@hailinel: Well, personally, I could not care less for those people. If you're sensitive to that kind of stuff, then don't read reviews or don't go on the internet. It's absurd that other people should have to avoid talking about something because others might bitch and moan about having something spoiled.
takkun169's forum posts
@hailinel: I understand where you're coming from, but all of that is endemic of the problems facing all forms of news media, and it comes down to what is more important to the outlet? Their readership/viewership or ease of access. Personally when if a site like Giant Bomb, that asks for a not insignificant amount of money for subscriptions, places ease of access over the people who are paying them their dollars, then the fight is lost. The publishers that want to control every last bit of info about their products in an effort to dupe more people into buying them, are the only ones who walk away with what they want, and every one else is left standing there wondering why what just happened.
The power dynamic is completely off and the ones who really should be courting their customers (us) are just stringing us along, by trying to make us feel like it's a privilege to see their advertisements. And that is what is at the heart of EVERYTHING they do. The features, and in some cases reviews in magazines and on web sites are absolutely nothing more than advertisements and it is up to the publishers to control that as much as possible. Sub-par games aren't sent out early so that negative reviews impact day one sales as little as possible, and also shows exactly how much of a joke the illusion of access actually is because if they don't want Giant Bomb or any one else to review a game for day one, then no one is going to get it. If they think that reviews may help even a little bit, they will send those copies out unfinished if they have to.
This is to say nothing of spoilers in the review process because my point isn't so much about that (even though from rereading my initial post it seems like it was my whole point). My point is that nothing should be off limits when critiquing a product, artistic or otherwise. Like I said before, it isn't about recanting the story, but given how important story is to games these days (GB's game of the year was put in that place primarily on the strength of it's story) it doesn't serve the audience for that aspect to be out of bounds. It only serves the publishers and babies who want to whine but don't have the self control to not read a spoiler.
Patrick, I see where you are coming from as far as criticism is concerned and I agree 100% when that criticism measures up to the ideas that you are putting forth. Unfortunately, it seems to be an increasing occurrence where the people doing the criticism are leaning on an incredibly shallow and superficial explanations as to what they feel is wrong with a game. Too many times I have heard you say, "the writing was just bad." Well that is not good enough, especially if you want to label yourself a critic. The thing about it is I know, and I think most people here recognize, that you (and some others) are capable of meaningful thoughtful critiques and I am baffled as to why this elementary level of criticism could ever see the light of day on the site or on the podcasts.
I know their are some inherent trouble spots when it comes to reviews. People are afraid of spoilers to an absolute stupid degree, and it is hamstringing the medium. How can you (the royal you, not you specifically) give a thorough critique if you are forced to avoid a significant piece of the package that you are reviewing?
There has been some talk on the podcasts, mostly from Jeff, about rethinking the way that reviews are done, and my suggestion would be to say, "fuck spoilers." There is no part of the game that is off limits as far as a review is concerned, and a review is not complete until every part has been touched. Of course you aren't going to go through and recount everything that happens, but if there is something that has an impact on the product, for good or for ill, it shouldn't be left out. Not only will that lead to better criticism and more thorough discussions, it will pull you guys away from the current level of dumb reviews that littler the Games Media Group Think.
@bunnymud: The most twisted part of having these guns in games is who is paying whom. If a publisher is looking to get a bit of money for product placement, the contact Coke or Nike or whoever, depending on the type of game. Then said company pays the publisher so for that product to feature somewhere hopefully prominently, inside the game. Ta-da, everyone is happy (well, except for us who are being advertised to because, lets be honest... it rarely fits well).
The people who commented for that article, all said that they essentially see their product being included in these games as advertising to young prospective buyers. So why are the publishers paying the gun manufacturers to advertise their products? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I were some one who ran a company that had to pay to have my product included in a game, I would be super fucking pissed. But this may be the best way to get these licensed guns out of games. Start making the gun manufacturers actually have to pay for their advertising. First off, they would be beholden to certain rules as far as what ways they can advertise (alcohol and tobacco companies sponsor racing teams but cannot be included in games because they cannot advertise their products to children). Secondly they may not be so ready to actually have to pay out for that sort of thing.
Game publishers need to open their eyes to the fact that they are paying to advertise some one else's products.
@TheDudeOfGaming: Women can't do it by themselves simply because they are not the ones who need to change. What these women are doing is trying to instigate the change by bringing attention to it. The thing about discrimination is that it doesn't have to come from a place of hatred, it often stems from ignorance. I'd be willing to bet that 80% of the offenders don't even realize that they are in fact being discriminatory, and that denial is a HUGE part of the problem.
I really have to say that I am surprised and disgusted by the amount of hate that this article is getting. If you feel like this is something that you don't want to read, or that it doesn't belong on Giant Bomb, then you are precisely the person who should be reading it and it is exactly where it needs to be. It takes an extreme amount of courage to put one self out on a limb, and own up to it, the way that these ladies have, and to brush it off like it's not an issue even worth addressing or talking about, shows how far we, as a community and society at large, need to go.
@Bizzama: Unfortunately, too many times it is the publishers who make the call for male protagonists. I read an article in, I think it was Edge Magazine, about it and a few developers had sounded off on the issue saying that their games were originally designed with female protagonists and the publishers (I'm sure we could all guess which ones) came in and told them to change it because games with women leads don't sell. It's a pretty ugly state of affairs in this industry and I really hope that the more attention being brought to it through efforts like this have a positive impact.