewpoint written by the exact same writer, but as an editorial and not as a promotion or condemnation of a title specifically aimed at informing potential consumers of their potential enjoyment.

Sure. I'm all for allowing a maximum number of perspectives on an issue. However, if a writer on a website is the only one to cover a game, and that writer is incapable of separating his or her distaste for a game's aesthetic or expressed ideology from the soundness of its mechanics, then I anticipate their review will reflect that. And I think that's perfectly OK. If I, as a reader, find it starts compromising my ability to mine useful information from the reviews, I'll probably just gravitate to different writers. Notably, in my longer history of consuming game reviews, this has almost never happened.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No such thing as unbiased. Just need to give those game reviews to the right people. For me, i hate dancing games so im biased though they could be awesome for those that love them. I think people need to do their research and buy the games they think they will enjoy instead of what a stranger thinks - take there opinion with a pinch of salt. Ive played games that reviewers hated and ive enjoyed them.

 

[BarkBarker]

If I was to review something, one score for personal experience, the other for mechanical success. The former is my joys and pains from the game, the latter is a judgement of the games efforts mechanically to succeed. This football manager game is not my thing I wasn't having fun a 5/10...but as a well designed machine there seems to be incredibly effort in crafting a system beginners can learn and experts can master with loads of small customizable extras and details, so mechanically it gets a 9/10. A game is both a machine and a experience, I can enjoy a buggy as fuck game just as much as I can dislike a well crafted experience because of personal shortcomings.

 

[Fishyash]

Yeah...there's something I encounter called "Rotten Tomatoes" syndrome, where a well made but divisive film will end up in the 70's or even the 60's due to appealing strongly to a smaller audience, and middling populist fare that is hard to criticize but not particularly inspired can easily land in the 90's. It's part of the problem with "scoring" a fundamentally subjective experience.

The situation you mentioned describes the problem with aggregate scores perfectly. A polarizing film with mostly high/low scores averaging out to a middle score is a problem. When you've got reviews stating heavy like and dislike for a film, when those two scores are averaged out it will reach a middle score, representing an entirely different opinion from either of those reviews.

I don't get the notion that scoring a subjective experience is problematic or difficult in any way, shape or form. In fact they're more useful than a summary due to how practical they are. The only problems that come with it are the misuse of it, like the aforementioned score averages, ridiculous metrics (rating anything by a higher scale than out of 5 is silly) and turning it into a math equation by scoring a game by individual aspects (graphics/sound/controls etc.) and making the final score an average out of those.

Think of it like this. You're having a conversation with someone, they bring up a game and ask you what you think of it as a whole (under the assumption you recently played the game). You are most likely able to come up with an answer on the spot. That answer can easily be represented with a number. Anybody can do this on the spot, so a critic should be able to do this with all the time he has spent writing the review. If anything, it should be easier, not harder.

 

[Netrigan]

Yeah...there's something I encounter called "Rotten Tomatoes" syndrome, where a well made but divisive film will end up in the 70's or even the 60's due to appealing strongly to a smaller audience, and middling populist fare that is hard to criticize but not particularly inspired can easily land in the 90's. It's part of the problem with "scoring" a fundamentally subjective experience.

The situation you mentioned describes the problem with aggregate scores perfectly. A polarizing film with mostly high/low scores averaging out to a middle score is a problem. When you've got reviews stating heavy like and dislike for a film, when those two scores are averaged out it will reach a middle score, representing an entirely different opinion from either of those reviews.

I don't get the notion that scoring a subjective experience is problematic or difficult in any way, shape or form. In fact they're more useful than a summary due to how practical they are. The only problems that come with it are the misuse of it, like the aforementioned score averages, ridiculous metrics (rating anything by a higher scale than out of 5 is silly) and turning it into a math equation by scoring a game by individual aspects (graphics/sound/controls etc.) and making the final score an average out of those.

Think of it like this. You're having a conversation with someone, they bring up a game and ask you what you think of it as a whole (under the assumption you recently played the game). You are most likely able to come up with an answer on the spot. That answer can easily be represented with a number. Anybody can do this on the spot, so a critic should be able to do this with all the time he has spent writing the review. If anything, it should be easier, not harder.

Quite a number of critics find the whole scoring system to be idiotic and only do it because it's demanded of them. Siskel & Ebert rather liked the Thumbs Up/Down, since it put more focus on what they said about the movie.... although they would occasionally qualify the final decision with "an enthusiastic thumb up" or a "thumb way down", when they particularly liked or disliked a film.

George Lucas probably said it best, movies are binary. You either like it or you don't. The specifics don't matter too much. A movie can have all the things you say you like... and you dislike it. Or a movie can be a cluster-fuck... and you do. If I described to you my experience with Transformers 2, you'd assume I didn't like it; but I loved it. Saw it two times in IMax. Everything is absolutely horrible about the movie except for it being totally awesome.

But the problem really is people pay too damn much attention to the average score on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. It's far more interesting to dig in and see which films/games people are passionate about. I don't care if 90% of the critics hated something if the other 10% absolutely loved it. If it sounds like something you'd enjoy, then go see it. Meanwhile, the latest action mediocrity might technically get a passing mark, but if virtually all the critics are lukewarm about it, it's probably something very skippable.

And Armond White has proven the Total Crank Review is an artform all its own. His stuff is just hilarious to read, despite making a mockery of "objective" reviews.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

I think you and I agree a lot more than we may both think. What are your opinion's on Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review?

After having just read it, it's a review that covers a lot of the gameplay points, and misses others, given that its a WiiU game, I can understand why graphics weren't a major consideration, the bulk of the review seemed to swing from talking about gameplay to the problems the reviewer had with the sexualization. The review also doesn't talk about the story as much as I usually like in my reviews.

The sexualization complaints are ones I both agree with the author on some points and disagree on others, and I can understand why it would hurt his enjoyment of the game, the text praises much of the game whilst deriding the presentation of bayonetta herself, and that while he enjoyed the action, the propensity for the game to have heavily sexualized moments interspersed during the fights seriously impacted his enjoyment of the game.

The podcast at the end features the reviewer talking about how he really liked the mechanics, but that there was a subjective component that seriously caused him issues, and he justifies his views fairly well even if I disagree with the degree with which they may impact. He also talks about how a couple of other negatives for the game were not mentioned for space reasons and how the scoring system works.

The score seems unusually low, but that's not so much Bayonetta specifically as it seems to be an issue with polygon in general, or at least a few reviewers on it. Polygon is sort of the anti-IGN, where IGN takes flak for criticizing a game heavily in the written review but still giving it an 8.5-9.5. Polygon seems to have a lot of reviews that heavily praise a game whilst only listing a few negatives, or negatives that don't seem like a big deal, and then sticking it with a 7-8 range score. Even games that don't list ideological complaints will often get very low end scores of 7-8.5 on Polygon, so that seems more like just how their scoring rubric breaks down. As a side note, the person who writes the text of the review isn't the sole arbiter of the score review, Polygon uses some kind of weird median score system amongst multiple staff members.

Overall, it's not my cup of tea, but I can easily see how such a review would be useful to some people, especially if taken in consideration with a range of other reviews and viewpoints on the game, from the other people giving it a 7-8 to the people giving it perfect scores.

I have to disagree with you. Saying Bayonetta 2 is over sexualized and then doxing it is the same as saying GTA is too violent and doxing that. If the series is known to be sexual (as Bayonetta 1 clearly shows), why punish the sequel for incorporating a tone the original already has? This is exactly what happens in this Polygon review. Saying a character is too sexy and then calling the game "bad" because of it is disingenuous to the gamers who really only want to know if the game is good or not.

I think you are missing several things, firstly, he never calls the game bad, not even enough to warrant putting it in quotes, he only mentions that the sexualization detracted from his enjoyment, he goes out of his way to remark that this is an entirely subjective point, and includes the caveat that it hurt his personal enjoyment, as he explains in the post review podcast, it is like when people docked points from Ninja Gaiden for being too difficult, as you say, difficulty was the point of ninja gaiden, but plenty of mainstream sites docked the game points for being frustrating or too difficult.

Much like some people thought NG was too difficult, the reviewer here thought the game was too sexualized and that the sexualization hurt the game rather than helped it, saying "that's the point of the game", does not make it immune from criticism, you can still launch a critique of why GTA's over the top violence may detract from the game, or why sexualization does not work as well as the gamemakers intended. It is perfectly valid to criticize a game that does something intentionally if you still think the game isn't doing it well, or you think that the intention is wrong and subtracts from the other elements, in this case, that would be the reviewer's opinion of the quality of the combat system. That does not mean that such criticism is always right, but the intention of a game does not suddenly make it immune from being disliked either.

Finally, Polygon doesn't just dock points due to a single reviewer, as I said in my previous post, the score system that Polygon uses is a consensus between multiple staff on the sight, and it is also not supposed to be a determination of how good or bad a game is, they say multiple times that the score is a recommendation for how much the staff think the game is worth picking up, and a 7.5 is still a recommendation according to their review scale. Now, you can think that points system is silly, and I would agree, Polygon seems to have a lot of odd quirks to its points scale and how the final point score is determined, which would explain why a their reviews end up being controversial from time to time.

No, I believe you're actually missing the point entirely.

1) He has reviewed older games which had just as much or even more sexuality than what Bayonetta 2 is presenting, however, he mentions nothing about it in those games. Up comes along Bayonetta 2, and all of a sudden, it's an issue.

2) He's still pushing his own ideology upon the game in question, and he is "docking" points because of it. If he had played the game and completely skipped the cutscenes, would the game score this low? Of course not, because what he's reviewing is no longer the game, but rather, the sexuality surrounding the game.

You cannot put opinions down to statistics. You want to know why he reviewed games with sexualization but didn't bring it up then? Because clearly he didn't get bothered by it then. There are some things that are ok in some games or just work that don't in other games. You can just sit down and go "If there is a 15% increase in boob shots then your opinion must change accordingly". Human beings are not robots.

I've yet to have someone explain to me why this is such a horrible thing. Reviewers tend to bring their "personal ideology" in when it comes to reviewing games. Namely on what they think is a good game. Technically every reviewer who praised Bayonetta is pushing their personaly ideology because according to their ideology, Bayonetta is a good character. But people don't complain about THAT do they? He doesn't like it...and? You've got countless other reviewers singing Bayonetta's praises, why is one reviewer giving it a not even that negative review such a big deal. Because he didn't like Bayonetta's design? Well if the developers wanted him to not have the cutscenes as part of the experience, they shouldn't have put cutscenes in.

1) No one is arguing this.

EDIT: Let me elucidate on this a bit further.
You claimed the reviewer couldn't be bothered with sexualization until now. I suppose I subconsciously ignored this statement from you because it makes the least amount of logical sense. If a reviewer is to review something, he has to be consistent. If you review one thing by a set of standards, then it's only fair to review another thing by those same set of standards. You can't just switch up standards because you can't be bothered by them.


2) I'm explaining to you why this is a horrible thing. This is about integrity, and it seems to fly right by you. Other reviewers aren't reviewing the game and deducting points because they don't like Bayonetta as a character.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

I think you and I agree a lot more than we may both think. What are your opinion's on Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review?

After having just read it, it's a review that covers a lot of the gameplay points, and misses others, given that its a WiiU game, I can understand why graphics weren't a major consideration, the bulk of the review seemed to swing from talking about gameplay to the problems the reviewer had with the sexualization. The review also doesn't talk about the story as much as I usually like in my reviews.

The sexualization complaints are ones I both agree with the author on some points and disagree on others, and I can understand why it would hurt his enjoyment of the game, the text praises much of the game whilst deriding the presentation of bayonetta herself, and that while he enjoyed the action, the propensity for the game to have heavily sexualized moments interspersed during the fights seriously impacted his enjoyment of the game.

The podcast at the end features the reviewer talking about how he really liked the mechanics, but that there was a subjective component that seriously caused him issues, and he justifies his views fairly well even if I disagree with the degree with which they may impact. He also talks about how a couple of other negatives for the game were not mentioned for space reasons and how the scoring system works.

The score seems unusually low, but that's not so much Bayonetta specifically as it seems to be an issue with polygon in general, or at least a few reviewers on it. Polygon is sort of the anti-IGN, where IGN takes flak for criticizing a game heavily in the written review but still giving it an 8.5-9.5. Polygon seems to have a lot of reviews that heavily praise a game whilst only listing a few negatives, or negatives that don't seem like a big deal, and then sticking it with a 7-8 range score. Even games that don't list ideological complaints will often get very low end scores of 7-8.5 on Polygon, so that seems more like just how their scoring rubric breaks down. As a side note, the person who writes the text of the review isn't the sole arbiter of the score review, Polygon uses some kind of weird median score system amongst multiple staff members.

Overall, it's not my cup of tea, but I can easily see how such a review would be useful to some people, especially if taken in consideration with a range of other reviews and viewpoints on the game, from the other people giving it a 7-8 to the people giving it perfect scores.

I have to disagree with you. Saying Bayonetta 2 is over sexualized and then doxing it is the same as saying GTA is too violent and doxing that. If the series is known to be sexual (as Bayonetta 1 clearly shows), why punish the sequel for incorporating a tone the original already has? This is exactly what happens in this Polygon review. Saying a character is too sexy and then calling the game "bad" because of it is disingenuous to the gamers who really only want to know if the game is good or not.

I think you are missing several things, firstly, he never calls the game bad, not even enough to warrant putting it in quotes, he only mentions that the sexualization detracted from his enjoyment, he goes out of his way to remark that this is an entirely subjective point, and includes the caveat that it hurt his personal enjoyment, as he explains in the post review podcast, it is like when people docked points from Ninja Gaiden for being too difficult, as you say, difficulty was the point of ninja gaiden, but plenty of mainstream sites docked the game points for being frustrating or too difficult.

Much like some people thought NG was too difficult, the reviewer here thought the game was too sexualized and that the sexualization hurt the game rather than helped it, saying "that's the point of the game", does not make it immune from criticism, you can still launch a critique of why GTA's over the top violence may detract from the game, or why sexualization does not work as well as the gamemakers intended. It is perfectly valid to criticize a game that does something intentionally if you still think the game isn't doing it well, or you think that the intention is wrong and subtracts from the other elements, in this case, that would be the reviewer's opinion of the quality of the combat system. That does not mean that such criticism is always right, but the intention of a game does not suddenly make it immune from being disliked either.

Finally, Polygon doesn't just dock points due to a single reviewer, as I said in my previous post, the score system that Polygon uses is a consensus between multiple staff on the sight, and it is also not supposed to be a determination of how good or bad a game is, they say multiple times that the score is a recommendation for how much the staff think the game is worth picking up, and a 7.5 is still a recommendation according to their review scale. Now, you can think that points system is silly, and I would agree, Polygon seems to have a lot of odd quirks to its points scale and how the final point score is determined, which would explain why a their reviews end up being controversial from time to time.

No, I believe you're actually missing the point entirely.

1) He has reviewed older games which had just as much or even more sexuality than what Bayonetta 2 is presenting, however, he mentions nothing about it in those games. Up comes along Bayonetta 2, and all of a sudden, it's an issue.

2) He's still pushing his own ideology upon the game in question, and he is "docking" points because of it. If he had played the game and completely skipped the cutscenes, would the game score this low? Of course not, because what he's reviewing is no longer the game, but rather, the sexuality surrounding the game.

You cannot put opinions down to statistics. You want to know why he reviewed games with sexualization but didn't bring it up then? Because clearly he didn't get bothered by it then. There are some things that are ok in some games or just work that don't in other games. You can just sit down and go "If there is a 15% increase in boob shots then your opinion must change accordingly". Human beings are not robots.

I've yet to have someone explain to me why this is such a horrible thing. Reviewers tend to bring their "personal ideology" in when it comes to reviewing games. Namely on what they think is a good game. Technically every reviewer who praised Bayonetta is pushing their personaly ideology because according to their ideology, Bayonetta is a good character. But people don't complain about THAT do they? He doesn't like it...and? You've got countless other reviewers singing Bayonetta's praises, why is one reviewer giving it a not even that negative review such a big deal. Because he didn't like Bayonetta's design? Well if the developers wanted him to not have the cutscenes as part of the experience, they shouldn't have put cutscenes in.

Read the Polygon review. He complains about the cutscenes more than anything else in the game.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

2) I'm explaining to you why this is a horrible thing. This is about integrity, and it seems to fly right by you. Other reviewers aren't reviewing the game and deducting points because they don't like Bayonetta as a character.

... So? Other reviewers don't have that as a focus. Read those reviews. Problem solved.

** shrugs **

Who knows? I'm just speaking in general terms. The reviews I've read so far didn't seem to focus on Bayonetta as a character, nor did it seem they based their reviews from Bayonetta as an individual.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Read the Polygon review. He complains about the cutscenes more than anything else in the game.
[/quote]

And? No really, he complained about it a lot and? He still gave the game a good score, he still thought it was good. If he complained about the cut scenes more than anything else, that means it was the biggest problem that he had. And cuts scenes tend to play a big part in a story heavy game, which Bayonetta are. So they're an important part of the game.

So...what's the big deal?

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

No, I believe you're actually missing the point entirely.

1) He has reviewed older games which had just as much or even more sexuality than what Bayonetta 2 is presenting, however, he mentions nothing about it in those games. Up comes along Bayonetta 2, and all of a sudden, it's an issue.

2) He's still pushing his own ideology upon the game in question, and he is "docking" points because of it. If he had played the game and completely skipped the cutscenes, would the game score this low? Of course not, because what he's reviewing is no longer the game, but rather, the sexuality surrounding the game.

1. you are going to have to provide context here, I do not know what other games he has reviewed with "more" sexualization than Bayonetta 2, which is a loaded and subjective statement on your part as I'm not sure I can honestly think of many games that are more sexualized than Bayonetta. Other than porn games, I would put Bayonetta's sexualization above pretty much every game out there, even games like DOA extreme beach volleyball and fighting games like Soul Caliber don't feature actual stripping and poll dancing throughout the games from the main character, so what you see as more sexualized games being overlooked, the reviewer may see as cases of less sexualized games that don't detract as much from his experience.

2. the sexuality is a much greater part of the game than the cutscenes, have you played Bayonetta? It is irrevocably linked to the gameplay, attack moves, enemies, story, cutscenes, and character designs, it is impossible to skip the cutscenes and still avoid the sexualization, so yes, he likely would have been just as hard on the game if he had skipped them.

Not that this point makes any sense anyway, if you have to skip a segment of the game in order to enjoy it more, that doesn't mean you are inserting ideology into it, if I skip the cutscenes in FF XIII that eliminates most of my problems with the games story, but if I were reviewing it, it would still be valid for me to critique the story because it is a part of the game, having to excise a portion of the game to improve your opinion on it is not a strike against the reviewer, and it doesn't mean he is pushing his ideology upon the game.

1) No need to provide context. You can just type his name in Google and get all the context you need. As far as games and sexualization is concerned, you are conveniently neglecting a great number of games. Dragon's Crown ring any bells?

2) I've owned Bayonetta on the PS3 (and beaten it). I've also played the Bayonetta 2 demo on the Wii U and currently plan to buy the full game this week. However, if you read his review, a great majority of his complaints stem from the cutscenes.

You brought up Bayonetta 1, which is good, because it proves my point further. If you are playing a sequel to a game that clearly had sexualization present, why would you suddenly have more of an issue with it's sequel? This is where consistency comes into play. I'm not saying Bayonetta isn't sexualized. It most certainly is! However, to suddenly have an issue with it in a sequel and not with its original is simply disingenuous.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

I've explained before. Fair and balanced is simply being objective, or at the very least, consistent. This is just for writing reviews. For everything else, theres is a journalistic code of ethics you can read:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

 

[Erttheking]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

I've explained before. Fair and balanced is simply being objective, or at the very least, consistent. This is just for writing reviews. For everything else, theres is a journalistic code of ethics you can read:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://wdet.org/media/_versions_/raw_feed_images/objective_definition_fb_big.png

The definition of objective is to not let personal feelings get in the way of FACTS! FACTS! A game being good is not a fact. Objectivity has no place in determining how much a reviewer enjoyed a game. In fact the only place a review would be unobjective is when the reviewer downright lied about the game to prove his point. And I've seen no one claim that.

And like I said, human beings are not so simple that they can be classified as "Always hates sexism" and "Never hates sexism". Our opinions are fluid, and reviews reflect opinions. The only way to be consistent is to inform people when you like or dislike a game and explain why. That's all. There is no objectivity to it.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

I've explained before. Fair and balanced is simply being objective, or at the very least, consistent. This is just for writing reviews. For everything else, theres is a journalistic code of ethics you can read:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://wdet.org/media/_versions_/raw_feed_images/objective_definition_fb_big.png

The definition of objective is to not let personal feelings get in the way of FACTS! FACTS! A game being good is not a fact. Objectivity has no place in determining how much a reviewer enjoyed a game. In fact the only place a review would be unobjective is when the reviewer downright lied about the game to prove his point. And I've seen no one claim that.

And like I said, human beings are not so simple that they can be classified as "Always hates sexism" and "Never hates sexism". Our opinions are fluid, and reviews reflect opinions. The only way to be consistent is to inform people when you like or dislike a game and explain why. That's all. There is no objectivity to it.

You seem pretty hung up on the word "objective", which is why I said, "At the very least, consistent."