[Scotty]

You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.

It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.

The content of the game is not "the game itself"? Some people disagree with the reviewer; that's fine. To say that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to reduce the rating of the game because of their opinion on its content is both an accurate description of what people who align themselves with GamerGate claim to want and completely moronic.

I think you're talking past each other, at this point.  I don't see anywhere Kara is saying that articles shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of thing.  Rather, he's describing what many of the (non-idiotic, non-misogynistic) GG masses want: game reviews that are free of political bias, whether it be gender politics or what have you.  That's not a moronic ideal, and frankly I'm concerned that the vitriol with which you disagreed (italics and everything) indicates that this matter is more charged than it needs to be, and that (much like the situation we find ourselves discussing) imagined slight is everywhere.

[Lorric]

Me personally I think that is exactly what a reviewer should be doing. Grading the game based on their honest opinion. With no external influences.

For a hypothetical, if I saw a review where someone dropped the score of the game because it failed the Bechdel test, while I personally think if a game passes the Bechdel test is irrelevant, some people would have a different view. A reviewer taking the time to check if a game passed the Bechdel test and not just docking points for failure, but adding points depending on how strongly the game passed the test would find a niche with certain people who would appreciate that reviewer's take on games.

Me, there are lots of other reviewers out there I can look at who wouldn't do that. I would know that particular reviewer was not focused on what is important to me in a game and that they were of no use to me. I have read the "bad" Bayonetta 2 review in question, and it doesn't bother me. If that was simply that persons untainted experience, I have no problem with them grading it in that fashion. I'm sure they're not the only players who would feel that way playing the game and any such players would find that review useful. Heck, other people might find the review useful in that despite that, it still received a respectable 7.5 rating. A 7.5 is still a good game, and they'd know they could boost the score substantially if the complaints are not complaints they would have. I like to read the highest and lowest review scores for games to see the different perspectives.

The problem would start if the hypothetical reviewer was being pressured from an external source to adjust the rating of the games they reviewed based on Bechdel test performance. There would be a far larger problem if all reviewers were being pressured by an external source to do so. Then the review would no longer be the untainted opinion of a single reviewer. Games are highly subjective, and a variety of different opinions on them is important to find a review which resonates with what is important to you as a gamer, which is focused on and describing those aspects of games that matter to you. If an outside external pressure is put on game reviewers, that balance is destroyed.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I don't see anywhere Kara is saying that articles shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of thing.

He said I was arguing with a straw man; I pointed out that I was, in fact, arguing against what GGers actually argue for.

Rather, he's describing what many of the (non-idiotic, non-misogynistic) GG masses want: game reviews that are free of political bias, whether it be gender politics or what have you.

Choosing not to mention gender politics is a political bias.

That's not a moronic ideal

Yes it is! It's both stupid and undesirable.

[Scotty]

Now hold on just a moment there.  Electing to not engage in politics may be a political decision, but it is not in and of itself a bias.  Moreover, desiring a game review where the benefits and negatives of a given game without added political commentary is not "stupid and moronic".  Frankly, I find the idea that such things must be discussed to be almost as disagreeable as you seem to think the reverse.

Meanwhile:

frankly I'm concerned that the vitriol with which you disagreed (italics and everything) indicates that this matter is more charged than it needs to be, and that (much like the situation we find ourselves discussing) imagined slight is everywhere.

Even if you can't agree, can we at least drop the harsh tones?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Now hold on just a moment there.  Electing to not engage in politics may be a political decision, but it is not in and of itself a bias.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

If you're still confused as to how this works, you should watch this video -Joshua- embedded earlier:

Moreover, desiring a game review where the benefits and negatives of a given game without added political commentary is not "stupid and moronic".  Frankly, I find the idea that such things must be discussed to be almost as disagreeable as you seem to think the reverse.

I didn't say they must be discussed! I said that you cannot avoid bias in reviews. You can want to read reviews that don't mention gender politics; there is nothing wrong with this. What you cannot do is say that no reviews can mention gender politics, or that to do so is unethical. This is, in effect, arguing for censorship of anybody who disagrees with a particular set of political opinions.

[Scotty]

If that's what you're arguing against, it's absolutely a straw man.  And if that's the view you seriously think that the non-scum portion of GG hold (granted I can't speak for all of them, nor do I want to) then no wonder there's a miscommunication going on.  The impression I've gotten from all this (and it's generally the only concrete impression I've gotten from this thread, you'd think there were eight or nine different sides just by reading it) is that there currently isn't an outlet for reviews that remain apolitical.  I don't agree with the idea that game review sites need to be taken down, or that game reviews can't be political, but the idea that there should be a place to go for reviews that aren't is not a stupid or moronic one.

That may very well be the only thing somewhere deep down in the seething, filthy mess of GG that I agree with, but I do.

[AdmiralRalwood]

If that's what you're arguing against, it's absolutely a straw man.

It's an actual view spouted by actual people who actually call themselves GamerGaters. If that's a "straw man", then I'm not sure what definition of "straw man" you're using.

And if that's the view you seriously think that the non-scum portion of GG hold (granted I can't speak for all of them, nor do I want to) then no wonder there's a miscommunication going on.  The impression I've gotten from all this (and it's generally the only concrete impression I've gotten from this thread, you'd think there were eight or nine different sides just by reading it) is that there currently isn't an outlet for reviews that remain apolitical.

There is no such thing as an "apolitical" review. You clearly did not read (and/or understand) my previous post at all.

the idea that there should be a place to go for reviews that aren't is not a stupid or moronic one.

It's also... not, as far as I've seen, the goal of anyone identifying themselves as a GamerGater. Feel free to link to GamerGaters actually advancing that argument, though.

[Scotty]

I read and understood your previous post just fine.  Reading and understanding does not necessitate agreement, however.  To not include political dialogue may be a political statement on behalf of the reviewer, but such a bias does not reflect on the article.  If a review discusses the characters, story, controls, and gameplay of a game and does not form the reviewer's collected experiences and feelings into an interpretation of the game's message, the resultant review does not magically become political.  If you disagree, so be it, but you're fishing for Truth (tm) where none exists.  That's the core issue here.  Everyone in this cluster**** of an argument is so concerned with finding the Truth (tm) that any concept of mutual agreeability and civil discourse goes right out the window, and you get this bastard ****fest of a thread.  Even just now, after I suggest something that attempts to reframe the discussion into something we can have a discussion about, instead of an argument, the very first thing you do is demand that I rephrase it with the Truth (tm).

I refuse.

This, right here, is the problem with General Discussion.  Everyone wants to win.  Everyone wants their edition of the Truth (tm) to get the spotlight and the victor's circle.  Stop it.  Discuss the underlying issue.  If Gamergate is such a cesspool of human filth, liberate what beneficial ideals you can from the muck and talk about those instead of diving right into it with everyone else.

[Mr. Vega]

game reviews that are free of political bias

Then they can go find some. They are the vast majority. When half the amount of people in a room are women, men see this as skewed (actual study). When gamers with vaguely reactionary beliefs find a few reviews where the (less reactionary) beliefs of the critic are in evidence, suddenly games journalism is flooded with bias. What they take offense at is exactly what Alexander accused them of taking offense at, the idea of a world that doesn't cater to them. If Alexander's article was so offensive, then they should WRITE A GODDAMN REBUTTAL. It's what real people do in the real world.

[karajorma]

You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.

It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.

The content of the game is not "the game itself"? Some people disagree with the reviewer; that's fine. To say that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to reduce the rating of the game because of their opinion on its content is both an accurate description of what people who align themselves with GamerGate claim to want and completely moronic.

You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying. Making a strawman (GG want reviews to be little more than adverts) and then attacking it is a silly argument which undermines your credibility. Especially given that it's the obvious antithesis of what GamerGate actually want (reviews that are more objective and less like advertisments).

If you really feel that reviews can hinge largely on the politics of the game, argue that point, you'll probably find a lot of people agree with you. Hell, I watch Zero Punctuation every week and he's basically written off an entire genre of games as spunkgargleweewee based largely on their politics. But if you argue strawman points, you'll only encourage people to tune you out.

You've already been warned by Kara.

No he/she hasn't.

At least not about anything I saw in that last post.

[Mr. Vega]

You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying.

What they claim and what they actually describe as a good review ain't the same. They sure seem to long for the quick reviews with a 10 point score at the top of 15 years ago that were quite frankly crap and full of PR bull****. It's actually much harder to BS your way through the newer style of good-movie-critic-like reviews-your writing has to be much more involved.

So no, he ain't strawmanning what they say they want. Just what you see they really want when you read between the lines.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying. Making a strawman (GG want reviews to be little more than adverts) and then attacking it is a silly argument which undermines your credibility. Especially given that it's the obvious antithesis of what GamerGate actually want (reviews that are more objective and less like advertisments).

The "actual argument" is that the reviewer should not have taken points off for finding the game offensive. If the reviewer is not to take points off of a game as a result of their opinions of its content, then what, exactly, is the difference between a review and an advertisement?

I read and understood your previous post just fine.  Reading and understanding does not necessitate agreement, however.  To not include political dialogue may be a political statement on behalf of the reviewer, but such a bias does not reflect on the article.  If a review discusses the characters, story, controls, and gameplay of a game and does not form the reviewer's collected experiences and feelings into an interpretation of the game's message, the resultant review does not magically become political.

The choice of what not to mention is still a choice. To take the historical example (from the wikipedia article on false balance) of coverage of lynching, and how they didn't mention "that African-Americans were being terrorized across the nation"... were these stories "apolitical" because they didn't mention race politics?

That said, I absolutely agree that people don't need to be toxic with each other just because they disagree. I certainly hope that some good eventually does result from this "cesspool of human filth", and I think we can all agree that there are, in fact, ethics problems in the gaming world.

[Mr. Vega]

The basic idea here Ralwood is that only the mechanics, the "game" part, should be discussed. Which is to say, GG wants the kill the idea of games being art, because that might allow unwanted political opinions into their entertainment.

You can't say what a game review should be about without also saying what a game should be about.

[Scotty]

Mr. Vega, while what 'GG wants' is not something I'm prepared to discuss at any great depth, I think there's something to be said about the concept of a game review that does not give into politically charged discussion on the game under review.  With some games, this is highly impractical (Bayonetta, Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem).  For others, that political commentary automatically predisposes people who agree/disagree with those political views to dislike the game - whether or not the reviewer's conclusions are correct or even relevant.

This is also not to say that opinion must be removed from game reviews (which is the other sort of annoying argument going around here).  A reviewer describing a control system as difficult or unhelpfully mapped out is still subjective, but it's not politically charged.  Describing how the game does a good job with the story to make you care about the main character is still subjective, but it's not politically charged.  Saying that the game was obviously made by rape fetishists because of what can happen to the main character (Tomb Raider) is subjective, and holy **** is it politically charged.  Obviously this is an exaggeration for effect, and it's still possible to remark about that quality of the game as a negative without firing the proverbial warning shots.  A game critic that describes that she was disappointed or upset with the method and frequency of bad things that can happen to the main character still gets the point across and is maybe ticking all the way up to a 1.5 on the politically charged scale.

A truly, objectively, vacuum-proof apolitical game review may very well be not possible (I'm not convinced, but that's not the idea right now), but it's certainly possible to do better.

The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate.  I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I would agree that it is possible to write a review that is not politically charged. I don't think all reviews should avoid anything politically charged (for reasons I should hope I have already made clear by now), but I certainly support the view that there should be a wide variety of different reviews written from different perspectives.

[SypheDMar]

Including socio-political commentaries in reviews is a good thing because it treats games as a mature/respectable medium. The people who argue for gaming to be taken seriously has to accept games as something more than entertainment. If games are to be on the same level as movies, operas, dances, poetry, music, or photography; people have to take it into account of cultural influences. External influences shape culture, and for games influence culture regardless of what gamers think.

If gamers do not want games to be taken seriously, then certain places like Kotaku are not for them and they should consider going to sites that cater to their taste. Attempting to aggressively shut down Kotaku is childish. But it's hypocritical to think that games can be treated as a respectable media without including social/political critiques.

[Lorric]

Politicizing reviews I think is a good thing because it treats gaming as a mature/respectable medium. The people who argue for gaming to be taken seriously has to accept games as something more than entertainment. If games are to be on the same level as movies, operas, dances, poetry, music, or photography; people have to take it into account of cultural influences. External influences shape culture, and for games influence culture regardless of what gamers think.

If gamers do not want games to be taken seriously, then certain places like Kotaku are not for them and they should consider going to sites that cater to their taste. Attempting to aggressively shut down Kotaku is childish. But it's hypocritical to think that games can be treated as a respectable media without including social/political critiques.

What if you don't care about any of that and you just care about having fun with a hobby?

I'm not going to stop someone reviewing a game however they want to. But I don't care about any of that stuff. All I care about is if I am going to like the game, and first and foremost to that is gameplay.

I do not care if the World views gaming as a respectable or mature medium. That has zero impact on my enjoyment of a game. And may negatively impact on my enjoyment of future games, due to people caring about such things instead of simply making a game which is fun to play and letting their creativity run loose unfettered by such considerations.

[SypheDMar]

What if you don't care about any of that and you just care about having fun with a hobby?

Then go find a different ****ing review that doesn't include it. If you don't care about commentaries in a movie, go find a reviewer that doesn't give a crap about commentaries. Don't treat a single review as a microcosm of gaming reviews. And avoid all literary analyses and modern retellings of Shakespeare and plays.

I do not care if the World views gaming as a respectable or mature medium. That has zero impact on my enjoyment of a game. And may negatively impact on my enjoyment of future games, due to people caring about such things instead of simply making a game which is fun to play and letting their creativity run loose unfettered by such considerations.

First, you shouldn't let a review stopping you from having fun. Second, you might want to avoid General Discussion or the Gaming Board on Hard Light because that's what we do. I will not apologize for ruining your games.

What I find ironic is that you assume games become less creative when they take social concerns into account. I believe that a game developer who cares about the writing of its games and takes into account of current socio-political perspectives would develop a better game than one that rehashes tried-and-true formulas and caricatures.

[Lorric]

 

Why are you biting my head off...?

I thought I might be able to have a nice conversation with you. I thought wrong. Good luck with the thread Scotty, you'll need it. People with their hair trigger reactions and total misreadings.

Don't treat a single review as a microcosm of gaming reviews.

When I made a big post earlier on celebrating diversity of reviews and calling for it.

I'm outta here.

[SypheDMar]

I'm just responding to what you asked. If you want to treat games as a hobby as it is, then there's a whole world out there to discover!

I didn't see your earlier post, but if you did; then you already knew the answer to what you asked. If you want something different, check something else out. If you don't like what you're reading, stop going there.

My frustration was that you didn't contribute to the discussion. And apparently you answered your own question earlier!