Gamespot says goodbye to some of its staff

Good to know. It seemed that everything Tom did was for the sake of being politically correct and appealing to the masses, and it rendered his stuff to be not credible.

Wait, let me get his correct. You think Mcshea have flooded his reviews with PC? compared to Caro?

Sorry but here i simply cannot agree one bit, in fact i think Mcshea despite his "i hate all games attitude" have always been pretty fair in his reviews, he might not like most mainstream games but he dislikes them because of what's in the game and not because they are misogynistic or bashful towards gay or in the other end celebrated for dealing with gay issues and overlooking huge massive bugs, glitches and key elements in a game. I agree that his editorial was a bit strange and didn't really feel like they were meant for a gaming site like gamespot. But thats the whole point with editorials they are the editors free space to give his opinion.

But no matter what i never expected them to lose their jobs like this, but i guess when you are up against the org. Gamespotcrew at Giantbomb from back when Gamespot was acutally a worthwhile site to follow its hard to compete.

@Jacanuk: wait gamespot hired someone that repeatedly shat on vg against popular opinion lol?

An article about this whole fiasco suggested that deciding who stayed and depended on how much volume or web traffic each particular reviewer generated.

Mcshea has always been swimming across the stream when it comes to most mainstream games :) that was actually one of the few things i liked about him, even though i disagree most times, i just have to respect someone who is unaffected by hype and idiot trolls who go insane if their favorite game doesnt get a 10.

Also anyone who gave Bioshock Infinite the absolute correct score of 6 deserves to have a job :D

Never digged Bioshock since MP sucked.

IMO these shitty reviews need to stop though. Story, campaign, emotional connection...I don't give a **** about the story in a damn game and neither should the reviewers. Uncharted, TLOU, Bioshock, Tomb Raider...I'm not playing a frigging game for story. It's called read a book I play a game for g-a-m-e-p-l-a-y with high replay value. Replay value doesn't mean redundant quests or grinding pointless missions. No gameplay means additional content somewhere along the lines of Star Ocean 3: Till the End of Time. That was easily a 100hr+ game that yes focused more so on GAMEPLAY than some 3rd rate story that has been recycled literally 100s of times in other mediums of entertainment.

This doesn't make any sense. If a game is misogynistic than that is part of the game. If a game's story is pro gay that is also part of the game.

Why don't you go back to the GTA5 review. It's very clear that the problems she had with it aren't things outside of the game, but problems with the game itself. GTA5 tries to be a satire, but it fails at that. Instead we just have exaggeration, so in other words they attempted to be funny by having these stereotypes but they failed, the end result is just awkward. If a game sets out to do something and fails, making the player feel uncomfortable. How is that not something that should be criticised?

The site is dead. I don't even watch or read the articles, with the exception of Dannys stuff occassionally.

What is the destination forum?

I think you are a bit confused here. GTA is being GTA and have always been keeping close to real life but while still being a game. This is where Caro Petits own personal agenda comes in, which is my point. Caro´s own ideals, own agenda and puts meaning into the game that isn't there unless you have the same ideals or support the same agenda.

And you clearly also have your own highly subjective view of GTA V which corresponds with Carolyns.

All reviews are subjective.

They are but when you get paid to make reviews, you also get paid to remove yourself as much as possible from your own agenda´s.

Weeeeeell, that of course remains to be seen. I doubt they fired Petit solely for expressing personal agendas in reviews. In that case they should have fired her earlier. In the end, the employer gets to say who gets paid. If they deemed her conduct acceptable, then we can suggest she should remove herself from her agenda all we want, but that isn't really up to us.

There will always be debate on what constitutes (good) satire. Misogyny as part of satire is still misogyny; it just serves a purpose. It's similar to the reception of a book like American Psycho, I guess. Some see the purpose and accept/respect/appreciate it, some don't see it and some see the purpose, but don't think the end justifies the means. In such cases it falls within the realm of a critic to express his/her personal feelings towards a work and I think Petit was modest and clear enough in her assessment. She did not let the misogyny argument dictate her review, nor did it significantly affect her general appreciation of the game. It was a factor that personally affected her, for sure, but to me it was within the boundaries of criticism and harmless in the context of the rest of her review and the context of all the other reviews out there. In the end appreciating satire is a very personal matter (and it would be rather pretentious to claim that you can speak for your audience in that case), but since satire is such a big part of the GTA series it deserves to be discussed. Was the argument personal and selective? I think so. Was it harmful and objectionable? I don't think so.

Not true. What they're paid for is to put their thoughts into words.

Of course its true, you seem to misunderstand a lot about reviews and what is supposed to be in there.

When you're paid to do a review as a professional, your job is to make sure your emotions stay out of it as much as possible and speak about the game itself. How do the controls respond? Does the music and sound collaborate together to help build or ease the tension that's in the game? How do the graphics look, do they run on a low or high framerate? That's what you were supposed to do and in the end, Carolyn, with all due respect to her and the way she is, failed to do her job because she got personally involved in the GTA V review.

You don't do that to the fans and you don't do it to yourself either. The only person that should be blamed for the review is her. She failed in that review. She failed to do her job. End of story.

Spot on Meta

Being emotional and stating your personal feelings is something we can go watch on youtube where there are hundreds and hundreds of people stating their own personal opinion. When i go to CBS gamespot i expect it to be a professional site where just because feminismen or whales might be close to someone´s heart, i won't know this because the reviewer does their job. And review the game and come with their opinion - the personal shit.

This is not true, at all. Yes a review should mention those things, which her review did. But they should still mention stuff like the story and overall how much enjoyment they got out of the game.

What you're asking for is not a review, it's an analysis.

the gta v review bugged me too tbh. yes there wasn't much in the way of positive representation for females in gta v, but gta has never really had that and besides, no-one demographic comes out of gta very well. everyone's at least either corrupt, on drugs or committing crimes.

the fact she only highlighted the case for females, and the manner in which she did it, made it feel more about her personal agenda than doing a service to the people watching - was she the only person who didn't expect there to be strippers and crazy women? it spoilt an otherwise good review

I very much doubt that the reviews you want actually exist. And even if they do, that's not what every single individual wants. Besides, pleasure, joy, excitement, tension; those are all emotions. In the end you want to know if the game is worth it, for which you always have to rely on the amount of fun (emotion) and appreciation (emotion) a reviewer derived from his/her gaming experience. Do the controls respond in a way that is enjoyable (good) or are they frustrating (bad)? That's an emotional question. Do the music and sound contribute to the tension in the game? That's an emotional question. Even asking how the graphics look is a question of taste and feeling (do the graphics fit the setting and/or narrative context). Granted, framerate, motion blur, resolution, bugs, glitches; those are things you can tick off (although some bugs and glitches do not appear (as much) in one playthrough compared to another, which already adds an extra layer of subjectivity). The rest is pretty much up to the reviewer and his/her experience.

Satire is as much part of GTA V as the controls and graphics are. It's part of the experience. Therefore it can be discussed in a review. And it would be highly pretentious to make universal assumptions about appreciating satire. She could only give her personal views in that regard, which is what she did. You're allowed to do that as a critic and she was allowed to do that as a critic. You can call her unprofessional all you want, but that's really just your idea of what being a professional is. The review passed through several hands before it got published, so if it did not suit any definition of professionalism, it would not have been published.

I can sympathise with the idea that a critic should not let certain personal emotions dictate a review, but that wasn't the case. Emotions have their place in a review (especially when it comes to characters and narrative elements, which you really can't judge in general/universal terms) and her argument was clearly separated from the other arguments and hardly affected her overall appreciation.

@bunchanumbers: Compared to xbox and ps3 yes, Nintendo is a joke.

You don't seem to be following the good reviewers then, Sessler and rev3games is/was one of those.

What you are saying is just a bad excuse and is made when people are simply not professional/good enough. If i want to hear some random persons personal opinion i would just go waste my time listening to one of the many youtubers or people who post reviews on meta or here on gamespot.

This week in Jacanuk's a doofus: He thinks a good reviewer should take their "emotions" out of a review.

Bleep Blorp. I-am-a-robot. I-have-no-emotion. Review-is-impersonal. DOES-NOT-COMPUTE.

News flash, Mr. Bad Opinions, no reviewer is capable of doing what you think they do, not even Adam Sessler. Oh and, about your 6.0 BioShock Infinite quip, Mr. Sessler himself reviewed that game. I'd embed it but why distract from my words, reading is already hard enough for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jchIi-vR_js

So he reviewed the game 5/5, no dislikes, calls the combat "absurdly fun" and thoroughly praises the world of BioShock Infinite (Columbia) throughout the 10 minute video.

I mean, just listen to the review. Almost every sentence he says is purely based on his past experiences, and chalked full of "emotions." How can you expect otherwise? HE'S A HUMAN BEING. If I find something sexist (like GTA V), or hilarious (like your opinions), it's because of my life experiences. I've seen enough sexism in my life to be able to identify its portrayal, and I've talked with enough dumb people to identify a ridiculously non-thought out opinion.

Your life experiences vary. You seem to think the world is controlled by the politically correct, and it's slowly invading our games. RUN! Either way, why ever you think that nonsense is based on your upbringing and life experiences.

If you were to review GTA V, it wouldn't sound like Carolyn's review. Neither would mine. But that's because we're all different, and it's literally impossible to not develop opinions based on your own personal life experiences. Think about Carolyn's position in reverse. EVEN if she were to think, "Well, everyone always says I'm being politically correct, and most won't think GTA V is misogynistic, so I'll just not write it up," that's still a decision based on her past experiences. She'd be recalling all of the times fools like you called her out for her opinions because they didn't align with your own.

Get a grip.

I mean his articles, not the reviews. I haven't seen much PC in his reviews. The articles, however, was packed to the rafters with it.

Tell me, did Caro have PC in her reviews? I haven't seen them myself, but I haven't seen many reviews by her...

Well, that's the problem: everybody thinks they have enough experience to make a truthful claim.

As far as i know, both of them didn't have many pc games when they reviewed the games

As I explained in my post, that's kind of the whole point: the truth, when it comes to a review within gaming, is subjective. Your past experiences may lead you to think different than I when it comes to a video game that's newly released.

What you may feel is truth, I might call untrue. It just depends on about a million things; your past gaming experience, what you like to see in video games, how experienced you are in that particular genre (FPS, RPG) and about everything else you can come up with. A lot of people loved the gameplay dynamics between Ellie and Joel within the Last of Us, the same with Booker and Elizabeth in BioShock Infinite. Be it Elizabeth's contributions to the firefights (rifts and such) or providing bridges and ladders for Ellie, a lot of people loved how fresh that type of gameplay was. But for people who played through Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, the gameplay dynamism of a twosome wasn't new at all. Improved upon in ways, yes, but new or refreshing? Not really.

Those types of distinctions change our perceptions and opinions on a game.

To refer back to Sessler's review of BioShock Infinite: he loved the gameplay, and the unique additions Elizabeth added in firefights. Others call the gunplay the weakest part of BioShock Infinite. Who's right? What is the truth? WHICH ONE IS BEING EMOTIONAL!?!?!? AHHH!

Like I say, when someone reviews a game, it's their unique impressions of it. Can't take emotions, past experiences or anything else out of it. Your take on a game is yours and yours alone, period.

I meant it in a more general sense. All these discussions never lead anywhere, because everybody is too convinced of their own experience. I simply don't understand why everybody expresses their speculations with such conviction. All these arguments ultimately boil down to a clash of vague definitions.

Of course they didn´t fire Petit because of a GTA or a Gone Home review or because of the reviews often being filled with how Petits world views are.

Well, how one view satire is always subjective so of course there will always be a debate about it, but thats also not the problem here, first you seem to be a part of the group that loves misusing words, misogyny means hate of women, and do you think Rockstar made GTA the way it is because of their hate for women? or do you think they made it like that because thats how the real world is and they wanted as always to spin some satire on that. So no its not like American Psycho since that was a work of fiction based on being a work of fiction, Rockstar has made a trademark out of making GTA a go crazy mayhem game with a twist that always makes fun of just how messed up society is, like in any GTA game since GTA III.

And you are wrong if you think the feminist agenda´s Petit have didn´t affect her review, Let´s take a look at the review just incase you forgot how it actually was.

Where do you begin talking about Grand Theft Auto V? Do you start with the vast, varied, beautiful open world? Do you start with the innovative structure that gives you three independent protagonists you can switch between on the fly? Maybe you talk about the assortment of side activities you can engage in, or the tremendous number of ways in which you can go about making your own fun. Or perhaps you dive right into the game’s story problems, or its serious issues with women.

GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we're meant to laugh at.

So if that isn't letting her feminist view dictate the review and not being very modest about her own feminist views, i don't know what is, the first paragraph kinda lays down the line, GTA V hates women period, does it matter that she later goes on about the missions, the 3 protagonists etc, not really. And this is also the problem, Petit should have left out her own agendas and have reviewed the game as a professional reviewer who are paid because they of course have the ability to put themselves in the shoes of Joe General Gamer. And not let their own petty worldviews influence them. So was the review harmful, well somewhat to Gamespot's reputation and Petits, but other than that nah not really. And GTA´s satire can be discussed but then we also need to discuss what right anyone have to stop a developer for making a game that will sell to its core demographic, male 15-25+

@experience_fade I don't think any reviewer can put aside their experiences and emotions when doing a review. As has been said, its the base for the reasoning as to whether or not a game was enjoyable. I think the readers expect that and its why reviewers end up with followers. Readers find reviewers that share similar interests as them and would most likely agree with the reviews.

However, using @Jacanuk 's quote from Carolyn's GTA review, there is a difference between "Or perhaps you dive right into the game’s story problems, or its serious issues with women. GTA V has little room for women except to portray them as strippers, prostitutes, long-suffering wives, humorless girlfriends and goofy, new-age feminists we're meant to laugh at." and maybe something more general like "As always, GTA may be bordering the line with its misogynistic, racial, social, and economic themes."

I think the second quote (which I wrote) conveys the same thought without outright making a personal statement on how I view society.

No. But whatever Rockstar's intentions or feelings towards women are is irrelevant here. There are depictions in that game that could very well be labeled as misogyny, even if the context or characters are entirely fictional. It doesn't change the definition. The hatred doesn't have to be real. A movie about slavery isn't actually racist, but there are still remarks in there that can be labeled as racist. The question is how much such remarks and depictions serve their purpose in the movie or game.

I made the comparison with American Psycho because it satirizes and exaggerates the social and cultural tendencies of the 80's in an extreme way. GTA games do a similar thing by satirizing and exaggerating different periods in American culture in provocative ways. My point is that you can't universally judge whether the satire is good, bad or acceptable. As I said, some see it and accept/respect it, some don't see it and some think the end doesn't justify the means. Now, Petit either didn't see it or she didn't think the end justified the means.

Now, it is in fact very valuable if someone like Petit informs me about her personal feelings towards the portrayal of women in GTA V. It tells me GTA V did not hold back on its fictional vision of contemporary US culture. It tells me that the satire is not so pervasive as to dominate the game, since Petit seemed perfectly capable of thoroughly enjoying her playthrough with it being present. It made me curious about all the attempts the game might throw at me to provoke or unsettle me (or make me chuckle). Since I'm largely unaffected by misogyny her argument tells me I will probably enjoy traversing the world and seeing all the details that criticise a culture I do not particularly sympathise with. Petit's personal disappointment is the ultimate confirmation of a successful implementation of harsh and relentless social commentary. Tell me I do not have at least a tiny point here. It is one of the most honest and convincing arguments you can get if you're wondering about how the satire is implemented in that game.

You let it dictate her review. I'll never deny she has a strong personal feeling towards all this, but the entire review wasn't about misogyny (not by a long shot) nor did it significantly influence her appreciation and that is what I mean when I use the word 'dictate' (which I believe is the proper use of the term). If you can't get over the fact that such an argument is in the review and if it haunts you when you read it, then that's your problem, but it wasn't a feminist pamphlet against misogyny in GTA V. She even explicitly says that any pshychological scars shouldn't stop you from playing it.

Again, that's your idea of being a professional (read: paid) reviewer. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty questionable as an argument, because in the end the review got published and Petit got paid for it, which makes it a professional publication. If you want to discuss definitions again I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere, because your idea of adhering to certain standards and my idea of being employed and getting paid both find their place in the term 'professional'. Dare I say my definition is a bit more realistic, though, since I doubt there are clear universal guidelines on how to be a professional (game) reviewer/critic. Oh, and the definition of 'review' also leaves room for either side to implement whatever they feel is necessary to prove their point.

Anyway if you want to bash Petit for being unprofessional, bash all the responsible people at GS for not preventing to publish the review and for not removing the argument in question. They all let it happen. I'd say that according to your standards that's even more unprofessional.

Who are you talking about? Petit never told anyone not to play the game (quite the contrary), nor did she claim developers shouldn't make games like this. She never even hinted at such a thing. Besides, she is one meaningless individual expressing her personal disappointment over a game element. You're wildly speculating here. If you're afraid that Rockstar or another developer is going to tone it down after this or if you think that implementing such an argument in a review is an implicit attempt to influence the gaming industry or consumers, then I think your fear is misplaced. If you really agree that the review wasn't that harmful, then I don't understand why you would still come to the quoted conclusion. Unless I misread something...

Then let me ask you this: are we, as readers, really too limited in our analytical capabilities to create the necessary nuance ourselves? Can we not take the given text, spot its ever present bias and interpret it in a way that will suit our needs? Do we really need the reviewer to spell it all out for us? I think your comment has answered those questions... As you said, the two quotes contain the same message (I would say); they're just formulated differently.

You need to watch South Park, they have a few episodes dealing with what you're saying here, particular the one about the "south park flag" because why is it irrelevant what Rockstar´s intentions are with making their game after all that is what Petit criticizes, exactly like a movie made about slavery isn't racist because they use terms, slang that once was used by people who did believe there was a difference between races and hated other races or with Giantbomb who recently hired two guys and some insane "feminist" went ballistic and claimed that Giantbomb was being huge misogynistic women hating scumbags because they didn't hire women. It´s political correctness and feminismen when its worse.

I made the comparison with American Psycho because it satirizes and exaggerates the social and cultural tendencies of the 80's in an extreme way. GTA games do a similar thing by satirizing and exaggerating different periods in American culture in provocative ways. My point is that you can't universally judge whether the satire is good, bad or acceptable. As I said, some see it and accept/respect it, some don't see it and some think the end doesn't justify the means. Now, Petit either didn't see it or she didn't think the end justified the means.

Ya, i have read American Psycho. and i wouldn´t say the GTA satire is in the same league, GTA is more sunday night with your parents at church compared to what American Psycho does. Also no of course i cant tell anyone else how they should judge satire, but what i can do is look at Petit´s zoning in on one aspect and deciding that because that is close to petit that is to much and a "disgrace"

Now, it is in fact very valuable if someone like Petit informs me about her personal feelings towards the portrayal of women in GTA V. It tells me GTA V did not hold back on its fictional vision of contemporary US culture. It tells me that the satire is not so pervasive as to dominate the game, since Petit seemed perfectly capable of thoroughly enjoying her playthrough with it being present. It made me curious about all the attempts the game might throw at me to provoke or unsettle me (or make me chuckle). Since I'm largely unaffected by misogyny her argument tells me I will probably enjoy traversing the world and seeing all the details that criticise a culture I do not particularly sympathise with. Petit's personal disappointment is the ultimate confirmation of a successful implementation of harsh and relentless social commentary. Tell me I do not have at least a tiny point here. It is one of the most honest and convincing arguments you can get if you're wondering about how the satire is implemented in that game.

You do have a point i cannot disagree with that.

You let it dictate her review. I'll never deny she has a strong personal feeling towards all this, but the entire review wasn't about misogyny (not by a long shot) nor did it significantly influence her appreciation and that is what I mean when I use the word 'dictate' (which I believe is the proper use of the term). If you can't get over the fact that such an argument is in the review and if it haunts you when you read it, then that's your problem, but it wasn't a feminist pamphlet against misogyny in GTA V. She even explicitly says that any pshychological scars shouldn't stop you from playing it.

Again, that's your idea of being a professional (read: paid) reviewer. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's pretty questionable as an argument, because in the end the review got published and Petit got paid for it, which makes it a professional publication. If you want to discuss definitions again I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere, because your idea of adhering to certain standards and my idea of being employed and getting paid both find their place in the term 'professional'. Dare I say my definition is a bit more realistic, though, since I doubt there are clear universal guidelines on how to be a professional (game) reviewer/critic. Oh, and the definition of 'review' also leaves room for either side to implement whatever they feel is necessary to prove their point.

I dont let it dictate anything, i just read it for what it is and when someone puts that in the first paragraph, its clearly to get the most important aspect of the game out first, since most people will read the first and then scroll to the bottom and read the score. So it doesn't matter that she has countless good points, the 3 characters which fails, the story which is the weakest by far of any GTA game, the small map used map size compared to previous GTA´s and i would never even have glimpsed if she had mentioned those as a critic points. But it doesn't haunt me, i never let any review dictate what game i should buy or not buy, what does bother me is that Petit is a professional critic and if they ever wants to be actually consider journalists they need to be able to be neutral and not let their own personal agenda´s influence their review.

And yes thats my idea of a professional reviewer and there are many out there, Sterling (sometimes) Sessler, Morgan, Rev3games, some on eurogamer, and a lot of local national gaming media. So you might say it doesnt work as argument but clearly it does. The key is not to keep all emotions away , i am after all not asking for an objective review, i am just expecting someone who get paid to be able to review a game and come with a opinion that might be worth something to a majority and not be filled with their own personal agendas no matter what they might be.

Anyway if you want to bash Petit for being unprofessional, bash all the responsible people at GS for not preventing to publish the review and for not removing the argument in question. They all let it happen. I'd say that according to your standards that's even more unprofessional.

Who are you talking about? Petit never told anyone not to play the game (quite the contrary), nor did she claim developers shouldn't make games like this. She never even hinted at such a thing. Besides, she is one meaningless individual expressing her personal disappointment over a game element. You're wildly speculating here. If you're afraid that Rockstar or another developer is going to tone it down after this or if you think that implementing such an argument in a review is an implicit attempt to influence the gaming industry or consumers, then I think your fear is misplaced. If you really agree that the review wasn't that harmful, then I don't understand why you would still come to the quoted conclusion. Unless I misread something...

Then let me ask you this: are we, as readers, really too limited in our analytical capabilities to create the necessary nuance ourselves? Can we not take the given text, spot its ever present bias and interpret it in a way that will suit our needs? Do we really need the reviewer to spell it all out for us? I think your comment has answered those questions... As you said, the two quotes contain the same message (I would say); they're just formulated differently.

I am not out to bash Petit, i like petit and i think its sad that she lost the job on gamespot, just because i disagree with some of her reviews doesnt mean i cannot look past them. Also Gamespot didn't pay her for that review in particular since Petit is not a freelancer but was a full employee.

And no of course Petit didn´t say don't play GTA V but what she did was ask for a different path a more "feminist" path for the GTA franchise and that is what i mean would alienate a huge majority of gamers. Would it mean that GTA would fail no because GTA´s name is bigger than any one single game.

Are you really asking if some gamers are sheep? because the answer would be yes of course they are, are all? no of course, but does it matter not really after all again let me point out the Giantbomb incident.

I'll once again quote @Jacanuk , "Are you really asking if some gamers are sheep? because the answer would be yes of course they are, are all? no of course..."

I believe that you and I, and many others here, have shown to be more than capable of extrapolating what we need out of a review. But I also believe there are many who don't. And, as they say, can we think of the children?!? I'm sure a lot of Gamespot visitors are younger kids who may be, in fact, limited to their analytical capabilities.Thus making a review here a less than appropriate venue for taking a dive into socio-political waters. I would take no issue with a reviewer blogging about it in a separate page.

"I don't agree with ______'s reviews so that person is bad at their job" is a silly position. Reviews are subjective by nature, a point that I'm sick to death of trying to explain to people. However, the fact that those among you who agree that you didn't like their reviews are at this moment arguing over WHY you didn't like their reviews really goes a long way towards driving that point home.

I have pretty much never agreed with a review of Tom's that I've read, and some of his editorials came off as a bit pissy or condescending. That doesn’t mean I would call for his head on a pike or for him to lose his job. They are -opinions-, and one of the characteristics of having a functioning brain is the ability to entertain a though without agreeing with it.

I am so goddamned sick of this “I only want to read reviews that reinforce what I’ve already made up in my mind” mentality that so many gamers seem to have because all it does is whitewash game journalism. Writing factually inaccurate articles, plagiarizing the work of others, or deliberate dishonesty are examples of reasons why a journalist should lose their job, not that they wrote a review (an opinion piece, by definition) that you disagree with.

Sadly, the reality of economics means that layoffs happen even to people who aren’t doing anything wrong, and as someone who works in the corporate world I have no doubt that the realities of their departures go way beyond something as petty as Caroline’s GTA5 review or Tom’s Bioshock Infinite Review. When one person leaves a company, that’s typically “for cause” and is specific to that employee’s performance. When a bunch leave a company, the reasons tend to be “inclusionary” versus “exclusionary” (i.e. we have 10 people and we need to keep 5, so which 5 do we keep).

In any case, I wish everyone who has departed GS the best and I’m sure they’ll land on their feet elsewhere.

-Byshop

Rockstar's intentions become irrelevant as soon as they release a product for us to consume. Then it is up to us to appreciate and judge it. It is our experience. Whatever Rockstar feels we should experience becomes pretty meaningless, because we're going to attach our own value to it anyway. I can write 'women are evil and should be dominated by men' on a piece of paper and claim my intentions aren't misogynistic, but as soon as I let others read that piece of paper, they are free to draw whatever conclusions they want. Besides, Petit is lamenting the presence of misogynistic content; she is not suggesting Rockstar is in fact misogynistic. The content is there. It can be defined as such, regardless of intentions. And if it serves its purpose, then it has a reason to be there. Apparently the misogyny didn't serve its purpose in Petit's experience.

The GB thing is something completely different. That appears to be a direct accusation of misogyny, based on the interpretation of hiring patterns, which is questionable at best.

Again, the comparison was made to point out supposed intention and what that means when it comes to judging a work (very little). This isn't about how much worse the one is compared to the other. And of course you can look at how she structured her argument and point out that it's very personal and biased, but when it comes to things like satire that's pretty much the only thing you can and should do. And as I pointed out, it can be rather valuable. More valuable than leaving it out or expressing yourself in evasive and vague terms. Also, I do not believe she called anything a disgrace.

The first paragraph summarises the content of the review, so of course it's going to be in there. It's one of her arguments. And compared to the other points she's making it's a relatively small argument. So if you actually read it for what it is (without immediately subjecting it to all your standards), it is one of the smallest arguments at the end of a review. That's what it is. Certainly not unimportant, but also not meant to be as insistently significant as you make it out to be. And it's also a rather isolated argument. You can easily remove it from the text without making any significant corrections, which again proves it does not pervade or dictate the review.

I know they like to call themselves journalists, but writing a review has very little to do with journalism. Journalists generally refrain from judgement and report on events (hopefully providing multiple perspectives without showing preference), which is impossible when it comes to writing a review. So they will never be considered journalists when writing a review, no matter how neutral they are. In this context they're either editors or critics, not journalists.

How? You just named a few persons that fit your definition. That doesn't explain to me why Petit should also fit that definition. That doesn't explain to me why your definition should somehow be the standard, as you make it out to be.

That's fine. I just think your expectations and standards are unrealistic, selective and personal and that you shouldn't present them as common sense and/or facts.

I shouldn't have used those words and I apologise for that, but my point still stands. If you want to criticise Petit for being unprofessional, you should always include the responsible staff aswell. Otherwise you're not being consistent. And fine, I'll rephrase: she did not get paid for specific reviews, but she did get paid to write reviews and since this particular review was published she got paid for doing her job.

Again, that's a vague interpretation of what she wrote. She expressed her disappointment and explained it. That's all she did. That does not imply a request for a more feminist path in later titles. I do not believe (and I feel there's little reason to believe) Petit is that pretentious that she thinks she's in a position to explicitly ask developers to tone it down or include strong female characters.

The many who can't don't go around claiming Petit was being unprofessional. If you can make such claims then I think you're capable of doing what you and I did. Unless you're just echoing other people's words, which would make your opinion very questionable. Look, what I see here is people demanding censorship, demanding specific types of bias to be removed from reviews, demanding reviewers to adhere to the general readership. Ironically, this is what I also see people fighting against when it comes to their precious games: don't censor games, let developers make what they want (i.e. let them implement their bias), don't adhere to casual gamers. People make all these claims solely out of their own interest, not because they have a particularly strong case.

Petit's argument did not dictate her review, did not affect her other arguments and did not significantly affect her appreciation or verdict. It was harmless and rather insignificant in the context of all the other reviews out there. There's little indication (apart from personal preferences) that it does not fall within the freedom of a critic to discuss the issue the way Petit did. Regardless of bias, it can still be a very valuable piece of information. All these factors are generally ignored by the people who question Petit's conduct. They're unwilling to defuse their own exaggerated response. It's not that people oppose bias (after all, there are multiple levels of bias in pretty much all reviews and we don't see such massive backlash against those), it's that people don't like bias when it comes to gender, politics and/or social-cultural themes. It's because people themselves are biased in their preferences and ideas of what should be discussed and because political and gender bias is the most obvious and harmless bias of them all. It's easy to spot, easy to put into perspective and easy to ignore, but that also makes it easy to criticise. You won't make a wrong purchasing choice based on Petit's misogyny argument (and as I pointed out, it can in fact be very useful), but you're much more likely to make a wrong choice based on all the other arguments. First, people don't see the value in bias and second, people don't see all the risks that lie in using general terms.

These reviews aren't written for children. No matter how many underaged children might be playing GTA V, it's a game for adults, people who should be capable of critically assessing their own thoughts. And while Petit's statements were bold and might be beyond the grasp of some children, they were not insulting or rude, nor were they expressing anything that might severely harm or influence a child (in a worse way than the actual game would). Besides, the argument related directly to the game, no matter how personal it might have been. If you really feel Petit shouldn't discuss these issues because of people with limited capabilities, then I don't see why you would want Rockstar to release a game that might be harmful to such people. After all, if they can't properly put Petit's words into perspective, then they probably can't grasp satire either.

@loafofgame: I don't think people are demanding censorship. I think what people are asking for, and I agree, is to have more neutrality in the review. Tell me about the game, don't tell me what your values are. You can say that there are negative social tropes in the game without telling me that you think it's disgusting. Again, "there's some misogyny going on this game" and "this game is anti-women and only serves to put them down" are two different ways of saying the same thing. I prefer the former. Regardless, like you said, it didn't affect her overall review of the game, so it's not the end of the world.

It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree because it looks like you and I look for different things when it comes to reviews. You seem to really be interested in the reviewer and why they say the things they do about the game, and that's perfectly cool. I'm looking more for something like a product report.

I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense.

People don't read reviews to get a simple technical checklist of how a game runs - they read reviews to determine whether or not they should buy the game.

Let's try an example: Baby Murder Simulator 2014 just came out, and two reviewers do their write-ups:

[Your ideal objective reviewer]: "The developers did an excellent job with the controls. The central mechanic of twisting babies' heads off with the analogue stick is smooth and responsive. This attention to detail carries over into the game's graphics, which feature the most realistic tears ever seen in games. Unfortunately, frame rates are sluggish when using the wheat thresher, and broken spines have a tendency to clip into the babies' cots at times. Considering these technical errors, I can only give the game a 9/10."

Meanwhile, [Your hated subjective reviewer]: "While this game is a technical masterpiece, it is still a game entirely focused around the brutal murder of innocent babies - often in overwhelmingly graphic detail, with their parents crying in the background. Despite being a veteran of many gory games, I could not stomach this game for more than 15 minutes. In fact, it made me physically ill. It is easily the most depraved and deeply disturbing game ever made, and I cannot honestly recommend it to anyone. The developers should be ashamed of themselves for even conceiving of the idea. 2/10"

By your logic, only the first review is a valid one. Whether or not the game is the most heinously offensive and vomit-inducing game of all time, and one that is not even remotely fun to play...you require the reviewer to set their opinions aside, act "professionally", and rate the game according to its objective merits.

That really doesn't make any sense. Whether a game is "fun" is one of the most important factors of a review, and that's a subjective assessment. A game's story and themes will impact on whether or not a game is "fun". Thus a professional reviewer cannot ignore the story and themes, just as they can't ignore discussing how they felt about the game while playing it.

Discussing themes and issues is common practice in reviews of every other storytelling medium - film, television, novels, you name it. Why should game reviews be held to a lower critical standard?

Finally, I'll just leave a snippet of a recent review from Kevin Van Ord (which scored 2/10):
"The second time Only If induced rage was when the player character called the apparent mafioso taunting him a "pedophilic ******," a homophobic outburst that may have worked had the character using the phrase been a full-fledged human being rather than a randy adolescent with no empathetic characteristics."

Oh no! Kevin Van Ord has an anti-homophic agenda! I bet that means you guys want him to be fired, right?

I think a lot of people did in fact demand censorship. A lot of people explicitly claimed that these issues do not belong in reviews and/or that they are not relevant aspects of a videogame. But it's also true that others asked for more neutrality and nuance in her statements, which would have been perfectly fine if those complaints weren't also often accompanied by questionable and generalised statements about Petit being unprofessional and about opposing bias in reviews in general.

Fair enough. My main problem is that a lot of people go around claiming their opinions/preferences/standards are undeniable facts and should somehow apply to their surroundings without question. There's no effort to critically assess their own perspective whatsoever (or even convincingly back up their own opinion). In the end, everybody is free to think whatever they want, but the entitlement, conviction and lack of self-reflection with which some people express their opinions blows my mind. I'd almost say the internet made us lazy and brief in our considerations... I know this all sounds a bit high and mighty and I don't expect people to put as much words in it as I do, but just a little more effort wouldn't hurt.

By the way, I'm getting both, you know. I get the report and the personal perspective. And the fact that you can put her words into perspective means you're also getting your report. ;-)

This statement is contradictory. You want a reviewer to leave emotion out of it, but even in the brief list of examples you provided of what they -should- include you mention measuring how good the game is at generating tension (a purely emotional response). Obviously, even by your measure, the emotional response of the reviewer is a factor.

Utlimately, it's not about the sum of the game's technical details. It's about how much fun the game is and that will always be subjective. Technicaly detail is fine to include in a review, but it's not the end of the story. "Technically" every 3D game is far more advanced than any 2D sprite based game, but which game looks better is based on art design, not the FPS or total number of polygons per character.

Nobody bitches about movie, art, or music reviewers as being shitty journalists if they write reviews that they don't agree with, but for some reason nobody seems to get this concept when it comes to games.

-Byshop

Its amazing how many miss the point in what is actually being said. Its not about leaving all emotions out of a review, its about being more BBC news then Fox News if you get that reference, of course a review is that persons personal opinion but any serious critic or journalist has the ability to ask does this seem important to my readers or does this affect me more because of my world views and perhaps i should leave out.

Because in the end most probably doesn't read a review on gamespot because its Carolyn, Tom, Kevin or anyone else, they read it because its Gamespot. Otherwise Caro and Tom could just start a youtube channel and watch the cash roll in because everyone would go there.

@Jacanuk: there's no doubt that there's a difference between cnn and all other liberal blatherings, foxnews and bbc. though, i see blatant liberal blatherings from bbc often.

i understand and agree with your overall gaming review point, however.

i have no doubt that you or i could write an objective review that dissects a games components and adds the political topics, as well, without letting our readers know our particular points of view.

I've noticed the gamespot crew being somewhat divided lately. Since Danny arrived there's been the funny bunch(chris,danny, sean) and the more pretentious group(caro,tom, and to some extent Kev) I guess the lobby got more clicks than GS gameplay, and i wonder what this means for the future of the site. Although some of Tom and Caro's views were a bit uptight and sanctimonious, i totally respected them for going out on a limb like they did. Does this mean we will get IGN2 from now on?

Looking at the comment in question you can't blame someone for not seeing some implied nuance. He stated that emotions should be kept out of the review as much as possible, after which he gave examples of questions that adhere to that claim. Those questions contradicted his claim, because they did not keep emotions out of the review as much as possible. If there's some nuance to his statements, he should have explained it. Don't get me wrong, I think I get the point, but then he should have said that he only wants the emotions he thinks are relevant or that resonate with a particular group of people. He presented his entire argument as if it was some law of nature.

I've got to admit, though, I get carried away by how people formulate things. I should stop doing that. I should accept that some people are very convinced and present their opinions as fact.

You and I are not in disagreement. My post was directed at Metamania, who has on more than one occasion insisted that a completely "objective" review is possible.

I agree that if a reviewer can fail, it's not for having their opinion but in publishing a review that's not consistent with the publishing body or its readership. However, I would prefer to see us take this one step further. I don't think it's good enough to just say "well, the majority of our readers are male young adults or emotionally stunted manchildren so we should do everything to target that demographic". I think that sites should target what we -want- to be as a community, not necessarily what we are. Otherwise, nothing will ever change.

-Byshop

**** this shit, i'll riot if Gamespot shuts and we stuck with TMZ!!, sorry i meant IGN.

This last week I was thinking how Gamespot suddenly got noticeably better with more PC-centric pieces, detailed and informative articles without strong bias, wondered how. I just saw the layoff news, names and it all made sense.

Just wow, they should have acted much sooner. I'm happy because the site I have been visiting for 15 years got much better and those people will find another job sooner or later in a place they can fit better in. Best for everyone to separate ways when things don't work. It didn't work with Carolyn Petit or Tom McShea. Carolyn's reviews were the absolute worst I had ever seen on GS. To be politically correct and not voice this opinion would be rude to everyone else that works on this site IMO.

I'm rather curious to know what we want to be...

@Ultramarinus: I don't go to this site to read reviews, I just value their opinion or score.

Prefer angryjoes reviews since he focuses more on entertaining and is very informal/ unprofessional.

He speaks the gamers tongue and while the reviews long, at same time straight to the point. Like if the game sucks he tells you clearly right away. If the games good, tells you clearly right away and he rates games based on not only his personal opinion, but he factors in "universal standards" that most gamers expect in a game.

Reviews that reflect the current trends today are more appealing.

NOT almost exclusively a bunch of teenage males or emotionally stunted manchildren. There's a difference between catering to a demographic and pandering to one. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If every game site panders to one group, then the community will never grow because that pandering will instantly turn away new demographics.

-Byshop

I can't wait for the old review model to die off so we can finally move on from these ridiculous arguments about how reviews should be "objective" and free of any and all signs that a human being wrote them. The day we can speak candidly about our experiences with games and not be lambasted for daring to speak honestly for once will truly be a glorious one.

Do 'we' really want that, though? Isn't there a strong tendency to resist against the inclusion of people who might (threaten to) drive attention and resources away from the games (and related content) that 'we' like...?