GameSpot GamePlay Episode 56: Try The Elvis Poutine

Developers Matthew Downham and David Gallant join Carolyn Petit and host Kevin VanOrd for the latest episode of our curd-covered podcast.

by

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 56: Try The Elvis Poutine

It's been a big week already, so how better to celebrate than to have host Kevin VanOrd welcome three amazing individuals? David Gallant returns, fresh off the caribou from his vacation to High Street, to talk Grand Theft Auto with designer Matthew Downham, who knows a thing or two about whacking a jimmy. Carolyn Petit tries her best to elevate the conversation, but when the conversation turns to Czechoslovakian interior decorators, there's only so much she can do.

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 55: Earth Culture

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 54: Imconventional

GameSpot GamePlay Special Edition Spoilercast: Gone Home

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 53: Roguelikelike

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 52: Research & Development

GameSpot GamePlay Episode 51: Mr. Miyamoto, Tear Down This Wall

Discussion

42 comments
aiat_gamer
aiat_gamer

Please, please bring Errant Signal to your show, pleeeeeaaaaaasssseee!

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

Post 2 of 2 

6.       Objective vs. Subjective: Of course you should let readers know that a game lets you commit horrible crimes in a horrific manner, but don’t tell me that you don’t like the fact that I have the ability to torture someone in a game.  Tell me that I can sleep with a stripper in GTAV, but don’t tell me that if I do I am a misogynistic monster.  You can elaborate on the quality of what the game set out to do, but you should not hold all games to a moral code they never intended to keep.  See the difference between objective and subjective?

7.       Now this is where it gets dicey for me.  I cannot believe the pompous arrogance of Van Ord telling people not to frequent GameSpot or any site in search of game reviews, because we do not agree with his polices, which as discussed are not GameSpot’s policies.  As stated before, if your policies changed, state them on the website.  Where is your journalistic integrity, when you cannot even follow your own made up rules?  Beyond this, most websites, while having some flaws of their own, tend to keep things more objective and do not let the morals of the game, or their own conflicting morals taint their reviews.  You do, you state you do, and you tell your readership to pound sand because they don’t like it.  You are not a business man are you?  Do the business men you work for like the fact that you break your own coda and tell your readers to screw?

8.       Speaking of business men; do you think that possibly in a crazy scheme to make money, strippers and such were intentionally put into the game because it is what their audience actually wants?  Or do you think that these immoral elements were added just to get on people’s nerves?  Rockstar is a for profit business.  All the elements of the game are put into place with the intention of being fun and making money.  You cannot judge a huge commercial release with many millions of dollars on the line the same way you would judge an indie game where the developer just wanted to put his vision out there.

9.       Kevin brought up some other reviews.  His review of Happy Feet for example, he wasn't a fan of the phonetically spelled subtitles and their sporadic use.  I ask you, 1.  Did it lower the games score? 2. How big do you think the games QC budget was? 3. Do you think that was on the top of the list on fixes on a game you gave a 3.9?  And in regards to ALL games mentioned in Van Ords’ post only one of them listed any kind of moral issue in the “bad” section of the review, and that only said “weird dabbling in morality". So these moral infractions couldn't have been all that bad.  Certainly not on the level of what GTAV has done, since it is "profoundly misogynistic; right Caro?

10.   Know your audience GameSpot.  I am not sure because I am not privy to such metrics, but I imagine most of your audience in male, straight and younger than middle aged.  Now I hate to tell you, but that audience actually likes scantily clad women.  Right or wrong, that is what it is. As a game journalism website, keep your opinions on the morality of games to editorials.  If you want to be a niche site that discusses the artistic merits of games or stands up for minorities, the LGBT community, the disabled, or anything else, go for it, more power to you, but do not masquerade as something you are not, and when you are called out you just tell your readers to leave.

11.   Maybe your ads should change as well.  If you are so against the misogyny in GTAV, why take a paycheck from a company that gets its money from links like “50 hottest female athletes”.  Little double standard?

So there you have it; my rebuttal to Kevin Van Ord’s post.  Hope it clarifies a few things that were said by Kevin.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

If what Kevin Van Ord says is true, and why shouldn’t it be since he is a Senior Editor at GameSpot, we are to believe that GameSpot views video games as an art, and as such can be reviewed on its artistic vision, morals or message.  However, I put together a few points both refuting these assertions.

1.GameSpot, in its own review guidelines, mentions the word “art” only once, in the form of a medal given for artistic design, which in my humble opinion would have nothing to do with the “message” a game is trying to convey, but rather artistic graphical achievement.  This is further proven by the following sentence quoted from these same guidelines:  “But the medals aren't limited to facts about a game's audiovisual presentation.”  Again, this DIRECTLY follows the mentioning of artistic design.  To further that point, nowhere does it mention a moral code of any kind whether it be the games or the reviewers.  Not only that, but please read the “Bottom Line” of their review policy: “We believe games are meant to be enjoyed, and our reviews seek to express what it is about a given game that is or isn't particularly enjoyable, entertaining, fun, amusing, interesting, memorable--any and all of these things, and more. Our philosophy is that if we succeed at reviewing each game on its own merits, against the standards of the point in time at which it was evaluated, then overall consistency of our ratings should naturally result. Ultimately, we believe that each of our reviews should be useful and engaging to you as a prospective player.”  Where does a reviewers’ moral agenda fit into your “Bottom Line”?  So I would say to Mr. Van Ord and the rest of the staff and management at GameSpot, if your policies have changed, update them to show them to the world, or follow them, but please stop breaking your own rules.

2.Not all games strive to put forth an artistic or moral message, just as not all movies strive to do so either.  Borat cannot be put on the same level as Citizen Kane, nor should it.  Beyond this comparison, we must also consider the fact that not all videogames are indie art house projects.  Van Ord states that film critics do not just review costume design etc, but when a movie passes their desk that is intended to be a popcorn action flick or a raucous comedy, they do not judge it as if it is the English Patient 2.  This does not hold true of your reviews, as you hold all games to some artistic vision that you have set for them.  This brings me to point

3.While your guidelines state that you review a game on its own merits, this is again proven false by this review.  GTAV does not strive to have a moral message.  It strives to tell the story of gangsters and gang bangers and throw in a little potty humor while they are at it.  While I am neither a gangster or gang banger, I would tend to doubt there is much room in that world for strong leading female characters.  And getting back to films for a moment, can someone point out the strong female character in the Godfather or GoodFellas. 

4.Torture is ok but misogyny isn’t.  In Caro’s review for GTAV she has an entire paragraph devoted to a torture scene.  However, the message from Caro at the end of that paragraph is that the game took leaps of logic with its characters, not that torture is bad or hard to watch.  Yet the games misogyny is wrong and evil enough to be placed in the “Bad” section of the review, with torture decidedly missing. Heck if you look at GameSpot’s review of Hotline Miami, “gloriously violent” is a plus!

5.Kevin’s definition of objectivity is horse manure for lack of a better term.  If your moral beliefs color a game to the point where it affects the score you should not be reviewing that game, period.  Caro is the wrong person to review the game and whoever assigned it to her dropped the ball.  It does not fit her moral code and should not be judged by someone that it was not intended for in the first place.  GTAV has some juvenile humor in it, as does South Park.  Many people are offended by South Park, but does that mean that say, IGN should have someone who is offended by their humor review the episodes for the site?  Of course not, because there is no way that reviewer could be OBJECTIVE, they would be sitting there, angry, with a knot in their belly while they watched the show.  This would be evidenced by their review, because it would be nigh impossible to remain objective.  Does this remind us of anyone?

Post 1 of 2


Tixylixx
Tixylixx

I hate how fast you die in GTA V now, it makes the game really boring as you cannot screw around as a result. Also if you fall down a cliff it says wasted and respawns, it doesn't let you watch your body fall.

Tixylixx
Tixylixx

Feedbackula has really helped to turn all the stupid review comments and crazy fanboism into something positive. Now I don't mind people doing it because I get to watch a really funny video as a result. 

robchiang1990
robchiang1990

Well, Kevin, I got to say I totally agree with you about moving and shooting in shooters, because that's actually how I felt aobut Resident Evil 5, it's a f*****g run & gun game in which I can't run while gunning. RE4 was built around the stand-to-shoot system while RE5 was broken.

Kevin-V
Kevin-V moderator staff

I would think this would be self-obvious, but it seems I need to post this. 

We are critics. Just as film critics evaluate more than cinematography and costume design, game critics evaluate more than frame rate and controls. Every art form has a message, and the worth of that message, and the success at which the art communicates it, is part of that work. Rockstar crafted a world and gave that world a tone, a story, and characters. If the critic feels it is vital to point out aspects of the game's story, world, and message, he or she should be free to do so. Objectivity in criticism means that the critic has no personal connection to the success of that game, and is under no influence from the developer, publisher, or audience to make statements that may not reflect his or her actual feelings about the game. It does not mean that the critic does not evaluate the worth of any given aspect of the game.

If you want only a list of the things a game does without critical evaluation of those things, you can read press releases. Reviews are critical analyses. If you do not want us to express our experience with a game, and to not point out aspects that elevated or harmed that experience, then you should not read GameSpot reviews, or reviews in general. Regardless, critiques of a game's message are hardly anything new. One of my first reviews on GameSpot, almost seven years ago, pointed out racism. (This was a review of Happy Feet.) In our Army of Two review, we pointed out the uncomfortable message of the game. In my review of the third Army of Two game, I pointed out the puerility of its gay jokes. In his review of Everquest, Greg Kasavin pointed out the female characters' uncomfortable lack of clothing. All of these things stood out to the critic, and so they were evaluated.

If you want critics to overlook the worth and success of a game's message, GameSpot is not for you. If we find any aspect of the game relevant to the overall experience, it is fair to critique. We will not be singling out specific aspects of game design and narrative like characterization and theme and putting them in a box labeled "do not touch." 

g1rldraco7
g1rldraco7

Be honest Kevin, you bought that crystal Lightening McQueen figure didn't you? I won't judge you, judging people is evil.

Tixylixx
Tixylixx

Still no bloody volume slider on the player :z

LGMRTBM
LGMRTBM

Thanks for not answering my question Kevin.

cousinmerl
cousinmerl

FYI - there's a Hollywood in the uk (LA), also birmingham uk (albama). Americans take names from English towns all the time, so they shouldn't be surprised if towns appear in America or simulations of imaginary American islands full of demented players & misogynistic cartoon characters.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

Just because your sensibilities are offended does not mean you should impact the review or the score in a negative way, and if you were offended, the game should have been passed to another reviewer.  For example, if you were offended by gun violence would you play Call of Duty?  If asked to play the game for review, would you slam it for being violent?  Would you damage its score?    Was COD:MW2's score impacted by the No Russian level? 

What I am trying to say is that you do not have a right to lower a score because a game does what it sets out to do as long as it does it well.  If you do, then you are not doing your job in a professional manner.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

Caro, I have a question for you regarding your review and your views on criticism in general.  Isn't it the job of a professional journalist/critic to be objective in their writing and not subjective, unless you are writing an editorial.  Now a review, in my opinion is not an editorial and therefore should not be colored by your own beliefs or morality.  Do you disagree with this?  Do you believe that you, as a fairly powerful figure in gaming journalism, should use that power, in your reviews, to push your own beliefs upon your readers and potentially negatively effect the potential sales of a game in the process?

DarkFrankhs
DarkFrankhs

Kevin and his Guild Wars 2 ad.... hahaha. So proud! 

Sun-Tzu-GE
Sun-Tzu-GE

Looking forward to that GTA 5 spoilercast ! 

Sun-Tzu-GE
Sun-Tzu-GE

Oh god please stop talking about tape worm infestations ! I was eating...

NTM23
NTM23

Poutine looks disgusting, but it's probably good. This is off topic, but has Adam Sessler ever been on here? From all the podcasts I've listened to, I can't remember.

Jacanuk
Jacanuk

LOL Kevin mate your insane 97bucks on figures for a game you gave a 6 :D


Gelugon_baat
Gelugon_baat

You make innuendos in the podcast titles and descriptions that I find very amusing, Kevin.  XD

ExtremePhobia
ExtremePhobia

@MasterOfMordor Your post is... well, kind of pointless. Each point seems to take a line out of context so you can criticize him.

1) They do need to update their review guidelines. I prefer the reviews that they make BECAUSE they are more critical of games than most sites and they DO give a crap about this medium as a medium of not just entertainment but as art even if some of the things can be irritating at times. 

2) GTAV has a message (see #3 below). I think it's rather rash of you to say that all film critics review things the same way though. Lots of film critics will rate a popcorn flick high as long as they enjoy it. The most distinguished critics will tell you that while Transformers is flashy and a lot of fun, it's actually a rather lack luster movie by their standards.

3) You might not see GTAV as a work of "art" with a "message" but I think many people would agree that the entire GTA Franchise is a satire. You give me a definition of "Satire" that doesn't include the word "art" and I'll concede the point. It may not have a "moral message" (we're not talking Aesop's Fables here, it's meant to be left to your interpretation). Not all games strive to be anything more than fun but I dare you to walk up to any developer and tell them that their game isn't "art".

4) Maybe the torture didn't bother Caro. But saying that Hotline Miami got a plus for "Gloriously Violent" does nothing to support your point. I haven't finished the game but maybe the torture is far worse than the misogyny but that's highly subjective regardless. I really don't get the point of this except to bring up the word misogyny again. We get it, you're not a woman. But they do play games so why is that not a valid point to bring up?

5) I think it was a silly choice for Caro to review GTAV but Caro has shown on a couple of occassions that playing a game with prominent masculine themes doesn't cause problems. She IS more sensitive to it just as you are likely more sensitive to certain problems in a game. Listing ONE problem as perceived by a reviewer is hardly grounds for negating their entire opinion. That's only the grounds for the entire US Political system and look how well THAT has turned out.

5A) He defined "Objective" as they mean it which is not an incorrect way of using the word. He did so to avoid confusion and create transparency. As a side effect, he also locked himself into that one definition. Your response? Disregard how he means the word and use a different definition of the word that suits your argument. Very fair and transparent. 

6) They didn't tell you you "had the ability" to torture someone. They told you that either you do it or you don't play the game. That's a warning on the state of the game for people who might be squeamish about that sort of thing. They said that the portrayal of women was misogynistic, not your actions in the game. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the word "portrayed" as actually used in the review so I'm not sure how you got that one mixed up.

7) This one really highlights how you wanted to read this message. "If you do not want us to express our experience with a game, and to not point out aspects that elevated or harmed that experience, then you should not read GameSpot reviews, or reviews in general." How in the world did you get "You don't like my opinion? Beat it". Sounds to me like he's saying "If you do not want (definition of a critical review) then why are you wasting your time reading reviews?" Such a person reading reviews clearly has something else going on in their head and is very likely to disrupt the proper operation of a site that does a lot of reviews. We generally call these people Trolls but he was being nice.

8) I think it's silly to separate AAA games from Indie games. You'd have to first say that they existed separately from each other and I'm sure we can all agree that not only is that not true but that Indie games which are easily the odd one out here (since most games mimic AAA games) have had a very strong impact on game design in the past year or so. I doubly think this is silly because you're claiming that these AAA games are based on fun and selling. What do you think Angry Birds is? Love to know the message behind THAT indie game.

I'm not saying that games can't be judged differently based on what they are trying to do. In fact, that almost NEEDS to be a special consideration for lower budget games. But I can only agree that this should be the case when there's a general understanding by potential consumers that this is the case. Angry Birds sells itself as just a fun physics puzzler and it deserves higher scores. But if it was trying to sell it as a general game or story driven game, you could of course also take off loads of points for breaking your commitment and misleading customers (which is part of the gap that reviewers are there to keep in check).

9) Exactly, because "morality" is the all encompassing umbrella of every social issue that can be expressed in a game. I didn't know that we needed to say the word "moral" when talking about racism, discomfort due to skimpy clothing, etc. Again, you found a point and tried to make it big while missing about 5 lines of text that pointed out the dubious qualities of these games that most common people would agree are as bad (or with racism possibly worse) as misogyny. Or did I miss something?

10) Again, talking about misogyny discredits the rest of the review... because. News flash, just because some or even most people like scantily clad women doesn't mean that all of them do. So telling probably millions of people that disagree with you information that they want to know is damaging to you and your idea of this review... how? Would REALLY love to know. Since I'm sure you'll doubt that people disagree with you, I'll tell you that I work which missions I take around whether my wife is around or not. She doesn't care about naked women but certain topics upset her and I'm sure as hell going to avoid playing Trevor when she's around. Not really a stretch for others to be more sensitive and possibly not buy the game for that.

11) I thought we established that KVO isn't a business man already. What control does he have over this? or Caro? It's handled by people who don't give a crap at all about the content of the site as long as it makes money. That is almost literally their job title. Does it reflect well on Gamespot? No, it definitely doesn't. But I think their mere presence is more damaging to the GameSpot reputation than the randomly generated adds about attractive women.

Sorry to other readers for the wall of text. I find myself irritated about some of the editors harping about their favorite causes sometimes. But that applies equally to everybody, including commenters. And when you try to do it by selectively taking things out of context and trying to intentionally avoid the intended meaning of something that the person said to support your "cause" then I find nothing more irritating.

Tip for KVO next time though: Try not to start with "I didn't think I had to explain this". Such a phrase can really only be used to insult people even if you are simply stating a fact.

pal_080
pal_080

@MasterOfMordor  You sir are arrogance incarnate.

aiat_gamer
aiat_gamer

@MasterOfMordor Thank you for the insightful review. I was among the maybe few who was not bothered that much with how Carol tries to get her views incorporated into her reviews but to be honest, it is starting to get tiring. I have been using GS as my main gaming website for little over 10 years now, I am not active at all and do not come to GS for news, but mainly for the shows and reviews but I have to admit since the days of Kasavin, Eckberg, Gerstmann, Shoemaker, Navarro etc I feel like this site has changed into a place for people to force their own morals into game reviews. That is one danger zone for me, as MasterOfMordor said, leave your morals for the different outlets on the site, right a coloumn for it, make a show, talk about it on podcast but leave it out of the review. 
As an example, Kevin did not mention anything related to morals on the good VS bad side of Duke Nukem Forever game review even though he mentioned the terrible sexual jokes in the main review.

shreddyz
shreddyz

@MasterOfMordor Those were the types of issues that bothered me as well. There is just too much arrogance among staffers here that try to masquerade as professionals. I have been saying for a while now that the gs reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. 

robchiang1990
robchiang1990

@Kevin-V Just caught up with Greg's Call of Duty video review from a decade ago in which he mentioned the problem Russian speaking English. If I review GTAV, I will definitely mention "Finally legit mandarin" given I'm Chinese and studied language in college. Red Dead Redemption also had a side mission with a Chinese speaking legit Chinese, Mandarin or Cantoness I forgot.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@Kevin-V I am also curious why you can create, produce and air a show dedicated to the vitriolic morons with nothing good to say, thereby lending them credence, while you give absolutely no time to the posters with something of value to say.  

As an example, my post arguing your reasoning for Caro's review and GameSpot's reviews in general, has, as of the time of this writing, more likes than your post, indicating that your readers agree with what I have to say.  Yet, my posts and posts from others like me go ignored to fade into the vast void of space, rather than being lent any sort of respect, time, or acknowledgement.

Why not have a show that pulls some of the best critical posts and speaks to them.  Explain why the reader is wrong, or possibly even admit that GameSpot is wrong and needs to change in some form.  Why poke fun at people that have nothing worth hearing to say; instead why not talk about the real issues many of your readers have with aspects of the site.

You speak about the community of GameSpot, but only acknowledge the dark side, or the super bright cheery "you guys are the best!" side.  There are intelligent posters that have good, fair, critical statements to make, but you treat them as if they don't exist.  Where is the fairness in that?

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@Kevin-V Curious if press releases go into detail about the quality of the game in an honest manner.  Do press releases tell me if the controls are tight?  Do they explain that their is pop in?  Do they tell me the the story is gripping and will have you at the edge of your seat?  And if it does, is it trustworthy?  Don't press releases come from companies paid for by the people who publish the game?  Can readers trust them?  I thought it was for the aspects listed about that reviews were created.  

I did not think reviews were created to cherry pick what hurts your feelings and what doesn't from a game.  If I were poor and scrooge McDuck's tower of gold hurt my feelings would it be right to dock the score if I were in a position of power as you editors are?  Would it be right to do so?  Would you let my review be published on your site?  Would you approve it if I worked for you?

baltim123
baltim123

@Kevin-V I think you guys are doing a great job and everybody adds his/her own flavor to the review. Yes this sounds weird because reviews are meant to be objective, but this is kinda impossible. Also Caro's review is totally justified. I for one also think the game lacks some sort of strong female character, it does however still deserve a 10 IMO. And the "misoginy" is IMO not a subjective thing that only caro would point out , it is indeed a part of the greater product and IMO matters to the story of GTAV, therefore it also impacts the overall experience and thus affects the value of the game.

markosasav
markosasav

@Kevin-V Do you not have some sort of standard for the whole website? Am I to understand that if all of you review the same game, GTA for example with it's  myriad of different themes, you would all give it very different scores, based on your feelings at the time, an your politics on a particular issue?

Kevin-V
Kevin-V moderator staff

@Tixylixx I don't have any control over that, I am afraid; SoundCloud does not offer one. 

Kevin-V
Kevin-V moderator staff

@Jacanuk I know! It's just so hard to break a habit, even when you know it's bad for you!

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@ExtremePhobia @MasterOfMordor  Ok, I'll ignore the fact that you called my post pointless, because you obviously just missed the point of the post.  But while you say I took KVO's lines of text out of context, you seem to do a poor job of explain HOW I took them out of context.  But moving on.

1. We agree that the policies need to be changed, so we are on the same page there.  So far so good.  That is all I want from them, to change their policies, or to be more objective in their reviews.

2. You missed, my point, what I was saying, is that film critics do judge different types of films differently.  The Hangover is well rated for what it is, a raunchy comedy.  It does what it wanted to do well.  But if it were reviewed as more of an art piece like Dr. Strangelove, it would come up short.  GameSpot seems to be reviewing games as if they are all art pieces nowadays and don't allow games to just be a raunchy comedy type game, they all have to be Dr. Strangelove.

3. From Google-Satire (noun) the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.  Art is not in the definition, so I will consider the point conceded   However, I will say that if I were to speak to Cliffy B I would be happy to tell him that Gears of War is not art.  A fantastic game, yes, art, no.

4.  If you are going to bring up one issue a particular group or  minority may have, why not bring them all up.  How are black people portrayed?  Is it fair to only account for one group of people.  And bringing up the violence was to show that one form of potentially offensive material is considered a plus, while another is considered a negative.  Is that fair either?

5. Caro was a bad choice, you agree with me, so that ends that discussion.  And to 5A, if what he said is their review policy, then place it in the review guidelines and I will stop posting, and also probably stop visiting the site, because I want to know if a game is good, and fun to play.  If I buy GTAV, I know its going to get a little (or a lot) effed up.  I just want to know is the storyline interesting, is shooting fun, is driving tight.  I don't need to know that the strippers hurt your feelings.  If that is the route they are going, then I get off at that stop.

6. Again, I think you misunderstood my point.  It was not aimed directly at that review or that game.  It was intended as a general statement of the difference between objective and subjective writing, when putting a game review together.  I apologize if that was not clear. 

7.  We must agree to disagree on this one, because I read and reread Kevin's statement and come to the same conclusion as my original post.  And again, please read part one of my post.  This above and beyond everything else is the crux of my argument.  If you are going to write subjective reviews about how a game makes you feel emotionally and change the score however slightly based on your emotional bias.  And if you are going to treat games as art pieces and therefore allow them and their scores to be at the whim of someones morals, agenda, lifestyle choices, then put it up on your website as your official policies, and I will have no issue.  When the actions don't follow the mission statement you are lying to your readers, not conducting yourself in a manner befitting a real journalist and just plain making donkeys of yourselves.  I read many reviews, from this site and many others, I use those reviews to influence my purchases, but when I am thinking of buying GTAV, I don't need to know that her feelings were hurt.  

8. Again, you missed the point (you have missed a few).  GTAV cost many millions of dollars to make, jobs are on the line, many people are counting on it's success.  So the devs of GTAV are more likely to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to attain that success.  However, a game like Braid was done by one man, wanting to get his vision out there.  He can be a lot more likely to throw caution to the wind and say this is my vision, love it or leave it.  In the end his game has one mouth to feed.  How many does GTAV have?  I am not saying that both games aren't important or fantastic, in fact I would choose Braid over GTAV any day.  What I am saying is the success or failure of the game is more important to more people in GTAV, and therefore, they are more likely to cater to the masses, not the few people that have to turn the tv off when their wife walks in the room.

9. Kevin brought up racism in Happy Feet, um, it is Happy Feet.  First of all, I doubt anyone intended racism.  Second of all, it is Happy Feet!  If there is racism in Happy Feet, I certainly didn't expect to see it so maybe it should be mentioned.  But when you buy GTAV, you know you are going to get a LOT of bad behavior of all types from its characters, so why single out one type of bad behavior, what about drinking? drugs?, why not mention them, maybe a recovering alcoholic wants to play, can't we let him know?  You go down a dangerous path when you start talking about the morals of the game.  In the Happy Feet review, Kevin should have just stated that some words were spelled phonetically that probably shouldn't have been and left it at that, leaving racism off the table.

10.  Do you REALLY think millions of people who hate seeing or are put off by seeing women in little outfits want to play GTAV? Really?  I don't doubt there are millions of people that don't like near nude women, but I do doubt that is the same demographic looking to get their GTA on.  As for you, you still gave Rockstar your $60, so they are happy no matter what you do when your wife is in the room.

11. If you were an animal rights activist, would you work at a cosmetics company that does animal testing.  If you would, shame on you.  But more to the point, Caro is obviously a feminist to some degree, but she takes her pay from a company promoting women as nothing more than sex objects.  I am curious how she sleeps at night.  It is a choice she and Van Ord and anyone else at GameSpot that cries about how women in games are depicted as sex objects etc, but gets paid from the ad money that does exactly that.  How is that not the definition of double standard?  I would love to know.

To end this post, I would just like to point out that there was nothing selective or out of context that was used in either my past post or this one, and no argument you have made proves otherwise.  So you are welcome to play again, but prizes aren't handed out for empty arguments, no matter how well put.  I do however like your icon, so there is that.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@pal_080 And you brought nothing to the table besides useless words.  You are what is wrong with the comments section of any and all websites.  The person that can only make useless statements but who is unable to articulate anything of worth.  Sorry pal, but it's true.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@aiat_gamer @MasterOfMordor Very well put! One of two things need to happen for GameSpot to be credible again.   Either they need to return to the age of journalistic integrity and review games with an objective eye without a slant towards the reviewers own moral structure, or they need to change their mission statement/review policies to better reflect the type of website they have become, so that their readers know that their reviews give but a passing wink and nod to objectivity.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@shreddyz @MasterOfMordor Right!? Back in the days of Kasavin, Eckberg, Gerstmann, Shoemaker, Navarro etc, this was the first site I went to when a new game came out, and the review that always held the most weight with me.  Since their departure the site has become a shell of itself, attempting to put a "spin" on reviews that nobody every asked for or really wanted.  Whats worse is that it still advertises itself as a legitimate video game outlet without spelling out the fact that its reviews are severely colored by the editors personal morals and agendas.  Its a bit of a joke at this point.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@baltim123 @Kevin-V The issue that I see is that docking a score because a game does what it sets out to do is wrong.  She lowered the score for being misogynistic, why wasn't the score also lowered for how it portrays many of the black characters?  It is fine to point out that the game has strong misogynistic tendencies if you want to and let the reader decide if it is important to them (though be honest with yourself, it is GTAV, are you really surprised at the way women are portrayed).  But to put it up on the header of the review as a "bad" element, to dock the score because of it, this is where the review REALLY crosses a line from objective review into an editorial masquerading as a review.

NTM23
NTM23

@markosasav That's exactly what would happen, and they're implementing that into the new site.

MasterOfMordor
MasterOfMordor

@markosasav @MasterOfMordor @shreddyz We will most certainly see.  It would be a sad day to see GameSpot go the way of 1Up, but unless the current editors learn how to better serve their community and follow the rules they themselves set forth, or are replaced by people who can, it is not a matter of if, but when.

markosasav
markosasav

@MasterOfMordor @shreddyz Yeah.. I don't understand how he could be that arrogant.. I guess it's because the people you mentioned built the fanbase and the readership, and these entitled editors feel they can never lose them.. We'll see

baltim123
baltim123

@MasterOfMordor @baltim123 @Kevin-V I totally understand you and you indeed have some valid points. On the "black characters" topic i'd just like to say that Franklin is a strong character , yes they get portrayed as "OG from da hood niggas" but atleast thats not all they are in this game. The thing that bothers me (only a small bit) is that the women don't really add a lot to the story and only act silly which for me kinda drags down the story because that isn't as serious as the rest of it. In GTA IV for example you had both roman and Niko's girlfriends who - while they also were really stereotypical and "weak women" - still had an impact on the story.

markosasav
markosasav

@NTM23 @markosasav Wouldn't that mean that almost nobody will read Petit's reviews anymore? Right now, she represents Gamespot's view on GTA.. After that change she can be totally ignored