First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Important issues of racism and sexism being tackled again!
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15

sundin13 wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Secondly that's a fine way to review games for you but claiming that talking about that AND NOTHING ELSE in a review is regressive. I think saying that reviews should only follow the IGN review categories and not talk about other stuff is really stupid cause for other people there are other factors that make them want to play a game.

I played MGS 2 cause SuperBunnyHop read it to be about the nature of games and how we play them

I played Hotline Miami cause Errant Signal read it to be an argument against story in games.

I didnt play Bayonetta cause someone gave it an review I played it cause of Maddy Myers reading of it as pro feminist which I find interesting so I played it to form my own opinions.

Saying that all YOU care about in a game is the Standard IGN review Categories is incredibly selfish. If you wanted a review that doesn't include other details you can find it. But slagging on any review that steps outside of the norm and mentions other features as being against "Common Sense" is regressive.


There are certain expectations of a review and that is largely a good thing. A review which talks about an abstract interpretation of a game's narrative and doesn't mention gameplay is a bad review, because it does not give the reader a good sense of the game. Further, in a gaming landscape with such a heavy reliance on review aggregates such as Metacritic, a review which solely focuses on a nitpick to give out a score that is an outlier can have negative consequences to both the consumer and the developer.

Yes, it is important for people to discuss games outside of the standard framework, however, it is also important to give fair and comprehensive reviews which strive for objectiveness.

Also, I think a line needs to be drawn between commentary and reviews. In my opinion, the highly subjective and often abstract has little place in a review besides a footnote, but this discussion is both interesting and important as commentary surrounding the game. Creating a distinction between this commentary (which is explicitly subjective) and review (which is implicitly objective) is extremely important when presenting this information to a consumer.


First off your metacritic point explains why Metacritic is such a huge problem for games. The idea of Metacritic leveraging so many scores together to try and achieve a "objective" measure of quality is a horrible idea. Gamers shouldn't rely on Metacritic they should read the reviews at hand to see if it matches there taste. The top game on metacritic last I checked is GTA 4 That game is fucking horrible and unfun to play. Also I doubt any developer will be harmed by Metacritic if there game gets a bad review. Im utterly disgusted by how many gamers will stick up for huge fucking developers as if there games need to be defended. Most publishers and developers are awful. Metacritic also is harmful to smaller games that dont have hype behind them and therefore dont get as high scores or poromotion on Metacritic. Lastly and most importantly you are literlly saying that "a journalist shouldnt nitpick on outliers cause it might hurt developers". Fuck no that's not a journalists job to be nice to a developer there they to tell you what they think of the game.

Secondly I want to point out that even if you strive for objectiveness nothing can and will be truly objective especially in fields of entertainment and art. You can objectively report on something but you cannot objectively judge something. Art in my opinion is all about looking deeper into the piece at hand and that requires a subjective and personal interpretation. Objectivity is a myth.

Third I dont see the problem with reviews outside the norm when you can just go to any other review site and get that review. Reviews outside the norm or "commentary" as you put them arent harmful.

Lastly the distinction you draw between review and commentary is kinda funny cause under your opinion most movie reviews would be "commentaries". Siskel and Ebert under you would have just been commenting on the film cause they talked about its deeper elements. So many arthouse reviews talk about the meaning of the film and read deeper into it. So do so many comic reviews for that matter. Under your opinion Watchman shouldnt have been reviewed nearly as well as it was back in the day cause any abstract subjective look at its themes is a "commentary". Taxi Driver cant be reviewed that well cause on paper its just a movie about a Racist guy who drives a Taxi and Kill people.

You see its just silly to differentiate the two when nearly every medium besides games reads deeper in there reviews. If games are art we should encourage analysis and reading deeper into games. Reviews whether we like em or not are already subjective and will always have the bog standard boring reviews you want. If metacritic is stopping deeper analysis of games then its just another reason to despise Metacritic.

Then agian I believe the way we review things 10/10 to be really fucking dumb. To me a game review should be an author saying what he liked about the thing and what he disliked about it and boiling it down to a number tells you nothing about the game.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

Dabossman26 wrote:

You're doing the same thing... Your points are:
He's allowed to write this because he can.
He's just pointing something out.
It doesn't imply racism abd sexism because I say so.
You're just overreacting...

So saying that I'm repeating argument is hypocritical and ignorant. I knew what i was writing and I wrote it that way becase you were repeat the same arguments too... And since the argument is getting redundant, I'll bow out first to save myself from wasting more time... Good day!



Cause your repeating the same argument Im repeating the same rebuttal.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15

J-POP187 wrote:


megahobbit [link url="/forumtopic-915471/important-issues-of-racism-and-sexism-being-tackled-again?fpid=51225383"

Once again these press events are not exclusive things. Many other journalists wrote about the game and its features. For him to write about something else is fine. Readers can find that info somewhere else its readily available.

Secondly Im sure all the gaming readers are just devastated that Forbes magazine (the number one magazine for gaming) did not deliver on the details. Forbes magazine as we know is the main source of gaming news.


Ignoring sarcasm aside
I can't speak for the other guys on Forbes since I pretty much just follow David for gaming my only source for Forbes since he mainly sony and microsoft focused when he previews a game his explains as a gamer what the features are and as a gamer how excited he is or what possible problems it may have. No one says he can't write an article like that but for his readers they have every right to complain if it doesn't live up to their standard from what they expect to see. While I agree you should always look at multiple sources if you want to find something out some people will only choose one or two people to follow and if anything they would be in a better position to critique his work since they are more familiar with what to expect.


If they dont want to search further for the info thats there problem not his.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

eragon2890 wrote:

That is not what I meant at all dude, I literally said that "Other things can be mentioned, but some small detail AND NOTHING ELSE is stupid.".

It's fine if it includes other details. In fact it's good. If the article would talk about the game but mention this in passing-by, I would applaud it. But, writing a whole article about this and nothing else is what is stupid.

It's like you read a review of a triple-a game on a site like IGN or gamespot and it only writes, for the whole review, about the fact that the characters eyes are green. And absolutely nothing else.

Or are you trying to say that you would think that would be normal, and that anyone who would think that is strange (that's all anyone has said, no-one said he shouldn't be free to write it) is being 'regressive'?

That's literally what happened in this article...


Okay thats fine if you think the article is stupid it still doesnt justify the overreaction. I liked the article cause it was an interesting bit of "huh this is weird thinking"

Secondly this is not a review it is an article and they shouldn't be comparable.

Third Im saying that the insistence of yours on keeping reviews as a "must fit these quoto" type view of review is regressive. The idea that a review "must do something" or "must answer these questions" is bad cause it encourages formulaic reviews. A review must review a game in my book and reviews that dont match one of the quota you mention and focus on a small details is still a review in my book. Alot of interpretation on Hotline Miamis meaning comes from a very small convo in the game. You still will have your standard IGN and gamespot reviews those arent going anywhere but I feel we should encourage more reviewers to try more things. The art of critic(which many like to forget was considered a legitimate art at one point) has fallen so low in the past hundred years.
13297 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15

megahobbit wrote:

First off your metacritic point explains why Metacritic is such a huge problem for games. The idea of Metacritic leveraging so many scores together to try and achieve a "objective" measure of quality is a horrible idea. Gamers shouldn't rely on Metacritic they should read the reviews at hand to see if it matches there taste. The top game on metacritic last I checked is GTA 4 That game is fucking horrible and unfun to play. Also I doubt any developer will be harmed by Metacritic if there game gets a bad review. Im utterly disgusted by how many gamers will stick up for huge fucking developers as if there games need to be defended. Most publishers and developers are awful. Metacritic also is harmful to smaller games that dont have hype behind them and therefore dont get as high scores or poromotion on Metacritic. Lastly and most importantly you are literlly saying that "a journalist shouldnt nitpick on outliers cause it might hurt developers". Fuck no that's not a journalists job to be nice to a developer there they to tell you what they think of the game.

Secondly I want to point out that even if you strive for objectiveness nothing can and will be truly objective especially in fields of entertainment and art. You can objectively report on something but you cannot objectively judge something. Art in my opinion is all about looking deeper into the piece at hand and that requires a subjective and personal interpretation. Objectivity is a myth.

Third I dont see the problem with reviews outside the norm when you can just go to any other review site and get that review. Reviews outside the norm or "commentary" as you put them arent harmful.

Lastly the distinction you draw between review and commentary is kinda funny cause under your opinion most movie reviews would be "commentaries". Siskel and Ebert under you would have just been commenting on the film cause they talked about its deeper elements. So many arthouse reviews talk about the meaning of the film and read deeper into it. So do so many comic reviews for that matter. Under your opinion Watchman shouldnt have been reviewed nearly as well as it was back in the day cause any abstract subjective look at its themes is a "commentary". Taxi Driver cant be reviewed that well cause on paper its just a movie about a Racist guy who drives a Taxi and Kill people.

You see its just silly to differentiate the two when nearly every medium besides games reads deeper in there reviews. If games are art we should encourage analysis and reading deeper into games. Reviews whether we like em or not are already subjective and will always have the bog standard boring reviews you want. If metacritic is stopping deeper analysis of games then its just another reason to despise Metacritic.

Then agian I believe the way we review things 10/10 to be really fucking dumb. To me a game review should be an author saying what he liked about the thing and what he disliked about it and boiling it down to a number tells you nothing about the game.


Yeah, the position of power that metacritic is in is pretty terrible for the industry and consumers alike, however, it is still in that position of power whether the vocal minority likes it or not. You mentioned that "I doubt any developer will be harmed by Metacritic if there game gets a bad review" and that is actually false more or less. While Metacritic obviously doesn't do anything, its not uncommon for developer bonuses to be tied to metacritic scores. Most famously, I believe it was Fallout New Vegas which fell one point short of the cutoff point for the bonus in their contract.

Second, I think you misunderstood my point about nitpicking and outliers. Your "quote" isn't at all what I was saying. I was saying that a poor review which focused on one unimportant aspect of the game, dragging the score down for superficial reasons can be harmful. For example, if there was a really awesome game, but a site decided to mark it down significantly because the portrayal of Space Mecha Abe Lincoln wasn't true to history, that would just be ridiculous. That is one of the problems with focusing on a tiny detail or some abstract interpretation when making a review instead of making something comprehensive. It risks misrepresenting the game, not being enlightening for consumers and potentially harming developers.

About objectivity, the key is the pursuit of objectivity, not objectivity itself. When reviewing a game, you should not focus on personal ties and ideas, because again, these do next to nothing to enlighten consumers, but instead you should look at the game as objectively as possible. You say that art is solely interpretive, but there are plenty of things about games which can be looked at more concretely. These are not abstract art pieces (usually), they are mechanic driven. Because of that, you can discuss mechanics, how mechanic relate and synergize, how mechanics compare to similar ideas in previous games etc.. The specific interpretation is of much less use (and there is much less need of reviews) than the more concrete ideas. A review of an average 2D platformer. is not going to be a review about interpretation. It will be about level design, physics, character control, mechanic innovations etc, and while there is obviously a subjective interpretation of this, you should strive to present it in a way which gives a broader perspective which will be applicable at large instead of just to yourself.

"I don't see a problem with reviews outside of the norm" - Very well, but that doesn't make them good reviews

"Movie reviews are commentary by your definition" - And movies are not video games.

But further, it is not problematic to discuss interpretations of the story in a review, but moreso that it is problematic when the interpretation becomes the review. Let me try to explain. This discussion should be framed in a way which makes a distinction within the review, but typically it will be used as a sort of explanation as a more concrete point. For example, the reviewer may begin discussing the story and say that the story's meaning remains unclear, but upon further inspection of, say, in game collectible lore, and reading into environmental cues, you can come to a fairly concrete conclusion about who your character is and what their goals are.

This point would be very valid to make, as it expresses to the consumer ideas about what type of game they are getting, what type of narrative they are getting and what type of person would enjoy these elements. On the other hand, if a review opened up to merely speak about how the story could be interpreted, that would be of little use to the consumer and a very poor review.

Basically what I'm saying is that reviews are for the prospective customer, to inform them of the different aspects of the game and give them an idea of the type of individual who would enjoy the game, while commentary is more of a curio or a discussion between individuals who have already experienced the game, and gives them a way to think about it.

Finally, I agree that a numeric score is a poor means of communicating to a customer a perceived level of enjoyment, because each customer will weigh different points differently, however, that does not mean that reviews should become formless and abstract.

Just as a little aside, here is an extreme example of when a review is not a review. Now, this isn't meant to be taken seriously, but I think it expresses just the problem I have with the abstract in game reviews even if it is somewhat of a satire piece: http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1017

Even if this somehow in some abstract way expresses his feelings about the game, what use is such a review for the consumer?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

sundin13 wrote:

Yeah, the position of power that metacritic is in is pretty terrible for the industry and consumers alike, however, it is still in that position of power whether the vocal minority likes it or not. You mentioned that "I doubt any developer will be harmed by Metacritic if there game gets a bad review" and that is actually false more or less. While Metacritic obviously doesn't do anything, its not uncommon for developer bonuses to be tied to metacritic scores. Most famously, I believe it was Fallout New Vegas which fell one point short of the cutoff point for the bonus in their contract.

Second, I think you misunderstood my point about nitpicking and outliers. Your "quote" isn't at all what I was saying. I was saying that a poor review which focused on one unimportant aspect of the game, dragging the score down for superficial reasons can be harmful. For example, if there was a really awesome game, but a site decided to mark it down significantly because the portrayal of Space Mecha Abe Lincoln wasn't true to history, that would just be ridiculous. That is one of the problems with focusing on a tiny detail or some abstract interpretation when making a review instead of making something comprehensive. It risks misrepresenting the game, not being enlightening for consumers and potentially harming developers.

About objectivity, the key is the pursuit of objectivity, not objectivity itself. When reviewing a game, you should not focus on personal ties and ideas, because again, these do next to nothing to enlighten consumers, but instead you should look at the game as objectively as possible. You say that art is solely interpretive, but there are plenty of things about games which can be looked at more concretely. These are not abstract art pieces (usually), they are mechanic driven. Because of that, you can discuss mechanics, how mechanic relate and synergize, how mechanics compare to similar ideas in previous games etc.. The specific interpretation is of much less use (and there is much less need of reviews) than the more concrete ideas. A review of an average 2D platformer. is not going to be a review about interpretation. It will be about level design, physics, character control, mechanic innovations etc, and while there is obviously a subjective interpretation of this, you should strive to present it in a way which gives a broader perspective which will be applicable at large instead of just to yourself.

"I don't see a problem with reviews outside of the norm" - Very well, but that doesn't make them good reviews

"Movie reviews are commentary by your definition" - And movies are not video games.

But further, it is not problematic to discuss interpretations of the story in a review, but moreso that it is problematic when the interpretation becomes the review. Let me try to explain. This discussion should be framed in a way which makes a distinction within the review, but typically it will be used as a sort of explanation as a more concrete point. For example, the reviewer may begin discussing the story and say that the story's meaning remains unclear, but upon further inspection of, say, in game collectible lore, and reading into environmental cues, you can come to a fairly concrete conclusion about who your character is and what their goals are.

This point would be very valid to make, as it expresses to the consumer ideas about what type of game they are getting, what type of narrative they are getting and what type of person would enjoy these elements. On the other hand, if a review opened up to merely speak about how the story could be interpreted, that would be of little use to the consumer and a very poor review.

Basically what I'm saying is that reviews are for the prospective customer, to inform them of the different aspects of the game and give them an idea of the type of individual who would enjoy the game, while commentary is more of a curio or a discussion between individuals who have already experienced the game, and gives them a way to think about it.

Finally, I agree that a numeric score is a poor means of communicating to a customer a perceived level of enjoyment, because each customer will weigh different points differently, however, that does not mean that reviews should become formless and abstract.

Just as a little aside, here is an extreme example of when a review is not a review. Now, this isn't meant to be taken seriously, but I think it expresses just the problem I have with the abstract in game reviews even if it is somewhat of a satire piece: http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1017

Even if this somehow in some abstract way expresses his feelings about the game, what use is such a review for the consumer?


1. Well the solution is not to care about Metacritic then. A journalist should not care about fucking Metacritic. Thats just bullshit.

2. No I got your point the first time fuck Metacritic.

3. But thats what YOU want to know. You personally can find a reviewer who does that but slagging on reviewers who DONT is stupid.

4. Theres no such thing as an objectively good review

5. Wow you totally destroyed me with the "movies are not games thing" such well reasoned logic. Look dude of course there not movies the thing is that all other forms of art are criticized with interpretations.

6. Once again thats what YOU want to know about the story. YOU can find a review for that.

7. The idea that a review is for the prospective customer is actually a fairly recent one. Up until the 1800s the purpose of critique and critics were to analyze and interpret a piece.

I think the gist of my point is that its fine for YOU to want that in the reviews you read but if they dont contain what you want to know they are not bad reviews. The fact that people are suddenly talking about stuff other than want you want them to talk about doesnt mean your preferred reviews are going away.
1580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / Shit Orb #3
Offline
Posted 8/20/15
Makes me sad that there are much more important and valid issues regarding racism and sexism and this is what these people choose to worry about.
19215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Racism and sexism isn't what it use to be. It's now just an excuse to blame someone for another's failure. People are just too sensitive and will call racism and sexism at anything now.


Spot on there.

This is so accurate that I may just need to frame this quote up somewhere.
13297 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

megahobbit wrote:
1. Well the solution is not to care about Metacritic then. A journalist should not care about fucking Metacritic. Thats just bullshit.

2. No I got your point the first time fuck Metacritic.

3. But thats what YOU want to know. You personally can find a reviewer who does that but slagging on reviewers who DONT is stupid.

4. Theres no such thing as an objectively good review

5. Wow you totally destroyed me with the "movies are not games thing" such well reasoned logic. Look dude of course there not movies the thing is that all other forms of art are criticized with interpretations.

6. Once again thats what YOU want to know about the story. YOU can find a review for that.

7. The idea that a review is for the prospective customer is actually a fairly recent one. Up until the 1800s the purpose of critique and critics were to analyze and interpret a piece.

I think the gist of my point is that its fine for YOU to want that in the reviews you read but if they dont contain what you want to know they are not bad reviews. The fact that people are suddenly talking about stuff other than want you want them to talk about doesnt mean your preferred reviews are going away.


1. Whether or not I care about Metacritic personally is irrelevant
3. The point is that its supposed to be comprehensive to satisfy more than just one person... Again, the story can be spoken about and interpretations of the story may be gone into, but ignoring other key elements of a game does not make a good review.
4. I disagree whole-heartedly. See the review at the end of my other post.... That is an objectively terrible review because it did nothing to tell the reader about the game or allow them to assume any level of personal enjoyment.
5. I think I explained my point was explained pretty well after that one sentence. Did you just ignore the rest of it? Do you really think that Super Mario World is about interpretation and not mechanics? The point is that games are much more of a mechanical beast than an interpretive beast, and there really are only a few games which fall more on the interpretive side, but even still, ignoring the mechanics would be doing a disservice to the game.

Take for example, Everyone's Gone to Rapture. It is a game that is pretty much solely about the telling of a story, however, the mechanics are very important. A review which doesn't say anything about the walk speed (which is one of the main criticisms of the game) and the way the environments are designed would be a pretty shitty review.

7. You are combining the ideas of critique and reviews, which are not really the same thing. Here is a quote from the University of Vermont:

"Film criticism is the study, interpretation, and evaluation of a film and its place in cinema history. Film criticism usually offers interpretation of its meaning, analysis of its structure and style, judgement of its worth by comparison with other films, and an estimation of its likely effect on viewers. Film theory (e.g., feminist, postmodernist, etc.) often informs the critical analysis of a film. Criticism may examine a particular film, or may look at a group of films in the same genre, or a director's or actor's body of work.

Film criticism differs from movie reviews in several ways: it entails both analysis and judgement; it may be published many years after a film is released; it is usually longer and more complex than a movie review. A movie review documents the critical reception of a film at its time of theatrical or dvd release. It is more "consumer-oriented," placing more emphasis on recommendation than analysis."

Critique is more akin to the idea of commentary I was speaking about earlier, while reviews are consumer-oriented. Again, I have nothing against critique, however, that does not mean a good critique makes a good review as they have different ends and therefore should employ different means.

8. The idea that there is no semblance of an objective measure of quality in basically anything, be it art or reviews, is something that we will have disagreements about until death. However, reviews are made for the consumers to educate the consumers, therefore, it simply stands to reason that a review that does not suit that end is a poor review. A review that is non-comprehensive, highly personal and highly bias does not meet that end and is therefore poor.
6295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / *echo sound effec...
Offline
Posted 8/20/15

megahobbit wrote:


Dabossman26 wrote:

You're doing the same thing... Your points are:
He's allowed to write this because he can.
He's just pointing something out.
It doesn't imply racism and sexism because I say so.
You're just overreacting...

So saying that I'm repeating argument is hypocritical and ignorant. I knew what i was writing and I wrote it that way because you were repeat the same arguments too... And since the argument is getting redundant, I'll bow out first to save myself from wasting more time... Good day!



Cause your repeating the same argument Im repeating the same rebuttal.


Your (used correctly) grammar and sentence structure with this "rebuttal" make me want to disregard the fact that you replied rather than making me want to critically think about what you're(used correctly) debating. There isn't a character limit so a poorly constructed sentence doesn't help.

I used quotes from the article as well as what a consensus of how the article was received to argue the fact that this article is trying to make a problem out of sexism and racism nothing and you reply with "you're overreacting", "it isn't sexism because it's a woman's hand" (even though the article was created by a man and he thought that not having a man's hand was sexist towards him because he doesn't have a woman's hand), and "Well I don't think it's racism and sexism because I say so". With that last point, you kept saying that he was trying to be different as well as trying to argue that he was just pointing something out, but you weren't using evidence. The way something is worded is key into looking at how someone is implying things. The phrase "You hit like a girl" works here. It's just meant to say that you aren't that strong, but by specifying that it's a girl, you imply that all women are weak.

In addition, when I tried to add more to the debate by saying that the reception of this article was a way to change how the news is reported you didn't try to debate my points, but went back to "you're overreacting". Instead of looking at the fact that the article may had been flawed with how it was worded, you still looked at the way I replied instead of what my reply said.

After your (used correctly) original argument, you didn't have any actual arguments and instead tried to attack small errors in the argument instead of trying to invalidate the argument and changing my opinion on it.

Finally, I would just like to say that there is a big difference between wanting justice on actual issues and trying to create problems about nothing. Not being able to play as a female Mario, not sexism. Nintendo publicly saying that they will never have you play as a woman in any of their games because women aren't good enough to be put into games, that's sexism. The article uses the former to get clicks and to get some ignorant people to criticize a whole company on something that isn't an issue. Like I have stated before, the former argument could be used to create problems with anything.

I'm all for equal rights and by definition I am a feminist, but it's things like this that make people question the use of the word "feminist". That's why egalitarian and equalist are terms people use. They don't want to be associated with what the word "feminist" is associated with. I realize that there is still sexism and racism in the USA and around the world, but this isn't something that is sexist, like how the author of the article is trying to make it appear to be.
35584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

bobland wrote:


jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Racism and sexism isn't what it use to be. It's now just an excuse to blame someone for another's failure. People are just too sensitive and will call racism and sexism at anything now.


Spot on there.

This is so accurate that I may just need to frame this quote up somewhere.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/19/homeless/iTagewS4bnvBKWxxPvFcAJ/story.html

The Trump aspect of this article shouldn't be the focus, but there is a problem which goes beyond what is stated in the above quote. A couple of racists with a history of racially motivated violent behaviour beat a homeless man with a metal pipe, snatched away his precious few belongings and rifled through them, and urinated on him.

Second Edit: This was unnecessarily rude even if I did feel I had a point to make. There's no constructive purpose for rudeness, and I apologise for it. I have also reedited my statements to reflect a more appropriate attitude.
19215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/20/15

BlueOni wrote:
.


Nobody is denying that shitty things like this still happens, but this is the exception and not the norm.

The norm is that the race card is being used more as an excuse than anything.
35584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

bobland wrote:

Nobody is denying that shitty things like this still happens, but this is the exception and not the norm.

The norm is that the race card is being used more as an excuse than anything.


I think it best I withdraw from this discussion. I have clearly failed to keep a level head, and in truth you've done nothing wrong.
17488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 8/20/15
lol a this guy complaining about a women hands on his video games.

"NO! That should be a MAN'S HAND ggrrrr rrr"
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 8/20/15 , edited 8/20/15

sundin13 wrote:

1. Whether or not I care about Metacritic personally is irrelevant
3. The point is that its supposed to be comprehensive to satisfy more than just one person... Again, the story can be spoken about and interpretations of the story may be gone into, but ignoring other key elements of a game does not make a good review.
4. I disagree whole-heartedly. See the review at the end of my other post.... That is an objectively terrible review because it did nothing to tell the reader about the game or allow them to assume any level of personal enjoyment.
5. I think I explained my point was explained pretty well after that one sentence. Did you just ignore the rest of it? Do you really think that Super Mario World is about interpretation and not mechanics? The point is that games are much more of a mechanical beast than an interpretive beast, and there really are only a few games which fall more on the interpretive side, but even still, ignoring the mechanics would be doing a disservice to the game.

Take for example, Everyone's Gone to Rapture. It is a game that is pretty much solely about the telling of a story, however, the mechanics are very important. A review which doesn't say anything about the walk speed (which is one of the main criticisms of the game) and the way the environments are designed would be a pretty shitty review.

7. You are combining the ideas of critique and reviews, which are not really the same thing. Here is a quote from the University of Vermont:

"Film criticism is the study, interpretation, and evaluation of a film and its place in cinema history. Film criticism usually offers interpretation of its meaning, analysis of its structure and style, judgement of its worth by comparison with other films, and an estimation of its likely effect on viewers. Film theory (e.g., feminist, postmodernist, etc.) often informs the critical analysis of a film. Criticism may examine a particular film, or may look at a group of films in the same genre, or a director's or actor's body of work.

Film criticism differs from movie reviews in several ways: it entails both analysis and judgement; it may be published many years after a film is released; it is usually longer and more complex than a movie review. A movie review documents the critical reception of a film at its time of theatrical or dvd release. It is more "consumer-oriented," placing more emphasis on recommendation than analysis."

Critique is more akin to the idea of commentary I was speaking about earlier, while reviews are consumer-oriented. Again, I have nothing against critique, however, that does not mean a good critique makes a good review as they have different ends and therefore should employ different means.

8. The idea that there is no semblance of an objective measure of quality in basically anything, be it art or reviews, is something that we will have disagreements about until death. However, reviews are made for the consumers to educate the consumers, therefore, it simply stands to reason that a review that does not suit that end is a poor review. A review that is non-comprehensive, highly personal and highly bias does not meet that end and is therefore poor.


1. Fuck Metacritic and for my moneys worth I find someone supports a movement standing for "ethics in games journalism" but thinks journalists shouldnt speak there mind in case of harming a games metacritic score hypocritical.
3. No such thing as an objectively good review 8. has my explanation.
5. I dealt with you other paragraph in point six.
6. Sorry dude hers the deal a review of that game that doesnt mention walk speed would not be stupid. If its such a problem to a reviewer they can comment on it but If a reviewer doesnt care about it. Thats a personal opinion. I played dear esther which people bitched about the walkspeed and I didnt see a problem with it at all. You ask me to review the game right know I would probably not mention it.
7. This is literally an argument of technicality know. We agree on it but I say its a review and you dont. Arguing over technicalities like this is pointless.
8. I disagree once again given that personal bias is inescapable and pointless to try and deliver. "consumers" are not these unbiased machines ready for enjoyment themselves. They have there own likes, dislikes and hang-ups. What may seem like nitpicking to you could mean the world to someone else. The idea of an objective critic is stupid but the idea of a objective consumer is even dumber. Thats what I said before its what YOU want in a review which is perfectly fine. I dont really care at what frame rate my game runs at or even how it looks. The reason you cant have objectively good review even going by your terms is that you dont know what the consumer wants to know.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.