Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I kind of meant to quote this.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up. Those are two rating score paths. There may be others, but we only listen to those types of scores.

Why you believe the movie review system is better than the gamer review system is beyond me. I have no idea.

So, “Why can we not” is the correct phrase? Because “can't” is not appropriate for formal written English .

Not true. I use them all the time. Can't is a shortenning cannot sounds ugly in certain situations and does not make sense in certain contexts.

I think movies have better rating systems in general. I mean when I read a movie review or a book review they are far different from game review. A game review is usually quite unprofessional and very laid back. It should be strict.

 Asherian Command wrote:
They want less sexualization which is good, but docking points because it is sexually charged is a bad thing and makes the game worse because of it.

WHY is it a bad thing to lower a game's score over sex? How is that any different for lowing a game's score because you don't like the story or because you think it has balance problems? You might disagree with a reviewer's opinion, but that doesn't mean that they're objectively wrong and need to rate a game by your standards instead.

That is a big problem. People really don't care about that. But if you are going through scores people are not going to read the whole review. They will only look for the score. Especially parents. Parents will look at the score and see it lower and will not buy it for their kid. Or will be pushed away from buying it because it has sexual content.

I really fail to see why this is an issue. In fact, isn't the problem with corruption that games get higher scores than they deserve because reviewers are afraid to give anything less than a 9/10? Isn't creating an obligation to only lower a game's score over issues that you approve of just creating a different form of dishonest reviews, where reviewers are afraid to lower a score because it might reduce sales? Shouldn't you be in favor of reviewers rating a game honestly according to their own opinions without any concern at all about how it might hurt sales of the game?

But the primary people involved with this Christian Sommers, Total Biscuit, Mundane Matt, and that video that was linked. Are only talking about the corruption in games journalism .

Err, lol? Did you watch the Sommers video which was essentially "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them just to hurt men", without any mention at all of journalism?

 Asherian Command wrote:
If a game lacks multiplayer or does not have a function that is not really seen in the game nor was promised by the designers, It should not be taken off for not having. If a game lacks a quality it should not be put down because of it.

And that's your opinion. But why should a reviewer be obligated to rate a game the way you want it rated? If a reviewer really cares about multiplayer and considers any game that lacks it a disappointment then why should they give a dishonest score to the game?

I will however do that if I expect a better story. Because writing a story is easier.

And you're wrong about this. Writing a good story is hard. Adding deathmatch multiplayer to a game is trivially easy compared to that.

Having sexualization is an idea in a game, it is an art style. It should not be the highest thing that gets rid of points.

Why not? Shouldn't the positive or negative effect of art style choices be up to the individual reviewer?

I think there should be a universal way to rate video games, like how movies are given stars or thumbs up.

This is just laughably wrong. Not only do movie reviews lack a single system (some use stars, some use letter grades, etc) the reasons for giving a particular rating are entirely up to the individual critic. There's no consistency at all in how reviews work, beyond an incredibly superficial use of the same star icons in a lot of places.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Game reviews. There are context clues that point to it.

It is also. "Why can't we?"
Why cannot we? Is an incorrect phrase.

We can't because it is a standard we can't get rid of it until with have concession, until we have an alternative to it and it works.

Strictly speaking, he was not incorrect. His phrase would be generally considered archaic though. Of course, your explanation seems to suggest we cannot live (correct, this time) without the use of contractions.

"Why can we not?" would be the acceptable way of conveying the same thoughts without resorting to a contraction. It has to do with long-distance dependency in a strange way that I don't fully remember the rules behind because this world has beer and science and video games and space.

I really fail to see why this is an issue. In fact, isn't the problem with corruption that games get higher scores than they deserve because reviewers are afraid to give anything less than a 9/10? Isn't creating an obligation to only lower a game's score over issues that you approve of just creating a different form of dishonest reviews, where reviewers are afraid to lower a score because it might reduce sales? Shouldn't you be in favor of reviewers rating a game honestly according to their own opinions without any concern at all about how it might hurt sales of the game?

Because in this score system no 10 means it is perfect in everyway.

There is no such thing as a perfect game. So why have the score in the first place if there are two unobtainable numbers in it? I have yet to see a perfect game.

Because there is no such thing as a perfect game.

WHY is it a bad thing to lower a game's score over sex? How is that any different for lowing a game's score because you don't like the story or because you think it has balance problems? You might disagree with a reviewer's opinion, but that doesn't mean that they're objectively wrong and need to rate a game by your standards instead.

Because that is a completely biased opinion. Why would you even need to dock points. Its like docking points because you wanted to see the color blue, but someone gave you the color green. And you will complain about it because your favorite color is blue and you want that color because it is the best color in your opinion. It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game. I will continue to repeat this over and over. You do not need multiplayer in order to have a better game.

Adding multiplayer does not make the game instantly better. So there is no reason to dock points.

This goes along with sexualization. You can talk about it, you can mention it. But you shouldn't dock points because of the artist decided to put in. That is art. We don't have people go to statues and place scoreboards for art pieces and mark down for sexual content.

That is completely foreign to art.

This is just laughably wrong. Not only do movie reviews lack a single system (some use stars, some use letter grades, etc) the reasons for giving a particular rating are entirely up to the individual critic. There's no consistency at all in how reviews work, beyond an incredibly superficial use of the same star icons in a lot of places.

What wanting a centralize rating system is a bad thing? Okay so tell me and translate an IGN score into a Metacritic score, or a 5 out 5 system. Tell me and translate that. Make it so that the mathematical equation makes sense.

Infact all the systems of rating are completely wonky. They don't make sense mathematically

They may be opinion pieces but the amount of sub points assigned are far too many.

And that's your opinion. But why should a reviewer be obligated to rate a game the way you want it rated? If a reviewer really cares about multiplayer and considers any game that lacks it a disappointment then why should they give a dishonest score to the game?

They can express it, but they do not have to put into the score itself. They can talk about it through their article, but they do not have to put up on the score.

You can still mention it and talk about it, but that is a feature. Not apart of the main game, so if the multiplayer is not included who the hell cares? It doesn't have it, move on. But then that goes into criticing the game.

You may raise this point up, but you should not dock points because it didn't have that feature.


Also on scores:
skip to the 15 minute mark or so. And he starts to talk about scores.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because in this score system no 10 means it is perfect in everyway.

There is no such thing as a perfect game. So why have the score in the first place if there are two unobtainable numbers in it? I have yet to see a perfect game.

Because there is no such thing as a perfect game.

No, for many people a 10/10 means a game that is as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect. And why are you even mentioning this as a problem? There's no difference between a 0-10 scale where 10 is not allowed as a score and a 0-9 scale where 9 is the highest possible score. This isn't even remotely close to an issue, you're just complaining that reviewers don't write their reviews the way you want them to.

Because that is a completely biased opinion.

EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT GAME REVIEWS IS A BIASED OPINION.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand? If I say a game has poor balance it's my biased opinion. If I say that the load times between levels are too long and frustrating it's my biased opinion. If I say that the graphics are disappointing for a 2014 game it's my biased opinion. If I say that I love the story it's my biased opinion. The only way to get an unbiased review is if you limit it to quoting objective facts like the hardware requirements and never discuss the things anyone wants to read about.

Why would you even need to dock points.

Because that's what the individual reviewer felt like doing. Aren't you the person arguing for honest reviewers that rate games according to their genuine opinions, not external pressure to produce the "right" review?

Its like docking points because you wanted to see the color blue, but someone gave you the color green. And you will complain about it because your favorite color is blue and you want that color because it is the best color in your opinion.

And what's your point? If a reviewer wants to rate a game based on its color choices then they have every right to do so. Then it's up to you as a reader to determine whether or not that reviewer rates games in a way that you find useful, and either pay attention to them or ignore them based on that decision.

It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game.

I will continue to repeat this over and over. You do not need multiplayer in order to have a better game.

And that is YOUR OPINION. Some people disagree with you and think that multiplayer is an essential part of a game, and have little or no interest in a game that doesn't have it.

This goes along with sexualization. You can talk about it, you can mention it. But you shouldn't dock points because of the artist decided to put in. That is art. We don't have people go to statues and place scoreboards for art pieces and mark down for sexual content.

So what you're saying here is that you don't actually want reviews that reflect the reviewer's genuine opinion, you want reviews where the reviewer is compelled to give a better review because they have to agree with your opinion about what makes a good game. How exactly is this any different than a reviewer being compelled to give a better review because the game developers don't want a low score?

Okay so tell me and translate an IGN score into a Metacritic score, or a 5 out 5 system. Tell me and translate that. Make it so that the mathematical equation makes sense.

Why? What would be the point? We don't ask how to translate one newspaper's movie review of 3 stars to another newspaper's A/B/C/D/F scale.

They can express it, but they do not have to put into the score itself. They can talk about it through their article, but they do not have to put up on the score.

You can still mention it and talk about it, but that is a feature. Not apart of the main game, so if the multiplayer is not included who the hell cares? It doesn't have it, move on. But then that goes into criticing the game.

You may raise this point up, but you should not dock points because it didn't have that feature.

So now we come to your final conclusion: this isn't about corruption in game journalism, it's about reviewers doing something that you don't agree with.

So now we come to your final conclusion: this isn't about corruption in game journalism, it's about reviewers doing something that you don't agree with.

Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.

silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.

And what's your point? If a reviewer wants to rate a game based on its color choices then they have every right to do so. Then it's up to you as a reader to determine whether or not that reviewer rates games in a way that you find useful, and either pay attention to them or ignore them based on that decision.

It is a loaded idea, just putting a score on a game just because it lacks a feature other games have or if it has sexual content in it, does not make it a worse game.

Yes but why is that a good thing?

Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?

That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.

So what you're saying here is that you don't actually want reviews that reflect the reviewer's genuine opinion, you want reviews where the reviewer is compelled to give a better review because they have to agree with your opinion about what makes a good game. How exactly is this any different than a reviewer being compelled to give a better review because the game developers don't want a low score?

No. We want criticisms of the game. But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on. If they do not focus on it that is fine, but those should be the things they look at more. But graphics is not meaning graphical or how good it looks, it is how well it works on the screen. Story deals with characters and the world. Sound is voice acting, music and everything else. Mechanics are about how well they work with gameplay.

A good game is one that balances all six of these in perfect unison. That is what reviewer should do. They can talk about the bad parts of the game, If they did not use bits and pieces and they should improve on it. Dock points for not using their tools that they introduced in the game more.

If there are bugs in the game that are gamebreaking, dock points.

Why? What would be the point? We don't ask how to translate one newspaper's movie review of 3 stars to another newspaper's A/B/C/D/F scale.

Because that is the problem. There are untranslatable we don't know what those numbers mean. If I had my way, scores would all be replaced with. I recommend or I do not recommend, Rent it, or buy it.

Gaming is a investment. A game for a console is around 60$ The gamer wants a game they will research it or see what other people think about it. (A smart one does that anyway.)

I do not buy a game unless I know it is supposed to be good. I buy bad games only because I know they are bad games, and then I deconstruct them.

No, for many people a 10/10 means a game that is as close to perfect as you can reasonably expect. And why are you even mentioning this as a problem? There's no difference between a 0-10 scale where 10 is not allowed as a score and a 0-9 scale where 9 is the highest possible score. This isn't even remotely close to an issue, you're just complaining that reviewers don't write their reviews the way you want them to.

Sadly some reviewers don't see it that way. When they give it a 10/10 they sometimes say. It is a perfect game. And there is nothing wrong with it. Which is fine they can believe that, but again they are projecting to an audience. You need to be professional. As a Reviewer you have to review and give an opinion that is true, but you have to address the entire audience and make light of why it is good, why is it your favorite game, what does it offer to the player? And the reviewer has to remember that they are giving a recommendation to a game. Because ever since it is investment they must know that what they say may have positive or negative reception to it.

Giving a 10/10 on a score table doesn't mean anything without the review itself. Its just a number system. If you do not clearly define what those numbers mean. By showing a table and showing how it is good. Or what you liked about the game they are just numbers.

I mean look at my review of skyrim. I deconstructed it as a game designer. I looked at the game. And gave it a 8.6. Because I felt like it was a great game. And I said that there is no perfect game, so I said a 10 point score is near perfection, and I said that has yet to happen that is my opinionated score piece. And that can be taken with a grain of salt.

But I approached it professionally. I played the game for 10 hours. I don't play games the day they are released and review it. Because games change over time. Because sometimes there are bugfixes that go into a game. Sometimes problems that happen in the game a year down the line are fixed. Sometimes you need to revisit your article and re-release it back to the public.

But I think that we need to move away from the moron who can't compare to other games and start comparing to other games. And start writing as a professional, list other games and be critical. I believe Extra Credits had an excellent video on this. And talked about this.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.

silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.

Those are legitimate issues, but you aren't talking about those things now. You're just ranting about how unfair it is that reviewers take off points for reasons that you don't agree with. That's not corruption, that's just you not liking someone's opinion.

Yes but why is that a good thing?

Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?

That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.

A journalist should be allowed to do that because that's their opinion. You might as well ask why journalists should be allowed to take off points for poor game balance, because it stifles the artist's ability to make an overpowered AK-47.

No. We want criticisms of the game.

And a game's art choices are part of the game.

But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on.

Those are things that must be focused on IN YOUR OPINION. Again, this is not about corruption, this is just you complaining that reviewers don't rate games the way you want them to be rated.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Nope. It is still about corruption it is a side thing to journalism it is an issue, but it is not corruption. It is not a big thing, but it should change.

silencing their opposition, criticism, and being paid to review a game by the company or doing a favor for a friend that worked on the game they are reviewing is corruption. Giving publicity without acknowledging you personally know or have contacts with the Game Developer or anyone involved with that game is corruption. You must acknowledge that you have a personal bias, other wise you are breaching journalistic integrity and ethics.

Those are legitimate issues, but you aren't talking about those things now. You're just ranting about how unfair it is that reviewers take off points for reasons that you don't agree with. That's not corruption, that's just you not liking someone's opinion.

Yes but why is that a good thing?

Why should a journalist be allowed to do that?

That is a bad thing! That stifles creatiing anything in the medium.

A journalist should be allowed to do that because that's their opinion. You might as well ask why journalists should be allowed to take off points for poor game balance, because it stifles the artist's ability to make an overpowered AK-47.

No. We want criticisms of the game.

And a game's art choices are part of the game.

But that criticism of sexualization is something that shouldn't be docked by, it should be based around the six major parts of a video game, Story, Sound, Mechanics, Gameplay, Theme, and Graphics. Those are the things they must focus on.

Those are things that must be focused on IN YOUR OPINION. Again, this is not about corruption, this is just you complaining that reviewers don't rate games the way you want them to be rated.

I think we agree it is not as important as the corruption in games, but it is something irks me personally as a game designer. They should redesign things so they represent the best interests of those that want to read game reviews.

Gamersgate is a very silly thing to be worked up about. What's at stake is the credibility of games journalism. Did anyone ever respect the opinion of Kotaku? Has anyone ever actually based their purchase of a game on traditional "gaming news" sites? I can't take someone seriously if they have, given the notorious levels of corruption present in the industry and obvious difficulty in assigning video games concrete "scores." This controversy can't do a lot to destroy the credibility of those reviewers, given that there's simply not a lot (any?) left to destroy.

 Kali wrote:
Gamersgate is a very silly thing to be worked up about. What's at stake is the credibility of games journalism. Did anyone ever respect the opinion of Kotaku? Has anyone ever actually based their purchase of a game on traditional "gaming news" sites? I can't take someone seriously if they have, given the notorious levels of corruption present in the industry and obvious difficulty in assigning video games concrete "scores." This controversy can't do a lot to destroy the credibility of those reviewers, given that there's simply not a lot (any?) left to destroy.

I would agree, except the fact is that some of them were credible.

Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.

These websites are given this responsibility

Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.

There is corruption and we want that change.

We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think we agree it is not as important as the corruption in games, but it is something irks me personally as a game designer.

So you admit that you're happy to go off-topic and make arguments that aren't related to corruption as long as it's something you agree with, but when someone else makes an argument about something that you think is off-topic you respond with "THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION" and tell them to get out of your thread if they won't stick to your topic.

They should redesign things so they represent the best interests of those that want to read game reviews.

You're making the mistake of assuming that "the best interests of game review readers" and "the best interests of Asherian Command" are the same thing. A game reviewer that deducts points from a game's score over sexy costumes/lack of multiplayer/etc might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that nobody else wants to read that review.

So you admit that you're happy to go off-topic and make arguments that aren't related to corruption as long as it's something you agree with, but when someone else makes an argument about something that you think is off-topic you respond with "THIS IS ABOUT CORRUPTION" and tell them to get out of your thread if they won't stick to your topic.

I think it is an offshoot of corruption. It is showing the problem as a whole in games journalism

You're making the mistake of assuming that "the best interests of game review readers" and "the best interests of Asherian Command" are the same thing. A game reviewer that deducts points from a game's score over sexy costumes/lack of multiplayer/etc might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that nobody else wants to read that review.

So are you saying that game reviewers should not be more professional, and should not represent the best interest of the gaming community?

And I don't know write better than they currently are?

Do you want them not to change.

I am merely giving an idea of how to change. it is not the way to change it.

But it should change for the better.

I want more professional Journalists, who follow journalistic ethics. Which is entirely related to games journalism. I want journalist who are ethical and do not go into a game with a perceived agenda bias such as of being a feminist and knowing ahead of time that they are going to rail on this game because they think this game is pandering to males. And so they want to show it as proof for their political agenda against games.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would agree, except the fact is that some of them were credible.

That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.

Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.

I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.

These websites are given this responsibility

I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.

Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.

Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.

There is corruption and we want that change.

Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.

We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion

I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.

Who pays attention to the gaming press? The mainstream press it seems considering they seem to like to republish the same stuff about internet harassment campaigns

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think it is an offshoot of corruption. It is showing the problem as a whole in games journalism

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with corruption. A reviewer taking off points for sexy costumes/no multiplayer/etc because it's their genuine opinion is not a corrupt reviewer, they're just a reviewer with an opinion that you disagree with.

So are you saying that game reviewers should not be more professional, and should not represent the best interest of the gaming community?

You're making the mistake of assuming that "professionalism" and "representing the best interests of the gaming community" mean reviewing games according to your opinions about what makes a good game. A game reviewer that takes off points for lack of multiplayer is not unprofessional, they just have an opinion that you disagree with.

Do you want them not to change.

I don't really care very much about it either way (I don't read many reviews and get most of my "reviews" from friends), I just disagree with how you're trying to turn a legitimate issue of corruption into your personal crusade against opinions you don't agree with.

I want journalist who are ethical and do not go into a game with a perceived agenda bias such as of being a feminist and knowing ahead of time that they are going to rail on this game because they think this game is pandering to males.

EVERY REVIEWER HAS AN AGENDA.

Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? Every single reviewer has their opinions about what makes a good game and will review a game based on those opinions. Criticizing a game because you're a feminist and disagree with what you consider "pandering to men" is perfectly legitimate criticism. The fact that you don't agree with that criticism doesn't make it inappropriate.

And so they want to show it as proof for their political agenda against games.

So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?

 Kali wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I would agree, except the fact is that some of them were credible.

That's your take on it, I guess, but I completely disagree.

Like Adam Sessler, who was quite credible and is quite intelligent. But after seeing that he had dealings with certain odd people, I can't take that as a trust value.

I am kind of baffled that you think he's intelligent or credible to begin with, but sure, I agree this scandal reduces his credibility.

These websites are given this responsibility

I think the journalistic integrity of all gaming media outlets has always been incredibly suspect, and I find the notion of laying responsibility and power over anything but their subscription base at their feet revolting.

Saying it is bad to want for things to get better and things to change is not a bad thing.

Campaign as you like but the reaction of many "gamers" to the incident has given the impression that "the video gaming community" has been harmed by Gamergate, and I find that laughable.

There is corruption and we want that change.

Personally I'd object to the institutions as a whole rather than their conduct, but I won't hold a grudge against you for demanding a particular brand of disinformative corporate media.

We want them to be better representation of the gaming community, people who have the values of the gamers. Who are gamers, that review the games, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same opinion

I'm not convinced that there's any value at all behind this ambiguous "gamers" identity. People that play video games are diverse and, for instance, though I do play a lot of games myself I certainly haven't felt like games journalism represents me, nor do I feel like I want it to represent me.

i agree on many of your points. Did you join this discussion form to talk on this thread if so. Thank you for doing so.

It is awesome to see people weigh in on this converstation in a respectful manner.

I have always had a respect for adam sessler in fact he is my major inspirations to become a game designer. I want him to eat his words, when I make my game. I want all reviewers to play it and say that this game did something others haven't attempted. And I will simply do it by telling a story.

I agree with some of the journalists on certain points. But raising a single like Depression quest above others and saying it is the only that has ever done this is a bit of a stretch. Hell my game idea I think has been done and I will say at the end of my game saying this is not the first game to try this, and then list the games that inspired it to become what it was.

I think that wanting to have change in the field is a good thing. I want journalists to be around, but I want them to be better at critiquing and reviewing. Sometimes I think they are not hard enough on a certain game, and too hard on other games. I think we should be hard on all games. But they should also be informed on how to make a game.

I respect Zero Punctuation because Yahtzee did make video games for a limited time and understands what he is saying. He is also a great writer, and can commentate on that subject. And it makes him credible. I trust him more than other game reviewers and hell I base my game choices around his thoughts on a game. If he didn't like the game for multiple reasons. It means I shouldn't give it a try and it is not worth full price. So I go away from it. But if he says that game is worth playing. I want to support this type of game because it is a good game, and I want more games like this.

Like I want more spec ops: The line games and I want drama to be a new genre in gaming. I want true dramas that are good and entertaining. But I do not want only spec ops: the line games. I want a vast market offering all types of games.

I think that reviewers should know that. Instead of generalizing and saying all of this genre because of X.

I mean I don't hate all shooters, because I dislike call of duty. Generalizing will not get us anywhere. It discredits the opinion of the reviewer.

But listing specific details about the game and what you liked and didn't like and be specific as to why you didn't like the game are very important. When I commentate on a game I list all of its good things that I enjoyed and all the things that I think could improve the game.

Journalists in general should be an average writer, not a fan that picked up a pen and is being paid by the publisher to write a review, they should be paid, but they should not be paid for what score they give it. They should be honest. The publisher should realize that game reviews are there to critique and praise certain areas of the game.

If a reviewer didn't like part of a game, they should criticize it and make it a point. But they should also say this is what you did right. Because the game designers read game reviews. We do. WE read the review because we are looking for ways to improve our craft.

And this is also important for the consumer because they need to know what to buy and ever since a game cost 60$. Then they need to know if a certain game is really worth the money or the resources to play.

So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product, not because they just hate men and want men to suffer?

You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.

I think that game reviewers need to be better writers, they have to be experienced in the field in order to write a review.

A movie reviewer can't walk up to a book and review it. Because they probably don't understand the medium. With film they understand what goes into the film. They understand the techniques used. They criticize certain parts of the film for working and some parts that don't work.

A Game reviewer should be similar they should talk about these things in a similar vein.

ARe you saying they shouldn't be?

I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft. So I can improve my craft. Because sometimes your peers are not good enough to give you an objective review of a game without being completely biased.

Just like how I don't ask my mother to grade my paper or edit it. Because she is thinking in best interest of me. But that doesn't help my case she is too nice to me. If I want criticisms I go to a complete stranger and say. Criticize this, be as mean as possible to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sining wrote:
Who pays attention to the gaming press? The mainstream press it seems considering they seem to like to republish the same stuff about internet harassment campaigns

I think we do listen to them. Because there are some good parts of it. As a whole there are some parts that are good, like every industry. But right now the majority of game reviewers are crap and don't understand games at all. They are disconnected to games, and don't understand the medium.

I think in this field you need to have experience in the field in order to write reviews about games.

We need them to understand those processes that go into a game.

But they don't need to know everything. just the basics.

 Peregrine wrote:
So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product

To whom, exactly?

I took a mild interest in this gamergate thing or at least the boycott advertising aspect of this whole ordeal. It seems like bad PR or the appearance of being associated with something negative still holds weight. Intel pulled advertising on gamasutra.

Perhaps one person can't do something but a large enough crowd or a single person in a large enough forum can. Look at Married with Children, Rush limbaugh, Don Imus and others.

If you are a commentator, writer or just in the public eye you have to walk a tightrope if you are depending on ad revenue.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft. So I can improve my craft. Because sometimes your peers are not good enough to give you an objective review of a game without being completely biased.

I like this philosophy and respect you for having it.

Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.



Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"

Really? where have you been living all these years sex sells
more communication with sonico

Dream C club

Lollipop Chainsaw


Reviews are always biased but so many are blatantly promotion pieces instead of critiquing the game.

And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces).
or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?

 Yonan wrote:
Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.

So how exactly does the "gamergate" side justify complaining about censorship when "SJWs" try to persuade game developers that removing certain things from their games is good for business? There seems to be a double standard here where whether or not an action is censorship depends on whether "your" side agrees with it.

 Kali wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So you're just going to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the feminist critics of video games are gamers who want games to change to become a more appealing product

To whom, exactly?

To the people making those requests for changes.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:


And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces).
or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?

Can't play chess it's literally the worst game ever, it has a King (Patriarchy)as it's most important piece, a Queen (Tokenism, she's the only female), Bishops (Catholic Hate Mongers and probably child molesters), Rooks (Clearly a phallic symbol for Hetero Male Dominance and sexual identity repression - they only move in straight lines), Knights (Animal abuse much?), and Pawns (Classist propaganda), and not only that, the black side is forced to go last (Pure unadulterated racism).

 Asherian Command wrote:
You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.

Nobody, other than a tiny and completely irrelevant minority of extremists, wants to take away games just because they hate men and want men to suffer.

I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft.

But only when that criticism is done from a perspective that you agree with. You've stated that criticizing "art decisions" is off-limits because it hinders creativity, whether it's in a context of "SJWs" objecting to a game's portrayal of women or multiplayer lovers criticizing a single-player game.

 Yonan wrote:
Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.



Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
You do realize that some are actually trying to do that. They do hate men and do have an agenda to take away the hobby, I remember posting about that a few pages ago.

Nobody, other than a tiny and completely irrelevant minority of extremists, wants to take away games just because they hate men and want men to suffer.

I care mostly because I am in the field and I am looking for criticisms of my craft.

But only when that criticism is done from a perspective that you agree with. You've stated that criticizing "art decisions" is off-limits because it hinders creativity, whether it's in a context of "SJWs" objecting to a game's portrayal of women or multiplayer lovers criticizing a single-player game.

.......

You have no idea the amount of what went through my brain when I read what you said.

Antia Sarkessan is an extremist. This is extremists we are talking about they are the minority facing the minority currently.

That and the last thing you said are the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.

That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....

I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?

Really?

Okay let me say something. Criticizing someone for their the things that they do, their ideas is fine,

But they way that they do artistically.....

No. That is the dumbest statement you have ever said Peregrine.

That is the most ignorant and most selfish and dumbest and most insulting thing you can say.

You really think I am that self centered. That I do not take criticisms for my work?

Umm have you read my threads? My gaming club thread? My Book thread?

My Blacked Inked Thread and all my other thread which literally asks people to talk to me and say how good my work is, and do your worst to me?

Criticize me? I am fine with it?

I have said that so many times, that people who literally follow me, ask me If I enjoy being criticize, which I respond with yes. Yes I do enjoy getting criticized because I want to improve. The only way to improve is to be criticized, to become something more. To evolve, to adapt.

Because in this line of work you need to mallable, adaptable, and ever evolving. If you can't you might as well not work in this industry.

This goes double for journalists.

I'll share with you some details of a post I have been writing up as a response to this whole fiasco...

Whenever I tell someone to critique me. It does not mean I want you to be nice to me, I want you to tear my thing apart and be critical about me. Because I will not do that to you. I will tell you where you are wrong and what you can improve on. I will find weaknesses and I will tell you where you fail and what you can improve on.

If someone takes that as an insult. They do not understand the difference between a critique and harassment.

Critique is constructive, while harassment is not.

In any professional field you must understand the difference and be willing to accept any criticism. If it is ill-informed criticism that is not constructive feel free to ignore parts of it but use bits and pieces from the criticism to better your craft.

This goes double to game designers who have to combine the abilities of artistry, programming, writing and several other forms. It is paramount to understand this. As the entire point of being a game designer is to entertain your audience. In order to understand how to entertain someone you need basic training in all fields. You need to understand philisophy, psychology, world religions, sociology and be well read in myth and story structures.

How people don't get this is beyond me. Of course as sad as it is to live the life a cynic who criticizes every bit of society and everything that goes on, and finds strands of falsities and error in all thought processes. That is what happens. Cynics like me decide and look at things in a critical way. We judge and think, and express our feelings on the matter. Not caring what people think of our opinion. We like to be criticized, but others do not share our sentiments or our agreement on certain matters.

Though I am surprised to see that many outside of my field of work take criticism hard. Where in a professional world you must take criticism in order to evolve your craft. No matter what it is, you could be a firemen and still be criticized for how you do your job. How do you improve? You simply do something else, you evolve and adapt. And then I see 'professional' journalists confusing legitimate criticism with harassment and using blanketing and generalizations. We as human beings must be critical of each other. As each and every single idea. no matter how well thought out will be flawed because it is produced by a human being. (Basic psychology and philosophy talking here.)

Knowing how to take criticism, and how to apply it is a challenge, but it becomes easier the more you ask to be criticized.

If you can take criticism you are leagues ahead of your peers. Be able to criticize constructively is a skill set that not everyone can develop. But if you choose to live the life of the cynic you must understand how to be one, and can criticize because you can criticize and you have an opinion. You have to share it at the right time and know what is right and what is wrong to say.... Either to a crowd or to a writer.

You must be willing to adapt to any situation. You must wear criticism as a badge. You must look ahead and use the criticism upon yourself and improve yourself with it.

In this line of work you either adapt or you will not survive.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Sexualization is seen as negative. Not a good thing. I don't think someone is going to say. "OH THEY HAVE SEXUALIZED CHARACTERS OH MAN I AM TOTALLY GOING TO BUY THAT GAME!"

Really? where have you been living all these years sex sells
more communication with sonico

Spoiler:

Dream C club

Spoiler:

Lollipop Chainsaw

Spoiler:

Reviews are always biased but so many are blatantly promotion pieces instead of critiquing the game.

And about ESRB, 18+ rating should be enough, if your are still offended, one should go play checkers or chess (trees were killed to make these play pieces).
or should every game come with a booklet of disclaimers, on who it might offend?

Yes lets ignore games that use it negatively.

there are some games that sexualize women in such a way that show them to be weak. That does happen in games. Ignoring that sub genre is forgetting some parts of the market.

Like Custard's revenge or Propaganda games in general.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

What you think attacking your fanbase is fine, but immedately when gamers start talking to publishers and asking them to pull funding that is a bad thing?

Really? You think that gamers taking a stand and doing stuff about it and basically boycotting and getting people behind their banner is a bad thing.

K.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Antia Sarkessan is an extremist. This is extremists we are talking about they are the minority facing the minority currently.

No she isn't. She isn't even close to an extremist. All of her criticism is fairly mainstream stuff that has been said about movies, TV, etc, by many people. And none of it is motivated by hatred of men and desire to make them suffer (or at least, if it is, she's doing a very good job of hiding it). If you want to see extremism go look at the "feminists" who want to turn men into slaves and create a matriarchal "utopia" where everything will be perfect because women are flawless special snowflakes and everything wrong with society is because of men. That's actual hatred of men.

That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....

I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?

Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.

nomotog wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.



Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.

nomotog wrote:
Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

Informing a company that the actions of their advertiser might negatively affect their business is a good thing, at least for the company.

It's like telling someone their fly is undone. EXACTLY like it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
That is sending the wrong message. A multiplayer lover wanting more multiplayer in more games is just as silly and stupid and repudent as an idiot wanting more chocolate ice cream, because he likes chocolate ice cream....

I can't the only one here who just thought seriously?

Huh? I have no clue what you're trying to say with this.

I think he's saying consumers demanding that a product change to meet their wants shouldn't always be listened to either.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

What you think attacking your fanbase is fine, but immedately when gamers start talking to publishers and asking them to pull funding that is a bad thing?

Really? You think that gamers taking a stand and doing stuff about it and basically boycotting and getting people behind their banner is a bad thing.

K.

I am not sure. It feels wrong because it seems like an effort to kind of silence a voice then to deliver a rebuttal or counter argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Intel is pulling their ads off of Gamasutra due to the 'shifts in editorial positioning'. Ex-cel-lent. Who would have thought that attacking a large demographic for your advertisers products would result in said advertisers being unhappy. I have already thanked them for their cutting of support to anti-gamer sites, make sure you do too.



Before anyone says it - no, this isn't censoring gamasutra. They're free to write whatever they want, but we don't have to support it and their advertisers certainly don't either.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. In my gut it kind of feels like a bad thing. It kind of bothers the free speech part of my brain. I know some one might jump in and point out that the first amendment only applies to government regulation. That is true, but I always felt that it the ideal went past that. It's a cultural thing. It's like an ideal we have. In America we believe that people have the right to be heard. (Not that you won't get called out on what you say mind you free speech is always a two way street.)

They can still be heard, but if all they are speaking is hate speech people will indeed pull from them. I mean you can insult your consumerbase all you want but Advertisers aren't going to be thrilled at learning you are burning your bridges while cackling like a loon.

What did they do anyway?