Game Reviews and Political Correctness

@creadalf: this has already been posted

This, this and this.

Again, a game should be judged by it's quality, not how it conforms to social political correctness and adhere the player's standards.

I don't always agree with the politics in Deus Ex: Human Revolution but it's one of my favourite all time games and I refuse to let my views cloud my judgement. As it should be.

That's exactly how I feel. In your own personal editorial or blog, it is more than OK to talk about your personal beliefs. But leave all that crap out in a review. You need to be talking stricly about the game itsef, which is what Mark Walton accomplished with his review of GTA V. Carolyn failed in her job on the original because she got way too personal with her review and injected her personal beliefs into the matter.

Information on its technical aspects and mechanics.

Or at least I would if I read reviews.

Best way to judge a game is to pirate it and then buy it if you like it.

Nonsense. Maybe you should do some research then trust your judgement. Then again, if you are advocating piracy on a website that is clearly against it, maybe your judgement isn't trustworthy after all.

Sue me.

Which is what i've been saying the whole time, yet i've gotten crap for that stance

That would be an analysis not a review.

Ok then we need to ban reviews or something.

Or stop pretending being a reviewer is a real job and shun reviewers and laugh at their faces.

Why? Reviews are useful.

Also it is a real job, they're writers.

You prove my point nicely.

Don't derail.

@kakamoura: he is right, don't pirate games

lol k

well played.

Couldn't agree more. Honestly, it's not that complicated as everyone makes it out to be.

Of course, try and say that, and you're called a bigot...

I dunno... I feel like I'm opening myself up for another several page exchange of cyclical debating but... here it goes. Carolyn's mention of misogyny did not affect the game's score. It received the same score as Mark Walton when he reviewed it for the PS4 and Xbox One. It most certainly did not affect the game's sales in any way. With that said, a game's quality can become that much more subjective if its content comes into conflict with a person's viewpoints or sensibilities. If a game is made solely for the purpose of killing Muslims, then a Muslim game reviewer may take serious issue with the game and feel the need to talk about its issues with Muslims. If the reviewer is professional enough, they will mention those issues without it overshadowing the actual technical aspects of the review. This what Carolyn did. She mentioned misogyny, but did not in any way penalize the game for it. This is what people are misconstruing, that she somehow hates or even mildly dislikes (she's an avid fan of the franchise, btw) GTA 5 because of the misogyny. If you're to avert your focus off the mentions of misogyny and look at the review in its entirety, you will see that is not the case.

Exacly! Just look at the replies i've gotten!

Wow, I haven't been here in like 3 months and people are still on this issue? Give it a friggin rest. Also, you need to think about what you're saying here. You don't like it when people complain about how certain developers make games and you say they are trying to censor them. And yet, here you are complaining about how certain critics review games and trying to change it. You're doing exactly the same thing that you're getting mad at other people for doing.

Yep, I've seen 'em. Pretty sad, to be honest.

@ShadowsDemon: Well the threads where this has been discussed have also been locked by one mod aswell

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to inject personal ideology and politics into reviews. Ultimately the only reviewer who can tell you whether or not a game is good is yourself, but reviews are necessary to many in determining whether it is worth investing time into playing the game in the first place. It is very difficult to review a game in a purely objective manner; doing so just reduces it to a few comments about graphics or gameplay that don't help a lot of people make a decision.

Reviewers all have different beliefs and some will be more useful to the individual in helping them make a decision than others. Each have their different priorities and beliefs as to what a game should be, and the best thing we can do as consumers is consider various reviewers with an open mind to find which ones we tend to agree with the most, who will give an opinion on the game that is meaningful to us. Carolyn criticised GTA V for being 'profoundly misogynistic' which is a priority to her and to some viewers but not to most. I think there are much worse things about the game than that, like the mission that makes you torture someone. Nonetheless her reviews are useful to people who share her beliefs and priorities about what is important in a game or what is especially bad.

The problem with sites like GameSpot and IGN is that they have numerous staff members who review games and it is almost random which one ends up reviewing a game you're interested in. While Carolyn gave GTA V a 9.5 despite being 'profoundly mysoginistic', another reviewer might have given it a lower score after taking stronger issue with another aspect of the game, or given it a perfect score. If people are to rely on GameSpot as a good source for reviews, it needs to present consistent standards and priorities in its reviews that won't appeal to everybody but to a dedicated group that agree with those standards and generally trust GS's opinion. Having numerous reviewing staff makes this more difficult. I think it's fine for Carolyn, for example, to review games from the perspective of social justice activism, as long as she presents herself as such and reviews those games for people who consider that ideology important. If a review is published on GameSpot as the site's official review, however, the implication is that it is a review to appeal to a wider interest group of people who play games, not just supporters of a particular ideology.

Sites like polygon are also known for reviewing games from an ideological point of view, but Polygon is very consistent in doing so such that anyone who doesn't agree knows to just not read Polygon's reviews. Bigger, more generic sites like GameSpot however do not present a consistent set of standards or beliefs about what is good and bad in a game which is why some users feel alienated when a review pops up that makes a big deal over something they don't see as important (or vice versa).

Critics from all industries often view things through the lens of their personal views and I see nothing wrong with that. Personally, I prefer reviewers who share my opinions and can let me know if a game or movie contains content that I don't want to be supporting. I would be freaking PISSED if I bought a game like Hatred because some critic only told me about how it has a lot of action but neglects to mention what the game is actually about.... So yeah, if you want a certain type of reviewer who only gives you the basic information about a game then that's fine. But don't try to get other critics fired just because they want to actually review every aspect of a game and give their opinions. Some of us actually prefer that.

Note that I never, ever mentioned anything to do with Carolyn and her review. Ever. And she gave GTA V a hell of a lot higher score than I would. But seeing the game through a socio-political lens and interjecting personal political viewpoints to reviews is not the way to go about it. Objective, extreme cases where the game's purpose is to offend and insult everyone is different, but 99.99999999% of titles contain no such elements.

Granted, Carolyn was a hell of a step ahead of other SJWs who actually try to boycott material they disagree with, and slam everyone for liking a certain book, game, film, etc, and if you disagree, you've a bigot with white male privilege. (Amusing, since I'm of Mediterranean/Egyptian descent).

Besides, I'm of minorities myself. I'm a Christian. Does that mean that I have to find everything I think may or not be offensive in all games I review? I'm a paid, published author of reviews myself (not on Gamespot) and I NEVER, EVER let my own views bleed into my material. It's easy enough to separate.

A game is supposed to be reviewed as bad or good and back it up. There's no reason to put in political or religious views. When you review an iphone, you don't tell the buyer of how it offends him because of his religion.

A Review is a buyers guide, a recomendation of a game if it's good or not. It's not anything more than that... If you have objections to a game, put it in a editorial or a blog. How hard is that?

At IGN it isn't random, at Gamespot it is. Carolyn might have given it a 10, but decided against it. Because of this don't you think? No, because she never stated that she reviewed that game with that in mind. You need a freaking disclaimer for that... You need to disclose it if you do...

Polygon is very consistent being anti Playstation, seeing how they got 750 000 dollars from MS...

Roger Ebert said he opposes political correctness, yet he sounds like a "social justice warrior" himself in a lot of his reviews... he's ripped apart quite a few movies just for having white male actors in lead roles.

Also, if gamers agree with his opinions on movies, then do they also agree with his anti-gaming views on video games?

See, you're assuming that if someone agrees with other person on a particular matter, then they must agree on everything.

I have many, many friends that I agree with on some topics and others in which I don't. Sometimes my friends have polar opposite opinions on different things. Just because they're my friends it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with everything they say.

Likewise, I know many people that I dislike, yet I agree with them on certain things. I'm not going to let my bias get in the way of clear thinking. That's just stupid.

Reviews shouldn't have to review a subject according to ideological beliefs (political, religious, etc). But if there are consumers who are interested in these matters then there exists a niche for someone to fill in reviewing games in this way. As you said a review is supposed to be a buyer's guide, and if there are buyers whose decisions are affected by ideological reasons then why shouldn't there be reviewers who cater to these individuals? There do exist christian-themed game review sites that incorporate christianity into their reviews and adjust the score accordingly. Nobody has a problem with these because they are very upfront about it. Anyone who has a problem with reviews being weighted according to christian beliefs wouldn't read the website's reviews in the first place.

The only caveat I have with this is that reviewers need to be upfront and consistent about their beliefs and standards, as well as transparent in how they assigned a score for a game. It's a problem for independent reviewers who build up a fan base that enjoys their reviews and generally agrees with their opinions, because these reviewers risk alienating a large section of their reader base should they change their beliefs and start reviewing games in a different manner that their readers don't enjoy It's an even bigger problem for GameSpot who choose one reviewer from a regularly changing pool of staff and freelancers to write their reviews and news articles, such that readers get very inconsistent content from the website if the writers make a habit of routinely injecting their personal beliefs into their writing.

Inevitably, writers' beliefs and standards will change over time so readers can't expect completely consistent content. A gradual change means readers can adapt and decide over time if they still agree with the reviewer and who else they could turn to instead. But this thread concerns political correctness, which commonly manifests itself today as modern feminism or social justice activism. I've noticed a trend of people jumping on board with these ideologies, I suspect not because they strongly believe in them (otherwise that would have been evident from their earlier writing) but because it is good for their image to appear to care strongly about social issues by saying the right buzz words, and good for their career with the networking opportunities it provides within the ideological clique. This can result in a sudden change in views and standards expressed in reviews that can alienate and annoy readers. Worse yet is that these ideologies often involve many words, phrases and concepts that make no sense to people outside them, excluding readers even further. Hence why threads like this exist when they wouldn't have done previously.

i agree with you, you can do a secon take on it. But the main review should be not taking anything like that in consideration. There are these sites, and i don't mind them. But they have two different takes on the reviews. Carolyn did not disclose any of this in her review

i don''t really disagree with you there

People do change, but not having any disclaimers is stupid. But this PC and feministic bs is not welcome in reviews imho, nor do any religious views. Do it in a seperate review, a blog or an editorial.

I think the issue with "social issues" reviewing isn't so much that the issues are being raised, but that they're the reason for an opinion. People can have personal distaste for something; that's their right, and that is a valuable part of critique.

The issue with many "social issue" critiques is that it's less about the reviewer's feelings while playing the game and more about the reviewer's worldview. Context is important, of course, but when the review strays from "I didn't like it" and into "it shouldn't be liked," that's when things are going the wrong direction. Ebert said something telling in the OP's video, about how you should be able to write a review in such a way that a person should be able to read that review and say whether or not the material in question is for them. Unless it's shit like Big Rigs or something, there's no room for broad, sweeping judgement whereby the reader/viewer is left with the impression that no reasonable person could possibly like it.

Going back to the big GameSpot example, Caro's GTAV review, I'd say she didn't go into the area of "social issue" reviewing, as she was simply talking about what she felt, and a reasonable person could still discern whether they'd like the game or not.

Wait what? Games can do whatever they want with a game. A critic is suppose to be a guide for the consumer to tell us wether it's worth our money or not... You're argument is bad

Reviews should have fans of the series in mind (when it applies). Fans of GTA don't care if the game doesn't have positive roles for female characters, for instance. They know what atmosphere a GTA is going to have, so the reviewer should stick to the content of the game without personal judgement about it.

ie You wouldn't want a review of The Evil Within from a Christian's perspective on a professional gaming website.

Here's a fun little article I read recently that, I feel, explains the problem succinctly. Certainly more so than I can.

here's a few choice quotes:

Imagine a commenter reviewing your standard Pokémon game and marking it down for an extra-game (personal) worldview they hold on violence against animals – they'd be laughed out of town for being unable to separate their experience of the game from their extra-game experience. Now try and imagine the same reviewer analyzing the handling of animal violence issues in Pokémon Black & White, entries into the series which specifically deal with these issues (at the very least superficially) through the plot device that is the games' villains, the pro-Pokémon freedom-fighting terrorist cell Team Plasma. Now the commenter has free reign to go into the details of how the game handles these issues as the integrity of those ideas is a major part of whether anyone is likely to enjoy that part of the game; are the bad guys relatable figures because their views on violence against animals hold up within the world?

[snip]

Was no one talking about it because any talk of the game was preoccupied with how brilliant, or conversely, awful it was? Given that game ranks a 73/100 on Metacritic, I'm not convinced by that line of reasoning either. When you look broadly at how video game commenters as a whole treat scores in the region of 70/100 to mean "neither here nor there", the Metacritic rating tells the story of a commentary industry that was ambivalent at best and uninterested at worst about First Light. And based on my own time 100%'ing the main campaign of the game on the highest difficulty, I would agree that short of its really interesting use of unusual character types, there's nothing special to see here. In other words, if there is anything to talk about that is even remotely interesting, it would be the things I've already pointed out about the game.

[snip]

If the commenters' motivations to critically take issue with how character depictions fall in or out of line with established tropes is part of a regular critical approach (as with any other aspect of a game), then we are going to have a very hard time explaining why they only seem to evaluate this one particular aspect (and not, say, graphics) negatively. If those commenters are unable to evaluate a game fairly, I'd question how competent they are as critics and whether or not it's worth listening to them. I don't buy for a second that it takes more effort to give a thumbs up than it does a thumbs down anymore than I buy that these heavy-thumbed commenters are genuinely critiquing games on their own merits and nothing else. At least not yet.

Basically, the gist is that, if this is just part of general game critique and not pushing one's worldview onto the game itself, then why is the depiction of women/minorities/LGBT/whatever in games only brought up in a negative light? Every other part of a game can be judged positively or negatively, but when we get to these social issues, no one ever praises a game for diversity, although often we'll see games docked a point for being "negative" in this regard by more than a few reviewers.

The answer the article proposes, and it's one I can certainly see the merit of, is that reviewers aren't just talking about the game's merits, but instead pushing their own social agendas. The motivation is far too often nakedly political for anyone outside of the two partisan boxes to take seriously, as we see in this atrocious critique of Bayonetta 2. Too often, we're seeing games being reviewed not for their merits on their own, but their conformity to a certain political agenda. Gamers, quite frankly, deserve better.

and you posted this on gamespot? the most atrocious review site for social justice warriors wannabes that feel the need to cram their LGBT/******** point of view into everything they do?

You clearly haven't seen Kotaku....

Take a look at Kotaku and Polygon, not to mention Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid and Gamasutra

Yep, GameSpot is clean as a whistle in comparison.

Kotaku actually posts SJW, passive aggressive stances into the TITLE OF THEIR ARTICLE. They don't even wait for you to actually click on it before trying to shove their opinion down your throat...

@ShadowsDemon: Polygon and Kotaku openly admits they are.

Like Polygon, most of Kotaku's readers are liberals. That's their target audience. If you don't like their liberal stance, then just ignore those sites.

@Jag85: No their audience are idiots

Really? Wow.

Linky? I need to see this for myself...

Just look at a bunch of their articles. There are so many articles that straight out attack anyone that doesn't fit in their tiny bubble.

Yep, that's true enough.

And they do that in their reviews as well. Burial At Sea Part 2, for one, got slammed for not adhereing to PC-ness, even though you had to be very, very hard pressed to find exactly what the "problem" was that they were speaking of...

@ShadowsDemon: the fact that Sony games get lower ratings at a constant basis on Polygon is not surprising, seeing how they took 750 000 $ from Microsoft

Actually you are dead wrong here, Gamespot, Giantbomb and IGN are actually not even close to be in the top 10 of horrible SJW/Gamersgate/feminist/liberal sites out there. Particular not Gamespot after it slaughtere a huge chunk of its staff, among them Carolyn and Tom.

Polygon and Kotaku are the absolute peak of the mountain and they dont even hide the fact that they are like that, which just makes it even worse that a guy like Patrick Klepek felt the need to leave Giantbomb for Kotaku..... but it might be a sign that Kotaku wants to turn into a real gaming media site.

yeah Tom and Carolyn were bad. But they're still part of the San Fran mentality though. Just look at Kevin Van Ord it's the height of stupidity

Ya, im not sure what it is but people in San Francisco seems to be hit a lot with their own smugness.

Guess its a left over from the hippie societies that sprung there during the 60´s and 70´s and the IT pioneer spirit later on.

@Jacanuk: It's a circle jerk tbh.