Game Reviews and Political Correctness

Well, how would you knowing a critics political views, help you decide if a game is good or not and whether its worth buying? unless you have the same political and feminist views . Also do you really need people to tell you how to experience?

Not to mention how can you say a developers intent is meaningless? Its their work, its their way of thinking you are enjoying, it would be like saying that Scorsese's or Tarantinos touch on their movies are meaningless, and all that matters is how you and critics view it. But no one would even start to claim that because everyone knows that its just stupid, and without the people behind the movie, painting, or any art-work it would not be what it is. Same goes for games, games are no different then any other art-work.

Also Bias is always harmfull, it comes from being unsided and unable to go past ones own judgemental way of thinking and the idea that only one way is the correct way. Its just ignorance.

Then why are all the other reviews that Carolyn has not done have no feminism, religion or poltical agenda behind them? You can just look at Mark Waltons review of GTA. He did it perferctly. Without any bias mention. He told us what the game is and how it plays. Gave it a 9. That's it

Did you not see the TRUE I put in my quote?

Carolyn's concerns are still complete nonsense, thus a non issue.

No, I read your comment via my notifications. I didn't see the bolded. But if it's a non-issue, why get upset about it? Just let her have her criticism and ignore it, since it doesn't apply to you.

I'm not upset about that specifically. Just the collective amount of BS surrounding video games and gamers atm is getting really, really old.

Referring to the opening post, I want to say here that if you are going to call something "art", expect it to get criticized from all kinds of viewpoints, including those you don't like.

Also, those GamerGaters who cited the late Roger Ebert (yes, he is deceased) have a rather selective memory if some of them are now looking at him - of all people - to be their champion. Ebert has never seen video games as art.

I can definitely agree with this.

And this as well.

What does censoring have to do with political correctness? At least in the USA (I can't speak for other countries), I am not familiar with any laws mandating that your game has to be politically correct. Now, granted, no one might publish your politically incorrect game. And consumers might not buy your politically correct game. But no one is stopping you from making what you want to make.

But more to the point, what does this have to do with REVIEWS? People review content that already exists, meaning that no matter how much a review relies on political correctness, it still inherently can't stop people from making the game that they want to make. Those people already made the game, otherwise there'd be no game to review. Reviews are after the fact, they're commentaries on something which has already been made. You can argue that writing a review that focuses on political correctness makes that a BAD review, but it's pretty damn hard to argue that complaining about something that has already been made amounts to censorship.

Disagreed. Games, movies, books, photographs, paintings, songs, etc often make statements about such topics. The artist's statement about women or blacks or guns or drugs is worthy of criticism just as much as anything else in the work or art. It's sort of bullshit to say that artists can makes statements about such things, but that reviewers can't then comment on those statements. If such subjects shouldn't be in the review, then the artist shouldn't have included such subjects in their art.

Now, granted, I think that reviewers should make their biases clear (at least when there's a notable controversy) so that readers can better understand the criticisms that are being made. But that in no way means that such criticisms SHOULDN'T be made. If you make the most gorgeous technically amazing movie that I've ever seen, and the message argues for genocide, then you're goddamn right that I should be allowed to criticize it for promoting genocide. I'll spend all day praising the technical merits while stating that the message is morally repugnant.

I don't share Petit's views, but since she gave clear examples, I could see where's she was coming from. I have used this argument already in another comment, but her view and her examples provide information about the level of satire the game provides, and even (in an indirect sense) about the intention of the developers. Anyone else would just take the satirical element (which is a very important aspect of the GTA games) for granted (and maybe write some eloquent, but uninformative phrase about how it's still in there), but because of her views she chose to address the aspect in more detail. While her viewpoint might be selective and biased, it gives me insight into how GTA V approaches satire, regardless of whether I agree with her views or not. It's a blunt and direct kind of satire, which Petit might not have appreciated, but that doesn't mean I won't (I think I will). But the fact that she didn't enjoy it means that I get information about an important aspect of GTA V, an aspect others might disregard or not notice.

No, they need to tell me what they have experienced. That's different. Reviewers aren't telling me how I should experience a game, they are telling me a possible way of experiencing a game. Their experience isn't the law, but since videogames are about the experience, I need an account on how all these game aspects are experienced, preferably from different people. And as I explained, opposing ideas are not useless when they're supported by clear examples and a little bit of context. They simply provide a more detailed picture, which in turn helps me make my purchasing decision with more confidence.

That's not what I said. I said the intentions are useless when it comes to me buying and enjoying a game. If I want to have a discussion about the broader relevance and general value of a particular videogame, then the intentions of the developer are certainly important. However, when I want to decide whether or not I like a game, those intentions are pretty irrelevant, because what I enjoy isn't dictated by some perceived universal standards or the developer's intentions. It's dictated by my own personal preferences. So a review has to provide me with information that I can adapt to my personal preferences, not with some analysis of how much a game turned out to be what the developers intended. That's none of my concern when I'm thinking about buying a product.

Well, I beg to differ and I've explained why. I've been relying on reviews (among other things) for quite some time and any perceived bias has never led me to a bad purchase.

Isn't saying "bias is always harmful" already exhibiting a bias?

That is harkening back to the statement, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," by Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Well, that doesn't really matter. I fear that discussing who is and isn't exhibiting bias will only derail the discussion. What I've tried to make clear is that any bias (regardless of whether or not it is perceived as such) can provide useful information under the right circumstances.

And you can do that in a blog or an editorial. Not in a review. I did a poll in group yesterday and over 90% of normal gamers supported my idea. A review should be about a game. If something is crappy in its storytelling, they should tell us. But unless a game is about the KKK killing african americans, then it shouldn't be included. It is not bullshit. People don't want feministic, religious or political views in their damn game reviews

"A review should be about a game."

Right. And if the game either deliberately or unintentionally includes messages about race or equality or whatever other "politically correct" thing you can think of, then it's fair for the reviewer to comment on it.

The reviewer see that in the game they should have all right to including it buy they need to be reasonable about it as well. There is a different between "They way she dress and act make me uncomfortable" and "They are using her to encourage the objectification of women."

Second they can not let something overshadow the rest of the game. For example, a reviewer should not say a story is great because it has a deep message, but also horrible characters, poor dialog, slop together scene and a lazy plot.

Well, it goes without saying that a review should be well written and its points should be properly supported. That still doesn't mean that reviewers should avoid commenting on such issues.

"The reviewer see that in the game they should have all right to including it buy they need to be reasonable about it as well."

Uh...what?

What I mean if a person find something is apart of the game then they should point it out but be reasonable about it. There is a different between commenting on an issue and make the review a soapbox.

Just as important is that need to be reasonable with it. They can not let one aspect of the game to become too dominate. I seen too many hand-waving away issues a game have because the they call the game art and state it has a deep meaning.

edit to added:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up8p10-WyaU
Start to watch at about 5:30

I'm pretty sure gamergate is all about reviewers who take money/favors from publishers/devs (like the whole Zoey Quinn scandal) to influence their review scores and the implementation of personal opinions that impact the score on supposedly unbiased reviews. Like every single review Carolyn Petit wrote.

I think the reviews that contain feminist, religious or political views regarding a particular game make up far less than 10% of the available reviews about that game. Why are those 90% entitled to all the content of every single review out there?

Says who? Your lopsided poll of "normal gamers"? Right... you don't speak for me. Your group of "normal gamers" doesn't speak for me. You are no authority of what does and doesn't go into a review.

Feminism made up less than one percent of the entire output of work all the big sites, actually. This is literally making a mountain out of a molehill.

Couldn't agree more. A game should be measured by it's quality, not if it conforms to the socio-political standards of tumblr and the SJWs who have a hissy fit at anything they dislike. It's not fair on us, and it's not fair on the game. But other than Mr. McShea, I haven't seen many game reviewers do that.

This isn't a trait unique to tumblr and 'SJWs'.

Define "quality".

I didn't say they were... People don't want any bias to go into a review

"And you can do that in a blog or an editorial. Not in a review. I did a poll in group yesterday and over 90% of normal gamers supported my idea. A review should be about a game."

Well, gee. Who can argue such scientific proof. Newsflash: If I ask a bunch of people -I- know they'd probably agree with me. How many of the "normal gamers" that you asked were female?

"People don't want feministic, religious or political views in their damn game reviews"

No, -you- don't because as you've made abudantly clear you don't give a crap if a game is sexist. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion (well, I wouldn't say it's "fine" but that's another topic). How do you not get that not giving a shit about gender equality IS UNTO ITSELF A POLITICAL VIEW? That is some serious cognitive dissonance. You are cherry picking -which- kinds of opinions you want to see (racism = OK, sexism = not OK) and insisting that yours is the only objective view. If you were racist, you wouldn't care if the games were racist and you'd probably still claim that you are just looking for "objective" reviews that ignore racism in a game.

-Byshop

I didn't know them mate. It's a group consisting 5000 people and they answered.

No, because it's art. Trying to censor it because it offends you is not right and you should be objective. I've even talked with a journalist about this and he agrees with me

By telling the reviewer they can't state their personal experience (which is part of a review), you are censoring them.

Oh, 5000 people? Yeah, that's definitely representative of the millions and millions of people who play games and read reviews.

Who was this journalist you spoke with, by chance? Surely you can give us a name?

@Gue1: Reviews should be factual, not somebodies personal taste in the game

No, i am not... I am telling them to do their job...

Stop fucking patronizing me, i can even give you his site... I just came of a stream with him

Link

By telling them to omit their personal experiences that affected them enough that they felt it was problematic to note. You aren't telling them to do their jobs. You're telling them HOW to do their jobs. As I said before, you are of no authority to do that. Doesn't matter how many polls you pull out of your ass. Not everyone agrees with you, so your idea of what a review is is just as subjective as what you claim reviews shouldn't be.

Video games are art? Okay. I'll go with that, and it's something with which I happen to agree.

Here's the thing...with art, there's often a hell of a lot of analysis and interpretation going on. So...take a look at art criticism (because after all, video game reviews are "criticism"). When people go to a new exhibit by a painter, are the reviews of the exhibit restricted to technical criteria such as "yes this exhibit works properly because I can see the paintings"? Sometimes, yeah, but often no. See, the thing is, art allows the creator to include messages under the surface that can only be appreciated through historical context and personal interpretation. "Art" can get esoteric or formulaic or personal or diplomatic, its statements can be intentional or unintentional. That is not to say that all interpretations are equally valid, but the point remains...once this becomes "art", then that implies that creators are able to include content under the surface which can only be appreciated or understood by interjecting personal experiences and biases.

And again...if it's fair for creators of content to put such things in the game, then it's totally fair for reviewers to criticize them.

I think what you're getting at is that game reviewers should describe rather than interpret or theorize. As in, they should describe the objective qualities (such as "the story says this") rather than qualities which are more open to debate (such as "the story doesn't say this, but propagation of this idea is a natural consequence of analyzing how these aspects relate when presented as a whole"). But when has that ever been the case with art criticism?

The point is, once something has been determined to be capable of being art, then it sort of implies that it's open for discussion. That doesn't mean that all interpretations or judgements are equally valid...sometimes people are just plain wrong about it. But here's the thing: it's one thing to claim that a particular reviewer's interpretation of a game was wrong, and it's a completely different thing to state that that reviewer messed up by judging the game partly within his or her social and political frame of reference. One is accepting discussion while saying "your opinion is wrong", while the other is flat out trying to PREVENT discussion by saying people should stop commenting on what they personally see. You can't tout games as art while still maintaining that game critics should stop judging games based on "PC" or "SJW" ideas. That kind of discussion about things below the surface is PRECISELY one of the consequences of art, and you can't reasonably justify video games being art without accepting that such kinds of comments have their place.

Now, having said that, anyone who interprets something a certain way should be capable of adequately backing up what they say. And yes, I agree that many critics are incapable of doing that. However, this just means that they are bad at criticism. It does NOT mean that the issues that they talk about should not be discussed. Do not criticize game reviewers at large for interjecting their social or political biases. Criticize them for not adequately supporting their interpretations of the material.

When someone is offended it's their own problem, it says nothing about the game itself. If a game is rated R, you freaking know what you're getting... No, you're telling them how to do their jobs. The template of game reviews has been pretty good so far and everytime someone has stepped out of line like Carolyn Petit, they get called out for it. It's GTA, what did she expect? Nobody is portrayed in a good light. The women and men are both portrayed bad. She only made it suit her own little agenda.

My idea of a review might be subjective, but a majority agree with me mate.

You're looking at this wrong.

Suppose you make a work of art. You love it, you think it's a masterpiece, you think that this is the thing that's finally gonna put you on the map as an up-and-comer who has serious chops. So then you release it and to your surprise, everyone says it's the shittiest thing they ever saw.

That means there's the problem. Maybe that's the audience's problem (they're too stupid to understand your genius) or maybe it's your problem (you're too incompetent to realize how much you suck). But there most definitely is a problem. Art is a communication of ideas and values and whatever. The key word being COMMUNICATION. Initially, it doesn't matter whose prolem it is. Your concern is that communication broke down. You said something, and audiences heard something completely different. THAT is the problem, and you can't just sweep that under the rug by saying, "pfft, I'm the artist, people thinking I suck is their problem." It's also YOUR problem because the entire point of releasing art was to communicate with other people. And regardless of who fucked up, the issue is that people aren't getting what you're saying. That needs to be addressed.

@MrGeezer: Then downvote the game and the rating for it. Don't put in crap like as a republican i feel offended because this doesn't suit my ideologies. That is bullcrap. You can justify why you gave a game that score with the gameplay and other things in the game. You don't just say because i am of this ideology i am downvoting the game or upvoting becuse it suits my religious beliefs.

It's the same with movie reviews, music reivews ,etc. You can pick apart a movie without mentioning the Bechdel test. You can probably say it's more suited towards someone who likes action for example. It's that easy. You don't need to re-enforce it with something else

Well, to be fair, if the 5000 people are chosen according to the right methods it can indeed be representative. The amount of people responding only matters to a certain extent. 5000 people could actually be very representative. However, this was probably just a simple online poll and not an actual research, so no regulations were applied to make the response group representative.

You can't let the majority dictate what is right and what is wrong without questioning it, which seems to be what you're doing. You can't just say that whatever the majority perceives as true, is in fact the truth and should dictate all related factors. Just because some majority wants something doesn't mean there can't be room for anything alternative. You haven't explained why that 90% is apparently entitled to all review content out there. It has already been pointed out that the amount of feminist, political and religious content in reviews is probably far less than 10%, so why is that 90% entitled to the full 100%...?

@loafofgame: You know there is a christian site that actually manages to do this the right way. The review it objectively one time where nothing bias is done in the review and they do a seperate one where they review it from a christian perspective. It is possible. But having a main review being bias is wrong

That is not my point. Tell me why the 90% are entitled to everything. Others have clearly explained why discussing these issues is justified, logical and even useful, yet all you keep saying is that people don't want it and that there are reviews and sites that do it the way you like it. That is not the point. There is a significant amount of people who want reviews to discuss these things (or who simply don't mind if they do). Why is the majority entitled to all content?

Look, we can discuss what art means, what the job of a reviewer entails, what bias is, but we're not going to get anywhere, because we all have different ideas about those terms (and apparently we all think our ideas can't be questioned). Those terms are way too complex to come to a mutual understanding everyone agrees with. So I ask a simple question: assuming there is a majority who doesn't want certain stuff in reviews, what gives them the right to claim that that stuff should be absent in ALL reviews? What gives them the right to claim their preferences are law and should therefore apply to ALL content? (Note: I'm not talking about majority influence in general here, but about majority influence when it comes to videogame reviews offered to you free of charge. Nothing more, nothing less)

If others make perfectly sensible arguments about the value of discussing certain themes, about how these themes are part of the game, about personal perspective being pretty much unavoidable when it comes to judging an experience product (or art, if you want to call it that), then how is it that some people simply disregard all those arguments and say: well, the majority doesn't want it, so it shouldn't be in there. Why is it so important that every single piece of a review should fit one specific mold and nothing else?

So we are suppose to just ignore what most people want?

Because game reviews have followed a standard and people don't want people's bs views in the review. Why is that so hard to believe. Maybe you're not suited to review the game if it goes against your personal beliefs. Not all games are for everyone.

Because that's not what a review is. A review is a consumer guide, not a damn moral compass. When people want to buy a game or not, they should not hear how it offended the reviewer because they had to torture a guy. Say it's in there and it's not for everyone. End of story

So...you're saying that game reviewers shouldn't interpret and judge stuff that is present in the game? If that's the case, then how can you justify criticizing stiff controls or poor frame rates or ugly textures?

No you you can interpret it by being proffesional. Doctors do their job, even if it might go against their own personal views. Because it is their job...

Their job is to write or talk about the game, and you're saying that they should look at something that's in the game and avoid writing or talking about it. You are the one advocating that game critics stop doing their jobs.

When someone is offended it's their own problem,

I can say the same thing about a review. Ignore a criticism that doesn't matter to you.

If a game is rated R, you freaking know what you're getting...

Again, we talked about this. Rating systems are poor informational sources, because they do not go into detail about the content in the game. Also, Halo was rated M, but Call of Duties back then showed more blood, more realistic blood, and were given T, so ratings are also inaccurate.

No, you're telling them how to do their jobs. The template of game reviews has been pretty good so far and everytime someone has stepped out of line like Carolyn Petit, they get called out for it.

Sounds to me like you're telling them again how to do their jobs. Carolyn Petit didn't follow this unwritten template of how a game should be reviewed, so she deserves to be called out for it.

It's GTA, what did she expect? Nobody is portrayed in a good light. The women and men are both portrayed bad.

This is the part were we should start having a serious discussion. There definitely is a balance issue here, and you won't see it unless you can stop approaching her review as nothing but a political agenda. The game does depict both women and men badly, however, there isn't enough strong representation of women as there are men. For instance, there is no female playable character, and the three playable men characters are painted rather strongly (in the case of Trevor, even sadistically well). The only woman character that wasn't a parody of herself was the hacker you could hire for the heists, and you never actually saw her during the mission or interacted with her outside of radio communication. Also, the prostitute bit is getting rather old. What would could have really balanced this particular issue is having male prostitutes as well, even gay bars and male strip clubs. People who defend GTA say that hookers exist in real life. Well, so do male hookers and male strippers. It should be easy to see why a feminist who wants to see a more balanced portrayal of gender takes issue with GTA and if it affects her, it should be noted.

She only made it suit her own little agenda.

Telling someone they shouldn't talk about something because of their agenda is an agenda in of itself.

My idea of a review might be subjective, but a majority agree with me mate.

So if your idea of a review is subjective, even with the majority behind you, then stop touting it as fact. Dismiss her review. Dismiss her criticisms. Don't dismiss her right to talk about a game the way she wants.

And that's such a horrible analogy, I'm not going to even waste my time addressing it.

I never said we should ignore what most people want. But what most people want should not dictate EVERYTHING. Again, why is the majority apparently entitled to EVERYTHING? You and your majority seem to want to lay claim to ALL content, which is hardly fair. You make it look like these reviews are useless for everyone. They're not. And you also make it look like pretty much all reviews out there are biased pieces of crap, only discussing themes you don't like, which also isn't true.

I've already explained elsewhere in this thread why discussing religious, gender and political elements (and personal opinions in general) can in fact be useful under the right circumstances (although it obviously won't be useful for everyone). Others have explained that bias and personal opinions are pretty much inherent to art criticism and unavoidable when discussing experience products, such videogames, movies and books. Why is it so hard for you to believe that for me (and others) a personal perspective is much more insightful than any vague description of features? That doesn't mean I want all reviews (or even the majority) to be like that, but I wouldn't mind having a few of them. Believe it or not, but those reviews (when properly constructed) actually help me in making a purchasing decision.

It isn't... If you are against abortion, you're not going to let your job be in the way of that. Same with reviews. You should let your own views cloud your judgment of a game