Wolfire Games Forums

Sigh.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/69576 ... view-wii-u

Yeah, that's bullshit.

"BAYONETTA 2'S BLATANT OVER-SEXUALIZATION PUTS A BIG DENT IN AN OTHERWISE GREAT GAME"

Sadly no, since games need to be reviewed on their game traits, not on their political stances.

Especially when they don't matter to the majority of people.

Great!

Another website I can just forget about now. IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku and now Polygon. Are they not able to write professional articles ad reviews? I mean, thrashing Bayonetta for being sexualised is like going to a strip club and complaining about the performers wardrobe.

Keep your personal bias out of the review. And keep even further out of the final verdict. Mention it if you really want to, but don't assume that everyone is like you.

So, you are mad that they knocked half a point because the reviewer found it hard to appreciate some of the game's design?

I mean, I guess the reviewer does put a lot of focus on things that you can say the reviewer subjectively didn't like. But that happens. Reviewing is, at least partially, a subjective task.

Also, scores are stupid.

BTW: the reason I say the reviewer seems to have knocke half a point is because the review score guideline on the site says 8 is for 'great' games. The reviewer also uses the term 'great' to describe the game in the conclusion. So a great game getting 7.5 is half a half point deviation from the guidelines.

EPR89 wrote:Keep your personal bias out of the review. And keep even further out of the final verdict.

Aren't all reviews opinion pieces anyway?

Mention it if you really want to, but don't assume that everyone is like you.

Exactly. Just because you don't mind the sexuality doesn't mean the reviewer does.

EPR, really?

"don't assume that everyone is like you."

Your post is like:

"It's wrong to say these things and have an opinion. It's immoral to say that you don't like something when your job is to tell if you like something. Your job is to tell us if we will like it, we don't care what you think about it! Don't assume everyone is like you. They are like me!"

Any way...

Let's talk about something important, instead
Terrorists are targeting a woman with bomb threats, threatening a school shooting, and more.

http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/ ... inist.html

Why?
"Women like Sarkeesian want to punish us for even fantasizing about being men."

She criticizes so I will threaten... This is so wrong.
The threat itself didn't mention the real reason, but it's pretty clear who has an agenda like this.

Another chilling aspect - anyone with a concealed gun permit is still allowed to bring concealed weapons into the threatened building. Wtf?! That's crazy.

Endoperez wrote:EPR, really?

"don't assume that everyone is like you."

Your post is like:

"It's wrong to say these things and have an opinion. It's immoral to say that you don't like something when your job is to tell if you like something. Your job is to tell us if we will like it, we don't care what you think about it! Don't assume everyone is like you. They are like me!"

That's not what I wanted to get across.
I think the opinion of a reviewer should be mentioned. It's a comment on the experience of a player with his background. That's valuable information.
But if there's a scoring system, suggesting some degree of objectivity, then this stuff has no place there. He can mention that this is something that bothered him. No problem. But it must not have the sort of impact on the final score it had here.

Oh, I see. Sorry about that then. I still disagree.

I'll find a source later, but reviews without numbers haven't been received well (someone said so.... Yes, will look for actual sources). Assuming that's true, removing opinions from rated reviews ends up silencing opinions.

Edit: seems I misread again. Would it have been better if it showed e.g. 7.5, -1.0 for sexism?

I think what EPR89 is trying to say is that, a reviewers personal world views should not effect the score of a game. For instance, if a game's story centered around two men who are married, and the reviewer took points off for homosexuality, that would stir up all kinds of trouble.

EPR is saying that reviewers are allowed to have an opinion on how the game plays, works, looks, ect. But, when it comes to personal beliefs (unless it's a religious reviewing site), a game shouldn't get points taken off for not following the reviewers world views. That would be like a reviewer taking points off GTA V for... Really anything in the game since almost none of it is moral. (I believe the Escapist actually did take points off for that)

If the reviewer had said "Though, the over-sexualization in the game bothers me a bit, it doesn't subtract from the great gameplay." And then not taken points off for it, it would have been fine.

I've found a problem in that: there's no objective review score. If there was, every score of a given game is the same. That would IMO be bad.

Ok, then what if all review sites had a unified scoring system with X points for graphics, Y for fun, Z for how well it compares to competition etc? Are any systems public or are the sites just using aggregate "likedt it" scores? How can we tell the difference?

Endoperez wrote: Would it have been better if it showed e.g. 7.5, -1.0 for sexism?

Yes. That would be ideal.
In Germany we have a magazine called Gamestar that used to do this in the past. Not sure if they still do it, since I have switched entirely to watching Let's Plays and stuff like TotalBiscuit's videos to see if a game might be for me.

If I remember it correctly, their final verdict for Falcon 4.0 had a section that read a bit like this: "Falcon 4.0 is a superb aircraft simulation. The mediocre graphics will surely bother some players. People who are genuinely interested in mastering a modern fighter jet can safely add 5 points to our score."
Whenever a game had such a stepping stone they would mention it and suggest alternative scores for people. Their scoring system was also very transparent. They really went for an objective approach that allowed for the audience to decide what they consider most important. The final score of 100 was the result of the score for graphics, gameplay, audio and a few genre specific categories. If you decided that graphics were not all that important to you, you could adjust the score for yourself. If a game received a lower score because it was only playable with a peripheral that not everyone has, they would list this specifically in the breakdown. If you had the peripheral, you could just scratch that negative point.

I agree that pure objectivity is not possible in game reviews. But you can try to get close to it and leave the final details to the audience.

ERM, tailoring your answer to specific groups sounds subjective, not obj. ? Sounds like a good system though.


I'll be Running out of battery at some point, so not sure how long I'll be able to follow this.

If the reviewer had said "Though, the over-sexualization in the game bothers me a bit, it doesn't subtract from the great gameplay." And then not taken points off for it, it would have been fine.

It subtracted from the gameplay - not the button pressing, but the experience. It's like gun sounds being farts, you can't use that gun and enjoy the illusion of being James Bond or something.

Endoperez wrote:I've found a problem in that: there's no objective review score. If there was, every score of a given game is the same. That would IMO be bad.

Ok, then what if all review sites had a unified scoring system with X points for graphics, Y for fun, Z for how well it compares to competition etc? Are any systems public or are the sites just using aggregate "likedt it" scores? How can we tell the difference?

Not everyone has the same opinion on a game though, great gameplay for one reviewer may be subpar gameplay for another. Opinions on games can differ quite a lot throughout the gaming community, and not because of the moral/immoral content in the game, but because everyone has a different idea of what they like in a game.

Endoperez wrote:

If the reviewer had said "Though, the over-sexualization in the game bothers me a bit, it doesn't subtract from the great gameplay." And then not taken points off for it, it would have been fine.

It subtracted from the gameplay - not the button pressing, but the experience. It's like gun sounds being farts, you can't use that gun and enjoy the illusion of being James Bond or something.

Yes, but if everyone were watching the James Bond movie, they would all be bothered by the farts. Not everyone is going to be bothered by sexualization.

Don't those contradict, Dammasta? Opinions can differ on final score and that's ok. Opinions on sexism can differ and that's not ok to mark ( as score).

How is the opinion defined that is allowed to affect a score? By whom? What about Epr's idea: it affects score but the reasons are shown?

Well, actually, yes. Gamers come to reviewers to see about a certain game, to see if it's a game they would enjoy playing, they might even visit multiple game review websites to see the differing opinions on the game.

The reviewers personal feelings on a moral subject shouldn't effect the score, because gamers go to reviewers to see what the game is like gameplay wise. If they want to know about the content of the game, they can look at the back of the case and read the game rating. Or go online and look it up on the ESRB website (or whatever game rating company is available in their area).