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.
And you dont see a big problem with that? Why is feminist views more important than what Rockstar intended to portray with their work? Also you talked about advocating censorship , feminists actually become a censorship-board when they claim something is "hate against women" and try to "force" public opinion against a developer, just look at Ubisoft and Assassins creed where they suddenly got into a mediastorm because some idiotic feminist claimed that they had to be misogynistic and that was the only reason why they didn't show women or had playable women in the multiplayer, when in fact the real issue was that everyone of the characters was the same main protagonist.
Giantbomb is not that different, because here i am 100% sure that they hired the persons that was best qualified not to mention that no one even knows if any females actually even applied for the job. But it shows a sad tend
If you have had creative writing or journalism you know how important the first paragraph is and that most people actually doesn't read more than that and then they might go down to the end, but the first bit is what is being shown the most, which Caro perfectly as a english major knows, which shows that this is what she wanted people to know. So yes it might be a small part of the total review but as data shows only about half or even less then 50% actually read on past the first paragraph, so its despite its size also what over 50% will take away from the article.
Yes, most call themselves journalists and most also wants to be taken as serious as we do with journalists from The New york times, Times, BBC, and other more serious news sources, so despite you being absolute right that they are not and never will be anything but critics, who just happened to be lucky enough to find a job that pays them to write their opinion down. But despite that if they want to be taken as serious, we also as readers have every right to criticize them and expect them to keep to their own standards, which is keeping their strong personal worldviews out of their reviews, that is for their editorials where they can talk about saving the whales or how feminist views are the best in the world. Which leads to the ones i mention, do you disagree that actually most are not actually as vocal on their own personal views as here on gamespot, i have read IGN, Eurogamer, Rev3Games, the old X-play - which i can recommend anyone checking out if they want to see how reviews should be done. And all those places have no trouble in leave politics and personal agendas out.
So i dont think my expectations or standards are unrealistic, its just that some gaming critics have begun to think that we actually want to read how they want games to take a stand and become more social aware of the real societies problems, which just leads to them losing the plot about what games are in the first place, its not there to remind you on just how messed up the world is, its there so you can have a free space and at least for a few hours just sit back and forget that the real world is there.
Hmm, you are right i should perhaps also expect more from the lead editor, but knowing gamespot a review doesn't actually go to a single editor, caro would most likely go to Kevin or another senior-editor and ask them to read it before posting it, but in the end its Caro´s sole responsibility
Anyways lastly Petit didn't just express a disappointment with GTA V, what Caro did was take her own personal political world view and expect GTA to be more in tune with that, which is just ridiculous.