"A group of predominately white men" - benevolent racism

One of my friends does this a lot and I always call her out on it....it seems that no matter the situation she always starts a story about a person by saying there race.....I think she gets it from her family because her mom does it as well.

i don't think anyone's taking it to that extreme. i think the larger point is that you look at those who write professional reviews for the leading-video-game-enthusiast-press...be it kotaku, giant bomb, destructoid, gamespot, polygon, etc. statistically speaking you have a high chance of landing on a specific type of individual...the presumably 20-to-30-something-white-male-middle-class-smart-ass reviewer. it's up to the individual to decide how relevant that is to their personal view...but you have to admit, there's a very good reason why the sess, the bomb, and all the rest of the e3 bombcast crew gets on so well together...they're of a similar mind and attitude. and whenever anyone asks the bomb crew how to break into the industry, they'll be the first to tell you how small and tight-knit the social circles are. that doesn't necessarily inform their opinions, but if metacritic is soliciting data solely from these sorts of sources, it isn't extraordinary to presume there's an element of cronyism or homogeneity there. not because all white dudes think the same, but because the sample is from practically nothing but white dudes. and again, it's up to the individual to decide if that's significant. but for metacritic to portray itself as a sort of non-partial barometer of good taste is probably disingenuous, to be sure.

It's simply bigoted to say that because someone is white, or any race, that their critical analysis is less valued. By the same token, saying that a group of white reviewers is "homogeneous" - the word here being a pejorative substitute - promotes the idea that, in this case alongside no supporting evidence, whites are distorting review scores.

Race may be a significant factor in establishing a viewpoint, but it is highly hypocritical for The Sess to conflate racial politics and Metacritic. For the man who said that "Bros Before Hoes" was a "misogynistic gut punch," the double standards here are disgusting. A throwaway trophy description, taken wildly out of context, is not anywhere near as prejudiced as casually discrediting a race, even if we assume it was not thought out or a slip-of-the-tongue. I'm almost certain this guy would not let go if a game dared to make this mistake, it would be like a misogynistic Falcon punch!

If not for the hypocrisy, double standards and sheer level of shilling, I wouldn't even care.

@endurancefun: i dunno, agree to disagree i suppose. i'm just not seeing it that way. i'm just reading it as (my words not sess') "game reviewing can feel like a club of buddies at times. the fact that metacritic is taking the words of these buddies and assigning a numerical average is absurd. to then have remuneration based on this magical nonsensical number is perhaps the greatest absurdity of all." the offense at mentioning 'whites' is sort of inconsequential to the sess' larger point, no matter where you stand on it.

@mellotronrules: No, I agree that it shouldn't be a big deal but it totally is when the person saying it is also supportive of idioms like, "gaming culture needs to be more inclusive." When they then go and use thoughtless, exclusive language, it's a contradiction that weakens their argument. It's not good for supporters as it clouds the person's entire argument in potential bias.

In the grand scheme of things, it's very, very inconsequential, I didn't even watch the full video.

It's like when Sessler finally shaved his head he thought "I should be as close to Lex Luthor as possible" and turned into the world's dweebiest comic book villain.

I think he was referring to the "old, white guys" cliche.

He also mentions gender. Since he's talking about that group of people's (game critic's) opinions being used as representative of the entire market. Businesses often breaking up various markets into age, gender, and (though it may be used less often, and be less relevant) race, so to use such a small demographic of people's opinion as being true to how large of an audience there is for a specific game is a mistake.

White people game like "THIS" Black people game like "THIS".

It's just that the whole gaming industry (Western) is over saturated with a ton of white dudes. I'm bored of white dudes...

There just needs to be way more diversity in every level of game development/journalism we should always be looking for different perspectives. Does anyone know of a gaming podcast that actually has anything other than white dudes?

bwaahahahaha, fuck no.

The closest you got is Hip Hop Gamer. I like him. He's actually enthusiastic and enjoys what he does.

When you buy as many games as white dudes, then there will be diversity.

Until then, you had better deal with it.

I think race is relevant in the description here. He's emphasizing the fact that the people determining the success of a video game are a very undiverse group, which is the exact opposite of what you want when finding a general consensus on something.

Race is a descriptor. When telling a story, if I say a black guy was standing in front of me in a line, it gets you to have a more detailed picture than if I were to just say "a person". Whether it's important or not doesn't really matter, it just adds to the detail. Personal stories and anecdotes don't have to follow the law of conservation of detail.

@brodehouse said:

To be fair, we're both white dudes and you're saying pretty much exactly what I'm thinking.

@bulimicbalzac: It makes practically no difference if you're white or not in judging a game, or in fact when developing or playing a game. This is always such a stupid descriptor to use in this industry and only highlights the person's political bias.

Seriously, "fuck white people?" Your white guilt is showing, bro.

Fuck White People!

Seriously though, I've had some more thoughts on this topic, and I think I have some points to make in the argument that race is pretty much COMPLETELY irrelevant to this issue. I'll be happy to share them once I have the time.

This is essentially the assertion by those who spend their time wallowing in this subject -- your opinion can largely be discounted if you are "privileged", so at the very least, he has to keep pointing out that he is aware of the context of his opinion. It is asserted that because "we" come from "a place of privilege" (meaning we are males), we can not speak with any degree of insight on subjects, because being "privileged", we have no clue what it's like. However, people who are "not privileged (meaning, among other things, women) can speak with insight on the perspectives of those who are privileged because "privileged people have to go out of their way to be aware of anyone else's conditions and life, but it is almost impossible for everyone else to avoid being very aware of the life of privileged people".

As to what "privileged" means? It seems to be something that has only really come into regular usage in the last few months, to this degree. According to the women discussing the situation of uni-directional insight in my paragraph above, all men are privileged and no women are privileged. This was from a conversation I heard just last night. They did not explain further, so while all men are privileged and no women are (regardless of ethnicity, background, wealth, etc), I do not know if it is considered that a black man is more privileged than a white one. Or if a wealthy woman is more privileged than a poor one.

At any rate, what it all comes down to is that it is very easy and very common to simply discount the opinions of entire groups of people at whim, unless it simply parrots the already accepted or perpetuated statement. That is, if you're thumping your chest in support of the correct side , then your input is accepted. If you're raising any questions whatsoever (even if you generally agree), then your voice can be marginalized with some degree of labeling, from "speaking from a point of privilege where you can't possibly posses sympathy or empathy for others, because you're a white male" to "vile misogynist!" (even if you don't hate women or espouse anything of the sort) -- the degree of this labeling depending on the individual doing the labeling and how much they want to shut you up.

They were also discussing an article recently posted I don't recall where) instructing men on how to participate in discussions of feminism with women at work, in their family, and in their life. It essentially boiled down to things like "shut up and agree, don't play devil's advocate, etc, etc, etc". Then there's also the Jezebel article that states, among other things, that when men are attacked or mistreated, it's because people are jerks and when women are, it's because of established institutional societal discrimination.

In other words, if you want to have anything to say about anything that even remotely involves any form of minority or sensitive group (yes, I realize women are not a minority, being that they account for 54% of the population), you have to go far and repeatedly out of the way to placate those listening. Especially when you have "journalists" excoriating all gamers for being "sexists" (or other things) and calling them to some nebulous and non-specific "action" in support of "the cause". You run the risk of being criticized, attacked, or silenced no matter what. If you do lend your voice and comment, then you are offensive, because nobody needs your "privileged establishment voice" to support them, because they can do it for themselves. On the other hand, if you don't or you ask any questions or raise any issues, you are also offensive.

I obviously can't speak for Adam Sessler and won't make the assumption that any of this is actually his motivation for qualifying all of his statements. I just know that I see it done along. I do it a lot, myself. It feels kind of gross, but you really have to be repeatedly self-deprecating and walk on egg-shells to not be seen no matter what as being aggressive, judgmental, privileged, self-righteous, or anything else. Not because any of that is true, but that it is assumed of you based on . . . superficial prejudices.

Hell, I'm actually a bit self-conscious just having written what I'm written, here. I have merely stated explanations and descriptions that I have heard without judging them or adding my own opinion of them. I haven't even said I have a real problem with anything. I've said that I understand going out of your way to preface everything with this statement and that I fell compelled to do it myself, when speaking to or about a group that might perceive me to be coming from the point of not a single-mother family on welfare living in a shack growing up and being regularly beaten with various objects and no opportunity to ever go to college (or even graduate high school), but of being a "privileged straight white male".

And, yet, I have every expectation of seeing my comments (or, at least, this thread in general) being included on some version of /r/shitredditsays, where a bunch of self-ascribed elitists ridicule people for anything that they deem for being even remotely outside the acceptable stance (even though if I have taken any stance, it has been on the opposite of the MRA craziness one!). I won't be shocked if this thread is referenced in the next iteration of Anna Anthropy's reading of "John Romero's Wives" (GB has already been referenced very negatively twice in that same poem). All of these current topics are very sensitive and filled with all sorts of traps. You can be wading through discussion with the best of intentions, openest of mines, and kindest and most generous of spirits and desire to empathize as much as humanly possible and still come out covered with shit and labels. The only way to "win" is not to participate in the discussion. To move on to something else and try not to get any on you. But, if you do have to participate in it and do have to lend your voice, I can absolutely see why one have this compulsive need to qualify every few sentences with acknowledgement that their opinion might be worthless, because of check your privilege yadda yadda yadda.

As far as this whole point being raised by the original poster -- I'm a little concerned that someone not taking the time to read some of the comments would glibly see it in the same light as when idiotic white people say things like "well, how come they can say the N-word, but we can't?!". (The response obviously being that, free-speech or no, a large segment of society lost the right to use that word when a whole history of people who look a lot like them/us hurled that word around while leading those people around in chains or lynching them in trees up to just a few decades ago. And also, asking "why the hell are you desperately looking to have the right/excuse to use that word anyway?!". Though, in a way, that extreme correlation does also inform the sexism topic (and "privileged white men") topic. There is historic and societal context around all these things and while I may not feel particularly judgmental or sexist or privileged or anything else, it doesn't harm me to try and approach things with a temperament that takes these thing sinto consideration when I speak (not that I often manage to do that, but I should).

All of this said, I would truly love to hear someone as well-spoken and reasonable as Adam Sessler comment on this sort of thing. He is often quite sage-like and even though I don't always agree with his views or comments, he is one of those people who most commonly makes me stop and say "wait a second, maybe I am completely wrong". I am sure that even if nothing we have stated has anything to do with why he uses that phrase a lot, he would have a lot worth saying about it (especially being an English major).

I agree that his statement with regard to that cut-scene was hyperbolic and unnecessary, but it's a minor thing in the greater context of his overall contribution to discussion and his work, in general. I've found him to be one of the more thoughtful, well-spoken, provocative reviewers out there -- and to generally be one of the best ombudsmen and advocates that gaming has. I haven't found him to be overly pre-occupied with particular social issues other than voicing support for groups of people when issues do come up and usually in the only really rational way that you can (which is to say, inclusive and welcoming). This was really the only time I've seen him bring something like that up where it felt completely disproportionate and nearly irrational.

@branthog: I'm curious, brant. You've used a lot of words, but I'm still not sure what your opinion is of what he said.(This unfortunately isn't the first time that's happened, anything even tangentially mentioning sexism seems to elicit a titanic monologue of some sort from you, and it leaves it rather hard to find what you're actually saying. Truly, it is not necessary for your points, as I have seen that you can make cogent arguments without so many words.) Since you originally pointed out that he was just using it as a descriptor, similar to what some others like myself have said here, does that mean you understand that he wasn't meaning some kind of racist or prejudiced thing by what he was saying? You seem to respect Sessler, and I would agree with your appreciation for his work, as well. His words are due real consideration.

Though, you've said a lot more since that initial reply, and frankly, I'm uncertain what you actually believe regarding the video and his problems with Metacritic. To me, this thread is oddly ironic in a sense, as it in some ways represents exactly the kind of assumption-making and projection that many people complain about when looking at misguided advocates like Anita Sarkeesian. Frankly, to me, this is much ado about nothing, for his point was rather clear. He is merely making the rather obvious point that reviews should not be seen as a be all end all, and Metacritic does a disservice by disproportionately favoring only a niche range of possible perspectives. Like if Fine Art criticism was only really appreciated from American art critics when there is a whole world out there of different people. Too few have far too much sway, and while that's fine as long as people keep them in perspective, reviews are clearly not kept in perspective when people put so much faith in them and some companies even set their pay to them.

Giant Bomb has basically said what Sessler is saying here many times before, and none of us should overreact to one or two words in his statement. If we look unfavorably upon those who over-obsess over every little thing that might draw their ire, are we not just as bad when we do the same? We should try to understand what he is saying, not just project upon him and blow things out of proportion. He is only saying a rather true criticism of Metacritic and how people give undue weight to a select few reviewers.

That's the point. If anyone dares to speak out in disagreement they get labeled as a misogynist or (more annoyingly) are called idiots who can't possibly understand the topic at hand because they're "privileged." Dude came in here to explain Sessler's stance as he saw it. Smart move, honestly. Gender feminists are prickly and it only takes one of them to ruin your life if Donglegate has shown us anything.

Considering Brant's history and interest in discussing topics like this, I find it highly unlikely he would write so much with the intent of not being understood.

The original post was more than the simple question about meta-critic and developer salaries.

It also asked "why do we have to include race in the description of a person when it isn't relevant?" And "why does he have to qualify his views with a self-deprecating acknowledgement that he's a middle aged straight white male and why is middle-aged-straight-white-male even a thing?" In the current gaming world, that primarily means gender, sexism, and privilege (and privilege means male - in some contexts, also straight and white and middle-aged, I guess).

This is not even remotely a simple issue and it's riddled with landmins if you fall into that classification, above, who apparently must preface our opinions with a statement acknowledging that we are not omniscient. As I laid out in my lengthy reply, the idea of that classification has to do with privilege and the perception and use of that label. It also has to do with the tone of these conversations online (and at GDC, etc) where an entire classification of people (at the broadest, all male gamers) is put on the defensive, even if they are absolutely supportive of inclusion.

I'm not really sure what you mean by not being sure what my "position" is, though. I care about fair treatment and inclusion, but I hate that we have to either have opinions silenced or qualified simply because some of us might fall into a group some label as somehow being "privileged". But I understand the reason it is applied and why a lot of people (like Adam, in this example) may use the phrase, before stating their own opinion.

My reply was more about the concepts, how I have heard them discussed, and why it is in our best interest (or, at least, understandable when others do it) to walk on egg-shells with such topics and how being self-deprecating and very clearly self-aware of this supposed "privilege" if we want to even attempt to insert our thoughts into discussions of gender and other "non straight white middle aged male" things in gaming. A terrible analogy might be that no matter how much I might love dogs, a scared or angry stray isn't going to let me pet or help it if I approach it as the family pet. Shouting "but I really fucking like dogs!" as I wave my hands in the air and run up to it won't help. I have to approach it on its terms, if I don't want it to either attack me or run away from me. It's practical matter, in how I'm going to have to approach it. (I also think we could be reading too much into Adam's choice of words, though he never strikes me as one who doesn't speak with specificity and intention).

Back to the meta-critic thing, itself (as I and many others saw it, the least relevant issue in his post), I thought I made it quite clear -- fuck those in the industry that use it to establish performance bonuses or salaries or employment. If they hate it so much, stop using it. Or go to each of a handful of individual sites fucking manually and write down the scores and do your own math, if you don't like how they weight things. Reviewers shouldn't give a fuck how meta-critic weighs and indexes anything. Neither should the industry. Again, this really seems like a distinct and lesser part of the overall questions that were posed, though.

I'm well aware that "white men" refers to two aspects of a person, but Giant Bomb has had more than its share of topics on sexism and feminism lately, and I'd really like to keep the focus here on the issue of race, not gender. For those who wish to discuss things such as sexism, or male privilege, or Donglegate, please do so in another thread.

I would request that you either create a new thread, or simply bump any one of the current threads devoted to the topic. Thank you.

@Branthog Good post, I understand where you're coming from. Maybe because I'm younger, I'm a little less willing to adopt a conciliatory tone in these kind of arguments, or with people who espouse hypocrisy even as they campaign for fairness. And with no disrespect to John Walker, or Sessler, or anyone in the gaming media, there are already a number of sources of people talking about equality or social justice, and anyone interested in that are probably better off going to them rather than a dilettante who primary writes about frame rates and microtransactions (as much as i wouldn't go to those equity folk about 'does the control feel floaty?'). But I agree, Sessler is taking this preemptive apologist tone to protect himself. I just don't think he should have to.

For my part, the comments and Sessler's original statement just would not pass the muster of universality. In that, Sessler assuming that since the media is predominantly X, Y and Z, they'll all reach the same conclusions about games naturally follows that the only thing that factors in the performance of their very jobs is X, Y, and Z, and I would never dare apply to any combination of race, ethnicity, gender, orientation, class or anything that isn't a deliberate intellectual choice. To do otherwise is to state that their intellectual opinion is not something they as a person developed, it's something they received from X, Y or Z, thus 'informing' their perception. As in, you don't believe in God because you actually believe in God, you believe in God because you're Persian and Persians naturally reach the same conclusions. Well that's bullshit to say about Persians, and it's bullshit to say that straight white men reach the same conclusions about games.

And I'm shocked people think they can use the term 'homogenous' to refer to a social group and its not an insult, provided the group is the majority. If you were white or black, and you went to China, and you were surrounded by Chinese folk, would you feel justified calling them homogenous? After all, one Chinese person is indistinguishable from another Chinese person since they're the majority. Is Africa full of homogenous Africans, all thinking the same thing, feeling the same things, inevitably reaching the same conclusions about video games?

Also @Olddirtybearon that 'dweebiest Lex Luthor' jibe was pretty great.

Actually, part of what I'm saying is disagreeing with the very premise of what the OP was asking. Sessler isn't just including race in the description of a person when it isn't relevant. It's relevant to his point of using multiple things to show what a niche perspective most videogame reviewers would have. Their race, gender, and what they do with their lives does influence them. Same as if he had said many were American or in their 20s and 30s. Despite the OP's suggestion, he was never just including race when it wasn't relevant to his point. It was just one descriptor as part of his overall point about the things which potentially impact our personal perspective.

And his point as far as acknowledging his own traits is the same as above. That people have different things which influence how they view the world and how the world views them. So, he is using descriptors of himself to reinforce the point that he is himself a niche perspective, as we all are. He's just reinforcing the notion that if videogame reviews are going to come from only a slice of the population, people should keep that in mind, and if people don't want to just look at a slice, they should support a wider range of reviewers and de-emphasize the few.

He wasn't doing or saying what the OP was suggesting, and that made them mostly unrelated. You can talk about those things if you want to, but the video and title of this post have little to do with it.

Exactly. People have gotten off the point. You were talking about race due to Sessler's mention of it in the video, and while I am on the side which says there's nothing wrong with his video and race was but one mere descriptor amongst the others, I agree that we're quickly veering off topic with long posts about sexism. That's another discussion.

Except that the phrase under discussion primarily is one of gender and, secondarily, one of race/orientation/etc. I'm glad to see that was primarily your interest, because everything except gender seems to be thrown out with the trash when it comes to talk of being "inclusive" in the game industry, but when "privileged" is primarily an issue of gender (ie, all men are and no women are, as it was explained to me last night), then it is really difficult for people to discuss the concept while scoping it merely to race or, for that matter, to just gender, either.

If the industry, journalists, reviewers, and Adam had been spending much time at all in the recent pass discussing this in relation to "race", it would be a much more logical aspect to focus on, but as much as it has be repeatedly discussed in gaming, recently, I think the aspect of race with regard to privilege and phrases like "straight while middle aged male" or whatever is not what comes into people's minds most instantly when they hear it. On the other hand, I'm just a straight white male, so I could be wrong. :P

Finding there is a belittling of white people's opinion on games in what Sessler said is fucking mental.

@rasmoss: Something tells me you don't say this when it's about non-white non-males. Then it is not "mental," correct?

I'm glad you agree with me that we're getting off topic by talking about sexism, which wasn't the point of this thread. I feel the exact same way. This confuses me, because I don't agree with you that there's nothing wrong with him including race to imply that the game reviewers are too homogenized for their opinions to reflect everyone who might buy a video game.

I don't get it? I'm a white male, are you a white male? If so, shouldn't we agree on this? But if you're black, we already agree that talking about sexism is getting off topic, so that couldn't be true either? Are you a person of a mixed race? Perhaps that would explain it...

As I hope you could tell, I'm being highly facetious here. Races don't have opinions, PEOPLE have opinions. Individuals have opinions.

There's a bunch of people in this thread who have an issue with what Adam said, and a bunch of people who are defending what he said. Statistically speaking, most of them are probably white. If a bunch of black gamers posted in this thread, do you know what every single one of them would think? Different things, because they're people, not a homogenized hive-mind.

And that is why I think it's ridiculous to bring race into the issue, and ridiculous to suggest that a highly diversified group of game reviewers would somehow be any different in assigning review scores than the straight white males in their 20s or 30s that generally comprise the majority of game journalists.

I don't disagree that the aspects of one's background that is beyond their control may influence them. I just did not perceive his qualification of his own "identify" as being one exemplifying the homogeneous nature of the industry (I think we all can see that the statement is coming from a straight middle aged white guy), but as a defensive statement intended to assert validity of a viewpoint against sure replies of "yeah, but what do you know, because you're [label]". I do completely see how it could be taken and intended either or both ways, though and only the man himself could clarify (not that I was ever asking for clarification, until this thread was posted, in the first place - I was more preoccupied with the pithy and fair "Grow the fuck up. Stop your shitty marketing" line).

Regardless, it seems stupidly pointless when it comes to metacritic. I don't care if metacritic manages some ingenious weighting of review scores based on a brilliant radical Rainbow and LGBTQ coalition calculation -- it doesn't change how utterly stupid it is for them to be basing compensation on something as trivial as metacritic scores.

As to the breadth of reviews accepted by metacritic? I don't see what they could possibly do about that, if you're talking about diversity of race, gender, and nationality. If that's what we're talking about, then metacritic can only be about as inclusive as the industry is and as you can see from GiantBomb and just about everywhere else, that's not very diverse. If we're just talking "numbers", then wouldn't 500 reviews from straight white males be just as meaningless as five of them?

@EnduranceFun He doesn't say there is anything wrong with white people's opinions. He doesn't even have a problem with game critics being white and male. He just doesn't think the opinion of a very similar group should dictate how much someone is paid.

@rasmoss: The needless distinction of "whites" is conflating the issue as at least partially a racial one, and that is wrong. Hypocritically, Sessler has previously ranted about games daring to include far less offensive "sexist" language. That's not mental?

@EnduranceFun I can only comment on the subject at hand. Different things appeal to people of black culture and white culture. Different things appeal to males and females. Games like Just Dance, The Sims and Wii Sports have sold like gangbusters to a female crowd but have pretty low metacritic ratings. So is it fair that the devs get less money if they don't reach a certain metacritic rating for those games? When those critics arent the core audience?

I think this thread may be turning, or has turned, into a thread where people are having the conversation they want to have instead of having a conversation based on what the guy actually is saying. Maybe I am just not that invested in the words he chooses for his argument in in the video, but I think there is a lot of misrepresentation here of what he is actually saying, or maybe too much focus on a phrase plucked out from a whole argument.

My view, based on the totality of the video, is that he is saying that something as important as a person's pay or bonus shouldn't be dependent on a very small sample size of people saying whether it's worthy or not in a review. A score without context shouldn't determine that, and I think most people here would agree that that is a fine point to make. I just don't get people being hung up on the one phrase he used. It makes perfect sense to me, but again, I would consider myself an outsider looking in on this, and maybe that gives me a different perspective. Oh that's right, different people from different walks of life have differing perspectives on issues!

How about this. Imagine the President of the United States is determing the pay or bonuses of the Department of Transportation employees based on “reviews” from people across the United States. He should ask a broad range of people in every state. If he wanted to be even more sure that he was getting a good sample of the entire country, he would try to get a good amount of people from each income bracket, from different racial groups, men, women, married and single, gay and straight, religious or irreligious, young and old, educated and those with less education, etc. Of course, it’s impossible to include one of every type (I am imagining him pushing people onto an Ark with how I am phrasing this) but to get a good representative sample, you should at least try. Then, if your sample were lacking certain elements, you would normally take that into consideration when coming to your final conclusions. So if I go by what people are saying here, I would say just grab a bunch of people in Maine and ask them, they would be a fine sample to base this decision on. Now, don’t think I am dogging on people from Maine, I was born and raised here so I know the demographics, and they don’t accurately represent the rest of the US. They would suck as a representative sample.

And that’s, I think, the point. Maybe reviewers, as a representative sample of the rest of the gaming community as a whole, aren’t as representative as the people proposing these contracts would like to think. So he phrased it in that way? Who cares? Is he wrong about the makeup of the reviewing community? Note he didn’t say all, just predominantly. It’s like using the word majority. It just means a numerical advantage. Again, looking at people writing for game websites or making game videos, I would say people that fit Adam Sessler’s description have the numerical advantage, and pointing that out ISN’T BAD. It’s being honest. Like I said, while people who review games don’t represent me demographically, I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, I haven’t put all that much thought into it. But I would assume a reviewer might put more thought into those ideas than I would. So having a bit of self-reflection isn’t bad either and someone shouldn’t be attacked because they look around, see a trend, and comment on it.

In my own life, I do much the same. In my profession, the office environment skews older, white, female, and pretty conservative. Noticing that doesn’t make me a bad person. I actually think about why that is a lot and I wonder how I kind of found my way into what I am doing. I also wonder why 1) Men aren’t more prominent in my work environment and 2) if that is more representative of men not desiring to have a job like mine or men not being hired to do a job like mine even if they apply. In one case it’s innocuous and means nothing, in the other it would be a huge problem with discrimination against a specific gender, so contemplating those ideas is a good thing. That’s how I am viewing this whole thing, and I am not getting any type of vitriol or venom from what he is saying at all, just noticing a trend and putting words to it.

@rasmoss: I agree, and overall games simply appeal more to males, and arguably whites. Sure they could appeal to other groups better than they do, but that's how it is right now. Thus I feel the only real issue with what you're saying is that it's made sure when a game does appeal to a casual, female or specialised audience, it should be reviewed by someone who is part of that group or understands it. Most of the time, this is not an issue. I mean, it has been taken to an extreme degree too, like when Nintendo games get low scores. Then you get the crowd of gamers who want only Zelda fans to review Zelda games, for example.

In all honesty, I feel game developers should make games they want to and let the consumer base form itself in a natural way. The same goes for game critics, criminal actions aside, there's no harm in letting it self-manage.

Over thinking much?

I agree, but Sessler's point is there is nothing wrong with Metacritic. The problem is how much stock game publishers put on it. Metacritic should be primarily a tool for consumers. Big financial decisions, or questions of how much someone is paid shouldn't be decided by it. And I think he is right.

That's fucking ridiculous to blanket culture to color. Calling someone a color like 'black' is already a fucking blanket generalization. So now they're not just black but they all have the same exact culture. A black guy that's family lineage goes all the way back to slaves being brought over from Africa has the same culture as a Haitian that's never been to America just because they both are 'black'? That's not even taking any of the other endless branching possibilities that make each person different. So me and my black friend that have grown up together from being kids to in our early 30's are not the same culture because we're different colors? Even though we like and dislike all the same things?

Talk about homogenizing. It's so fucking insulting to boot. I feel like people think I'm a monster because I get lumped in with fucking Adolf. But hey we're all the same culture. Fuck that.

@Jams

It's ridiculous to suggest that there isn't cultural offerings that appeal to primarily to black or white people, or that there isn't at tradition for specifically black cultural expression in America.

I went to a Bruce Springsteen concert in New York some years ago with 100.000 people, and the only black people there were selling snacks.

And no, it's not a coherent identical culture for everyone, just like there is no specific female or male culture. There are just tendencies, as a result of certain historical realities.

The implication is that these privileged individuals hold a great deal of sway over the livelihoods of quite a few people - who are probably far from disadvantaged, but work in a brutal industry. However, the real problem is the corporate culture that surrounds development studios and software publishers. Where this all started is irrelevant, although it most likely has to do with customers' reactions to rating systems, but one surefire way to stop it is by simply moving away from the ratings system.

I really hope Giant Bomb stops using star ratings altogether. This is but one example of the problems rating systems create. Companies are not going to stop the practice of rewarding, or punishing, developers based on some arbitrary rating until ratings stop being common place. Giant Bomb could be one website that stops adding to the problem, and even if others don't join in, its users will get accustomed to doing without rating systems.

people are too sensitive these days....

Tyler Perry and Adam Sandler both make wildly successful movies. That eliminates two races from being able to judge the quality of anything.

@oldenglishc: Don't you dare tell me Latin soaps keep them out of judging quality. Those shows are the peak of our story telling...

Considering what Sessler has said over the years, I'm more inclined to believe that he wouldn't just be speaking defensively(as that's hardly his style) and instead was using his words to backup his argument. He has never struck me as one to be particularly fearful of how people interpret what he has to say, and so, it seems likely that every part of that video is in service of his point and nothing else.

And as far as metacritic is concerned, it's less that metacritic should try to branch out. It's just a statement against the very idea of treating metacritic as some big authority. And you'll -never- have a perfect representation of a wide range of viewpoints for any kind of criticism of something. People just have to keep that in mind. Again, that comes back to perspective. More gamers need to keep reviews in perspective and understand that they are personal assessments and not be all end all statements. That's something Giant Bomb has said many times, and I'm glad Sessler has said it as well.

@jadegl: I think that's a good take on it, and while I agree that companies shouldn't base something like that on a less diversified system like metacritic, it seems to me that the broader point is just that companies shouldn't base bonuses on any kind of system like this no matter how diversified. Because, frankly, collections of critics will rarely ever be truly indicative of the wider population. Just by the simple act of being someone that primarily plays videogames for a living means they're a bit removed from most of the general population. So, I agree, it would be foolish to base any kind of pay off something like metacritic. And none of us should put such grand authority into the hands of reviewers. We put far too much faith in them. Instead, we should have a healthy perspective about reviewers and see their work as personal opinions and not some kind of cold, objective fact. :)

Where was the backlash for Jeff's joke about everyone in the industry being pasty white guys (a little after 11:15).

I just think you're overly sensitive to race issues. I don't know why you think it's racist to describe a person. Most of the people I work with are Mexicans. That isn't racist, it's a fact.