I have a question about Gamergate

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer I would like to see a game review that is properly objective while being readable and informative.

http://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=80659

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD http://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=80659

That is not an objective review. This is not meant as a criticism, it's just me pointing out the difficulty of having a truly objective game review system. There are a couple of things here, such as you describing Ada Wong as "sexy and secretive" (I don't think this is problematic or offensive or sexist or anything like that, though I do find pretty much all attempts by games to be sexy or to introduce sexuality to be juvenile and embarrassing) rather than, say, describing Leon as "sexy". You also talk about the storyline working "for you" which is an overt acknowledgement that this is your own opinion, though you don't go into detail on this, presumably for reasons of plot spoiling. Thematically, the storyline may not work for others.

Now, straining to be objective isn't necessarily helpful because some people (myself included) like to hear about interesting or problematic themes in story-telling, be it in film, TV or games. As I've said, I listen to one particular film critic for this very reason as I know he'll point out narrative themes that bother him in the same way they bother me. If games are to "grow up" as a form of entertainment, then these criticisms of narrative in games have to be made. Arguing that it is a hindrance to artistic freedom is a red herring: no one has to change in response to criticism, but they have to decide whether the criticism is voluble or accurate enough to look at their own methods. More refined criticism leads to greater innovation in games and story-telling. As the consumer, it's also your prerogative to value the opinions of certain critics (journalists, reviewers).

[Kalyx triaD]

Rogerer was right that I posted that old review as something of a gag, but I did wanna point out that reviews absent of political slants are possible. It's the entirety of classic EGM's reviews, for instance.

When you say games are growing up and thus new kinds of criticism are required, I kinda call bullshit on that. Games have been criticized well enough for years and has they evolved toward realism or alternative goals, so to did commentary change with them.

Now I'm not saying you can't make a review that expresses your political rhetoric, but you have to remember these games aren't made to promote any political or social commentary. Judging them as such makes a monkey out of you.

If you wanted to review a Tom Clancy game through the lens of political rhetoric that makes perfect sense. Even the Metal Gear games for all their military fantasy. I can see that. But it's unfair viewing a game through political lens when the creators didn't venture out for that kind of thing. It's a major missing the point as well as painting a developer/publisher in a corner they never prepared for. And I don't think they should start preparing for them.

In my review I highlighted Ada as sexy and secretive, tropes of the Femme Fatale archetype. It is exactly the words you use to describe that kind of character. A women would write the same thing if she wanted to highlight her and the trope. The developers were very aware of the character type as well. It makes sense to mention that. I won't call Leon sexy not because I'm not gay - but because his character traits weren't made with that in mind. He was young and in over his head when he debuted in the series. That's not sexy at all. That's not any archetypes that include 'sexy'.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Rogerer was right that I posted that old review as something of a gag, but I did wanna point out that reviews absent of political slants are possible. It's the entirety of classic EGM's reviews, for instance. When you say games are growing up and thus new kinds of criticism are required, I kinda call bullshit on that. Games have been criticized well enough for years and has they evolved toward realism or alternative goals, so to did commentary change with them. Now I'm not saying you can't make a review that expresses your political rhetoric, but you have to remember these games aren't made to promote any political or social commentary. Judging them as such makes a monkey out of you. If you wanted to review a Tom Clancy game through the lens of political rhetoric that makes perfect sense. Even the Metal Gear games for all their military fantasy. I can see that. But it's unfair viewing a game through political lens when the creators didn't venture out for that kind of thing. It's a major missing the point as well as painting a developer/publisher in a corner they never prepared for. And I don't think they should start preparing for them. In my review I highlighted Ada as sexy and secretive, tropes of the Femme Fatale archetype. It is exactly the words you use to describe that kind of character. A women would write the same thing if she wanted to highlight her and the trope. The developers were very aware of the character type as well. It makes sense to mention that. I won't call Leon sexy not because I'm not gay - but because his character traits weren't made with that in mind. He was young and in over his head when he debuted in the series. That's not sexy at all. That's not any archetypes that include 'sexy'. Do you understand what I'm saying?

It doesn't matter if games are not made with the express purpose of making political or rhetorical statements if there are themes there-in that people still find problematic. I appreciate that Mark Kermode, the film reviewer I refer to, points out that Sex and the City has revolting capitalist/consumerist overtones with crudely-drawn, subservient, noble savage foreign characters and that Michael Bay films have vulgar, unnecessary objectification of women. I want to know these things because I know these things will annoy me, even if the only intention of the film maker was to rope in a certain demographic.

Similarly, if a reviewer or critic wants to highlight problematic issues in story-telling or imagery in games, that is fair game. That is what critique is about. The artist's intent is utterly irrelevant, to be honest, and, indeed, this is where games designers need to realise that part of having a wider audience is acknowledging that people will have problems with the things you do.

It's not really for you to say how a reviewer or critic interprets these things. You can either argue with them or ignore it. The point is that society informs art and art informs society. If games want to be seen as something enjoyed by people other than teenage boys in their dark bedrooms then with that comes different priorities in story-telling and imagery for different audiences. Furthermore, this encourages innovation in story-telling, which is important as games attempt to be more about an encompassing experience.

Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them. There is, again, nothing wrong with pointing this out. As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them.

This is just another way, a nicer way, of saying these things are toys. Everybody plays games. And "challenging sociological archetypes" is only an effort a dev should opt into, rather than the thinly veiled shaming if they choose to ignore that viewpoint ("young and impressionable kids play them, ergo..."). I'm against any idea that suggests art should be something other than what the artist intends.

As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.

That has everything to do with you. Dead or Alive should not embarrass you anymore than Human Centipede should embarrass me as a horror movie fan. Things you don't like exist within a industries you love.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD This is just another way, a nicer way, of saying these things are toys. Everybody plays games. And "challenging sociological archetypes" is only an effort a dev should opt into, rather than the thinly veiled shaming if they choose to ignore that viewpoint ("young and impressionable kids play them, ergo..."). I'm against any idea that suggests art should be something other than what the artist intends.

No, it's not. It's saying that you have to bear in mind that media shapes society. If you wish to interpret it in such an insecure way, that is up to you. You being against that idea is also utterly irrelevant. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Some art is made with no explanation, which precludes the idea of an observer only "appreciating" it in the way the artist intends.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD That has everything to do with you. Dead or Alive should not embarrass you anymore than Human Centipede should embarrass me as a horror movie fan. Things you don't like exist within a industries you love.

Of course it has everything to do with me. Why are my priorities any less valid than yours?

Film critics regularly excoriate films like The Human Centipede and other torture porn films for being exploitative and crass, as well as just bad films. Do you have a problem with this?

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No, it's not. It's saying that you have to bear in mind that media shapes society.

Art imitates life.

I'm gonna guess we won't meet halfway here.

Of course it has everything to do with me. Why are my priorities any less valid than yours?

My priorities make it so you can have the entertainment you want. Your priorities, at its logical conclusion, eventually limits art.

Film critics regularly excoriate films like The Human Centipede and other torture porn films for being exploitative and crass, as well as just bad films. Do you have a problem with this?

I don't like the movie and sub-genre so I would be in agreement with those critics. What I didn't see is them ascribing themes to those movies where they knew wasn't intended. Imagine making an observation in Saw 5 pertaining to how hospitals should widen admissions to mental health patients. Not a bad thought per se, but ridiculous when your subject is fucking Saw 5.