I have a question about Gamergate

[The Rogerer]

There's only nothing political in your review because a)the game is blockbuster/b-movie cinema referential and b)it doesn't say anything to your personal beliefs. If it did have something to say, or cause a reaction in you I would expect you to talk about that and not deny it.

I don't know why a reviewer should attempt to write towards an approximation of the mainstream audience because that's dishonest, and that person doesn't exist. I think it's a sign of your biases that you think military storylines and games warrant discussion, but other things don't. Many people have many things to say, different values, and different things that matter to them. We all have biases. Your opinion is also understandable and not irregular, but not absolute by any means.

Why shouldn't a player, a reviewer, challenge the artist with something they didn't intend? Are artists supposed to be omniscent? What about the Death of the Author? What about all the unintended consequence of art? They are intrinsic to creative works. Why should the reviewer surpress themselves, and lie? We're supposed to be chasing honesty here. If someone forms an opinion of the art as is, others may feel the same way, they should not lie about their experience. If they try to surpress and ignore it, they will likely fail anyway.

We have your personal perspectives and biases, and I've tried to highlight yours in that post. Where I think you've gone wrong is the easy and classical mistake that you take so much of your perspective for granted and then assume that to be the objective. You are as subjective as anyone else. I can read your review with an assessment of you, the things you're into, the things you've played, and that all forms part of my impression. Do not forget the most important part, we are all humans here.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer There's only nothing political in your review because a)the game is blockbuster/b-movie cinema referential and b)it doesn't say anything to your personal beliefs. If it did have something to say, or cause a reaction in you I would expect you to talk about that and not deny it.

Of course, but the bold portion of this post is literally what I just explained. That's a very important element about all this review stuff.

I don't know why a reviewer should attempt to write towards an approximation of the mainstream audience because that's dishonest, and that person doesn't exist. I think it's a sign of your biases that you think military storylines and games warrant discussion, but other things don't.

I didn't mean military games specifically, but games that intentionally delve into political themes obviously warrant political discussion. Notice nobody took offense to the reviews of Spec Ops: The Line. Now why is that?

Why shouldn't a player, a reviewer, challenge the artist with something they didn't intend?

Because it misses the intentional of the work, particularly in the realm of entertainment where if you want games that make commentary about a worldview you can find them. I would ask why would somebody look at Peach being kidnapped by a giant turtle dragon and posit questions of gender roles - when Myamoto only intended to find goal/motivations for players to experiment his platforming gameplay theory.

A player can challenge an artist on things outside of artists' intention; but I believe that's a conversation that can never lead anywhere, and hasn't led anywhere.

Frankly, I think you sum it all up in your post. You have your personal perspectives and biases, and I've tried to highlight them. Where I think you've gone wrong is the easy and classical mistake that you take so much of your perspective for granted and then assume that to be the objective. You are as subjective as anyone else. I can read your review with an assessment of you, the things you're into, the things you've played, and that all forms part of my impression. Do not forget the most important part, we are all humans here.

k thx