60°

#GamerGate Wants Objective Video Game Reviews: What Would Roger Ebert Do?

One of the issues raised by #GamerGate is the question of objective reviews. There is a fairly pervasive view among #GamerGate supporters that “social justice” advocacy has somehow infected video game reviews. Gone are the days of reviews focusing only on game mechanics, graphics, and other fairly quantifiable things. Now games are losing points because they have busty, scantily clad women.

SaveFerris3822d ago

'This ain't no game, flash.'

3-4-53821d ago

* Emotional Sensationalism is ruining Video Game Journalism.......or it's one of the pieces of the puzzle being ruined.

People get all emotional on a topic, go on this epic, un-researched rant, FULL OF Mistakes and things that aren't even fact.

^ And they want us to buy it as the 100% Truth.

Who, What, When, Where, Why, How......the stuff that matters.

The Truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

* Another problem is people's ability to assess Reality correctly.

Too many people stare at A, and call it B.

Not sure why or how....but they do, and it's annoying at best.

NukaCola3822d ago

I would love to see sites come together and create a standard for reviewing a game. You can't reviews games like you can a film. A movie reviewer only can access what he/she takes in. There is no feedback from viewer into that goes on in a film. It's one sided. With games, the player is the variable in which a game reacts to. That being said, the "experience" is the main focus in the opinion of the reviewer. On top of that the technical side of things like graphics, and audio, dialog, and gameplay factor into it. Now we look at "replay value" because the media feels you have to justify playing a game over and over for it to have worth. There are many movies worth buying but not watching everyday. Sometimes, it's ok to play a game once, experience it and move on. I don't know when the so called standard will ever come to light, but I can tell you I miss the days of Tommy Tallarico and Victor Lucas were doing their thing full swing. :( RIP Gaming Media

Kenshin_BATT0USAI3821d ago (Edited 3821d ago )

As much as I can understand why you would want that, a 'universal' way to review something more or less defeats the purpose of different sites reviewing something. I.e. if everyone reviewed something the same, the score, in that case, ought to be the exact same across the board.

I'm actually perfectly fine with how games are reviewed today. Someone reviewing Bayonetta poorly because bayonetta is hot? Well I'll make sure never to read a review by that person again. Someone dislikes the genre of game they are reviewing that I like and therefore gives it a low score because they just don't 'get it', well one less review I'll need to read in the future. Obviously paid off review? Blacklist entire site. It's as simple as that.
Edit: mind you I usually choose whether I buy the game or not far before any reviews come out.

Magnes3821d ago

I feel even if I like a review from a reviewer I still can't trust that the next time they review something their employer won't lean on them for a positive review based on ad revenue. The only way to ever truly trust a review is if you know 100% they receive no money from game publishers/developers or console makers.

NukaCola3821d ago

Kenshin,

The thing is though, if you are going to put a number on something, you have to have a standard of doing it. I'd rather just see a review with no SCORE, no meta, no bullcrap. It's medium that just has no fair shake because people are people.

Anon19743821d ago

"The only way to ever truly trust a review is if you know 100% they receive no money from game publishers/developers or console makers."

Of course, that's never going to happen though. Game review sites need to make money, and that's done through advertising. Just like any other type of journalism there will always be an ongoing war between ethics and advertising dollars. Some battles journalists will win and money will potentially leave the publication, some times the advertisers hold the sway and most of us will never be the wiser.

That's just the way it is.

Personally, I have nothing against the way games are reviewed today. I find reviewers who's opinions I find match my own and I tend to use their advice when I choose to read a review to help make a purchasing decision. No different than movie critics. I agree with some, I don't with others. It's all about finding someone or a site that you find matches your particular tastes.

Somebody3821d ago

I think they already have come together and create a standard they all can agree on- the day they kept silent when the Zoe Quinn story first came out and then the dozen or so articles claiming "gamers are dead" released almost in unison.

There's nothing wrong with reviewers expressing their personal views about a game but they have to be tactful about it. Recently PC Gamer reviewed a SWAT tactical strategy game, Doorkickers. It started good enough with the usual technical explanations and the reviewer's experience of the gameplay but then he tried to raise the question of police ethics and their response to their obviously heavily armed criminals in the game. It was just a couple of sentence in the middle of the review but was still a jarring thing to raise. Especially when the game obviously focus on the tactical gameplay with barely any sweeping campaign story with deliberately controversial social commentary.

In another PCG article announcing Steam's reinstating the game Hatred on Greenlight, the author didn't waste time showing his utter contempt for the game's concept. Wow, just wow. Just right from the first sentence of the article we know that he really hates Hatred before continuing on to the mundane task of informing readers of Valve's decision.

Anon19743821d ago

Yeah, that never actually happened. When the Zoe Quinn story came out, people kept silent because anyone with working knowledge of Google could check to see if the journalist in question every reviewed the game (he didn't) or give it positive press while they were allegedly a couple (he mentioned it once in a list of 50 other games hitting Steam Greenlight).

Journalists looked at what was happening, saw there was no merit to it and decided to act very ethically by not digging into this woman's personal life based on the 9000 word ramblings of a jilted ex. If that's not journalistic ethics in action, I don't know what is.

As for the "gamers are dead" articles, it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory that, once again, isn't actually based in fact. There was the "gamers don't have to be your audience" article that made excellent points about changing demographics. Nothing new here as this is a conversation that's been going on for years and will continue to be debated. Then there were some personal blogs about gamers behaving badly with the harassment issue. They were 100% correct.

This notion that there was a concentrated attack from the game media to declare "gamers are dead" is complete nonsense.

Game reviewers get paid for offering their opinions on games. Period. If something, be it sexism or the level of violence hinders their enjoyment of a title it's their job to convey this to their readers, whatever the issue is they have that hampered their experience. If you don't agree, find a reviewer who matches your tastes.

rainslacker3820d ago

I believe the standard should be adopted among actual individual websites to lay out what they look for in reviews, and how those criteria will affect the score, but I don't believe a standard among the entire gaming press is a good thing. Doing that only means that one person, or a committee have control over what will be rated instead of there being varying opinions that people can find someone or site that is closer to their own ideals.

Even on websites though, if individual sites were to adopt some criteria, then there should be enough leeway for the reviewer to give a pass or fail based on other things which may make up for particular shortcomings, and that's where the actual text of the review comes in.

Godmars2903822d ago (Edited 3822d ago )

Problem is Gamergate, anti-GG rather, not only judges games but game audiences as well. If you like a game with disturbing elements, whether its good or not, then you are a disturbed individual and must be punished. At the very least must not be catered to or acknowledged.

003821d ago (Edited 3821d ago )

Its not just about reviewing games but getting the corrupt A-holes out of the industry, the fact that these game "journalist" had/have a secret e-mail group in which they talked about which games or people get coverage is absolutely unacceptable.

Anon19743820d ago

So freedom of speech, association and freedom of the press is somehow unacceptable? O_o

Oh tell us, big brother, what should they be allowed to discuss? Or are we to create a thought police that will decide for them what they're allowed to talk about among themselves?

Like any journalists or anyone else, they're allowed to talk to whoever they please. I'm sick to death of hearing about this conspiracy gaming council that decides the fate of the industry. It's ridiculous. Read the gamejornopro emails. There's nothing even remotely damn in in there.

003820d ago (Edited 3820d ago )

Its not freedom of speech when you use your connections to blacklist individualizes because they don't tow your ideology, in fact that's pretty illegal. And I'm sure the Devs would love to hear from you that they failed not because of skill or merit but a group of game "Journalist" didn't like them, like the CEO of stardock Brad Wardell being accused of sexual harassment without any proof which in fact the accusations were proven false.

But guess who were the ones preaching the story as true that's right the game journalists with their secret e-mail list. If these "journalist" had nothing to hide the e-mail list wouldn't have been hidden.

But a fool like you wouldn't know that when you think the means justify the ends.

Anon19743820d ago

Yeah, check those emails again. They were discussing a journalist who had in the past acted unethically and broken several of the journalistic ethics guidelines in past articles. If anything, that's a clear example of journalists acting ethically by making sure others are aware of this guy's ethical failures before hiring him. That's hardly "blacklisting due to differences in ideology". The guy flat out violated several ethical guidelines in the past.

Brad Wardell wasn't even mentioned in the GameJornoPros group. As for Kotaku's reporting on Brad Wardell's sexual harassment case, at the time of the article written the case was in the courts. He was actively being sued for sexual harassment and Kotaku reported on it. Later, when the case was dismissed and the employee backed off her sexual harassment claims, Kotaku updated their article accordingly.

You want to explain to me how Kotaku reporting on a sexual harassment case against a developer in front of the courts is "because they didn't like him"?

Everyone has the right to create any groups they want and discuss whatever the hell they want. Freedom of speech. Freedom of association. Freedom of the press.

Look it up.

GokuSolosAll3821d ago

A game scoring worse due to reviewers personal issues is stupid. Just tell us how good the game is. Don't cry about the female portrayal in DOA Volleyball, just tell me about the graphics, controls, and such.

Keep your agendas away.

scark923821d ago

"My father was a Raccoon but Sly Cooper is a thief and making my heritage look bad!, also Carmelita Fox has boobs, which is misogyny!" 0/10 - Polygon

rainslacker3820d ago

Generally the reviews I find good are the ones where the reviewer probably likes the genre or subject matter than the game is based on. Reason for this is because they know what people looking to buy these games like, because they probably like them too, so they can critically review the game based on what the target audience would like.

Nowadays though you have people who praise COD to high heaven reviewing things like Mugen Souls calling out the over-sexualization of children, despite the game being targeted at a particular fan base, and scoring it low because of that despite the game having some great game play elements and themes that it's target audience is comfortable with.

The issues that the game get down rated on are a moral discussion which shouldn't be discussed within the context of the review itself, but in opinion articles about those particular topics.

It's perfectly fine to inform the reader that may not be familiar with certain aspects of the game they may be uncomfortable with in the part of the review that describes what the game is about, but not in the part that describes the actual game review, unless those things are detrimental to the game such as "The constant panty shots get in the way of the camera and make it hard to control".

Show all comments (35)
290°

The Real Enemy of Gaming Isn’t DEI. It’s the CEO

From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
jambola5d ago

maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad

senorfartcushion3d ago

This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.

The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.

Calm down.

jambola3d ago

i'm very calm
you seem very upset however

Notellin3d ago

You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.

jambola3d ago

stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud

PapaBop3d ago

It's not like kids show with one bad guy? I present to you.. Bobby Kotick

ABizzel13d ago (Edited 3d ago )

DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.

DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.

DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.

DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.

DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…

The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.

jambola2d ago

you don't get to decide other people's motivations
sorry to break it to you

ABizzel11d 21h ago (Edited 1d 21h ago )

To each their own, however, nothing you said invalidates why some people take offense to DEI incorrectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 21h ago
Sciurus_vulgaris5d ago

Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.

Killer2020UK3d ago

The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.

We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'

LoveSpuds3d ago

This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.

Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.

GhostScholar3d ago

Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.

Soy3d ago

That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.

ABizzel13d ago

Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.

More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.

But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.

jambola5d ago

honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it

TiredGamer4d ago

I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.

HyperMoused3d ago

What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.

senorfartcushion3d ago

This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.

Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.

Christopher3d ago

Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.

TiredGamer3d ago

Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.

senorfartcushion3d ago

Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.

This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.

And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.

jambola3d ago

ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
victorMaje3d ago

Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.

We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.

jambola3d ago

just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast

HyperMoused3d ago

Just like scooby doo, you have shown us the real monsters are us

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3d ago
Inverno4d ago

Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.

coolfool4d ago

I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.

Show all comments (51)
80°

Silly Polly Beast: A Silent Girl's Fight for Freedom • VGMM

Play as Polly, a silent girl on the run from her dark past in this neon-soaked psychological horror shooter.

Read Full Story >>
videogamesmademe.com
60°

Ratatan: March to the Beat of Your Own Drum • VGMM

In Ratatan, groove-loving adventurers use the power of song and magical instruments to command armies of loyal Cobun companions.

Read Full Story >>
videogamesmademe.com