Top
180°

GameSpot’s Dead Rising 3 Review Justifies Why We Need #GamerGate

One Angry Gamer "It’s really happening, folks… reviews in the games industry are now trying to push agendas harder than ever before. Imagine the shock, surprise and horror when a game that was previously scored with a ’7′ at GameSpot received a ’3′ when it landed on another platform with better graphics, more content and a higher resolution (at a cheaper price to boot). Shock. And. Horror."

The story is too old to be commented.
NewMonday1134d ago

GameSpot are known as guns for hire and scores for cash, not surprising

XBLSkull1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

I hate this guy. One Angry Gamer just full of BS. His rage fits are annoying as hell, I was laughing at his butthurt Tomb Raider fiasco.

2 different reviewers with 2 different scores dude, cry about it some more.

deerain1133d ago

it may have been 2 different reviewers but the score shouldn't vary that much, when I was younger I wanted to do game reviews and was told by a guy in the publishing industry that although you have your preferences in games you have to be impartial and see the good and the bad of every game.

breakpad1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

may worse times are coming for game development ..the article has absolute right ...we see "journalist" and "game reviewers" (journalists my ass)to criticize negatively the creativity and the humor of developers (which amuse or satirize the absurd and crazy) because are by their opinion racist ,sexualized or phallocratic, ...all i see (from pseudojournalists and some lame publishers-developers-EA) to force us a form of game censorship (by their perspective they just present more realistic all the aspects of our society) ...a censorship to a product of fantasy is a real form of fascism....i dont want fat womens , ugly protagonists ( i maybe fat or ugly) or forced people of special sexual orientation in my game ...my game is to escape from reality and see worlds perfect(or imperfect) or completely different from our reality...end of story

aliengmr1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

Censorship?

Seriously, remember Jack Thompson? Hell, remember the 90's? That was a time of potential censorship and that was a man "legally" championing its cause.

I'll break this down for you. There are, as I see it, 2 ways one could "censor" a game.

1. Legally. By going up through the courts and having Congress (which has been great at 'not' doing things) to pass a law.

Huge problem with that. Video game are protected speech. the Supreme Court ruled as such when the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (a state is usually backed up by more legal muscle than some random blogger.) tried to restrict violent video games. California lost. the SC didn't just pass on the issue, they ruled on it. This was not the case when Jack Thompson was around or when Congress was looking in to the matter.

2. Pressure the developer to censor their own stuff.

But here's the problem with that, the ONLY people with any real power to change anything are the Developer and their customers.

Did "Sexbox" kill Mass Effect? No, it had the entirely opposite effect. In fact this is almost always the case. Someone makes an edgy game that causes controversy and the sales roll in.

People give WAY too much power to random people with opinions.

Those calling for censorship for fear of censorship need to have their head examined. There are a vast amount of gamers out there that would be all too easily labelled an "SJW" for their opinions, but would NEVER call for censorship.

The Witcher "sex cards" were juvenile and sexist, but I still loved that game and I admittedly I got a kick out the cards. I'm not ashamed of that, nor should anyone else. However, CDPR didn't go back and remove them when folks brought it up, they took that "criticism" and in Witcher 2, decided to take a more mature approach to the sexual content in the game. The game was all the better for it.

This is ultimately the point. I will steadfastly stand against any form of censorship, that includes people with different opinions. If those opinions inspire a developer to try something new, we all win. If a developer decides to reject those opinions, great, that is their right, just like those who have critical opinions.

Creativity dies without critique. Remember that the next time you call for differing opinions to be silenced.

breakpad1133d ago

@aliengmr man basically i agree with you reread my comment and you ill see

knifefight1133d ago

The two reviews this article complains about are by two different people.

So, no, Blogjoke, no. The writers should be allowed to write what they will without fear of corporate penalties.

I love how, some people come out with this Gamersgate thing: "People need to be more forthright and honest!"

And then as soon as someone speaks up with an opinion they disagree with: "This guy needs to be removed from a platform!"

...and they say this with no sense of irony.

DanielGearSolid1133d ago

Did u read the article?

He gave the game a lower score based on some politically correct BS

If scores are gonna be based on some sensitive kids "moral compass" then reviews are even more useless than they already were.

knifefight1133d ago

I love how you ask "Did u read the article" when I make observations about the article that are not within the headline or blurb. Did (yo)u read the comment? ;)

Who cares?
Guess what, you can read the review and see WHY he gave a game the marks he did, and you're free to agree or disagree.

You're free to disregard anything that writer says ever again.

Think about what happened here.
-A guy reviewed a game
-You read it
-You understood the writer's reasons for the final verdict.
-You made your choice to agree or disagree.

Sounds like an open and shut case to me.

We're discerning human beings here. If he's full of crap in your book, then ignore him. But people have the right to express their opinions. You understood his stance and you vehemently disagree. Great. You've both done well.

Bimkoblerutso1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

It's one thing to feel like someone is LYING about a game because they are being paid off. It's another to simply disagree with an honest opinion. Personal bias is always...ALWAYS going to be a part of reviews. #Gamersgate originally was an attempt to protect those opinions from corporate fingerpoking, not mold and manipulate them until all gamers everywhere agreed with them.

DanielGearSolid1133d ago

Wait so you're saye we have the right to disagree...

But then you call the website "Blogjoke" for disagreeing?

Anyway, not the point...

It all depends what you think a review is for...

Is it to inform the consumer how the game plays, etc

Or

Is it to tell the consumer how to think...

IMO mentioning all that social Justice BS and using that as a negative point against the game, is purely attempting to tell the consumer how he should feel about the content. Its not his place.

knifefight1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

Re: "Wait so you're saye we have the right to disagree...
But then you call the website "Blogjoke" for disagreeing? "

Exactly. I'm all about everyone's right to an opinion. They can write what they want, and I can call them a joke for it. I can make an informed decision on what to do with my time.

The article, on the other hand, is saying that the Gamergate movement is something that should cause Nick Capozzoli to lose his job. Capozzolie reviewed a game. He gave it a mark and he very clearly described WHY he gave it that mark. You understood it, the author understood it, I understood it. Sounds like we're all good.

By all means disagree with the review. Call the writer an idiot if you like.

But to say that the Gamergate movement is to get rid of people who clearly express their opinion? Is that really what you think that was about? I'm asking honestly.

RE: "IMO mentioning all that social Justice BS and using that as a negative point against the game, is purely attempting to tell the consumer how he should feel about the content"

The same can be said of anything, really. To say that a game's story sucks could be construed as "attempting to tell the consumer how to feel," just as much as saying the story is amazing. He saw something in the game, described it, said how he felt, and he told you why he felt that way. Nothing was unclear. That's what pretty much any review should do.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1133d ago
Bimkoblerutso1133d ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one that picked up on the irony of this article.

This is why I very rarely throw in with any widespread "movements." They get muddled and bastardized until you just have a group of people complaining about stuff they don't like.

WilliamUsher1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

No one said this guy needed to lose his job.

The problem comes in with what he's attempting to do with his job: He's using it as a platform to push a political agenda.

Consistency and transparency. As mentioned in the article, he scores it a '3' because it doesn't fit his socio-political bias. The problem is that he's docked off '7' points out of '10' based on that bias.

Keep in mind that with the performance issues fixed you have to wonder WHY a game would score lower than the original review?

This is becoming a pattern -- it's not just to pick on Nick but to point out the pattern. If multiple websites start shuttling scores for gamers based on these viewpoints, what happens? The Metacritic average drops, the devs don't get bonuses, the brand may go away.

Concentrated efforts by reviewers to "hit" a game with low review scores can ultimately shape how some games will be viewed by the public. A game with a bunch of '3's because it's deemed sexist might lose its potential audience, even if it is a good game. Are you starting to see the bigger picture?

You're just looking at this from one perspective. It's a multi-tiered effort to showcase how reviewers can content-shame a developer into a specific worldview.

Is that what you want? The industry's game direction dictated by people with a specific socio-political agenda?

knifefight1133d ago

Before delving deeper, let's get one thing clear: arguing numerical scores is silly. So much of your foundation seems to be in these numbers, and numbers are arbitrary, to be honest.

Re: "Consistency and transparency. As mentioned in the article, he scores it a '3' because it doesn't fit his socio-political bias.

Keep in mind that with the performance issues fixed you have to wonder WHY a game would score lower than the original review?"

Completely irrelevant, since the original review wasn't his. Siskel and Ebert didn't even agree with each other all the time. Two different people might work for the same website, but they ain't always gonna agree, mate.

Re: "Concentrated efforts by reviewers to "hit" a game with low review scores can ultimately shape how some games will be viewed by the public."

Did you ever think that a lot of people might feel a certain way? You're basically saying "Oh no, if enough people feel a certain way, and they say it, then other people might consider what they say, and then feel that way too!" That sounds like society to me. That sounds like free discussion. That sounds like democracy.

Re: "The Metacritic average drops, the devs don't get bonuses, the brand may go away. "

Now THIS is more what Gamergate is about. Reviewers should never, ever, EVER be in the pockets of developers. No. Just no.

A reviewer should never have to scale back his opinion or censor himself because of Metacritic and a developers hypothetical bonus checks. THAT right there is a huge problem.

Re: "Is that what you want? The industry's game direction dictated by people with a specific socio-political agenda?"

I want a world where people can say what they want, and other people are smart enough to think for themselves. Your argument in this article boils down to readers being too stupid to think for themselves and being swayed too easily by a game reviewer. Even if that were the case, then oh well. But I don't think it is. I give people more credit than that.

I'm smart enough to think for myself, you're smart enough to think for yourself. We have to give Johnny Consumer the chance to think for himself too.

aliengmr1133d ago

"Is that what you want? The industry's game direction dictated by people with a specific socio-political agenda?"

So you want others to conform to your world view?

All I see is getting rid of one agenda and replacing it for another.

If gamers have proven anything, its that they are more than willing to go against a bad review. And certainly more than willing to voice their opposition.

Dead Rising 3 is currently 7th in Steam's top seller list, which after about 10 days is a really respectable position to be in (especially considering the sales going on).

coolbeans1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

Well...no, I certainly didn't see anything about you hoping Nick *something* will lose his job like knifefight mentioned above; however, considering some of the language and your reference to #Gamergate makes it feel like you're acting drastic too.

"As mentioned in the article, he scores it a '3' because it doesn't fit his socio-political bias. The problem is that he's docked off '7' points out of '10' based on that bias."

It's funny how you bring up transparency and consistency when you're falsely reporting just how much his political bias affected the score. He listed two other key cons with it that seemed to disappoint him.

"If multiple websites start shuttling scores for gamers based on these viewpoints, what happens? The Metacritic average drops, the devs don't get bonuses, the brand may go away."

I have to ask: in what way would that be game jurnalism's fault should such viewpoints begin "poisoning" their reviews and lowering metacritic scores? The outrageous amount of emphasis put on metacritic by gamers and the suits behind the scene should be at fault for that.

"Concentrated efforts by reviewers to "hit" a game with low review scores can ultimately shape how some games will be viewed by the public. A game with a bunch of '3's because it's deemed sexist might lose its potential audience, even if it is a good game. Are you starting to see the bigger picture?"

I get what you're trying to frame, but it depends on a lot of fantasy on your part for this to happen. This kind of hypothetical dilemma seems to be consistent with loud "keep your politics out of the game" crowd too: relying on the most radical of possibilities to puff up the ideal that just b/c critics may notice something is -ist must now mean we're on our way to some form of censorship in gaming altogether, despite the fact that several games with "questionable" material (according to some people) have been some of best selling games on the market in recent years.

In the end, the article seems to do as much "content-shaming" as the review in question, which is to say it's just another piece of criticism.

wannabe gamer1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

oh guess what reviews are BS.....nothing to see here folks move along everything is as it has been for the last 15 years.

seriously since the advent of blogs and general ability for ANYONE to create a half assed website or general place for their content to appear reviews have been WORTHLESS. any kid or bum can write his skewed view/rant and call himself a gaming journalist now. stop reading reviews and letting them dictate what you do. if you do read them then skim 3-5 popular or semi pipular reviews and ge ta gist for if you want to risk buying the game and either do or not or try it thru some other means before buying. you have the power to decide so just DO IT.

700p1133d ago

The gamergate thing is stupid.

SilentNegotiator1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

GTFO of the game industry, SJWs.

Show all comments (25)