Personal social views as a central part of a game critique

How central of a role do you believe they should play before something goes from discussing a game to being more of an essay on one's views of perceived injustices and societal wrongs? I suppose you could say the same thing about a film reviewer like Armond White who became infamous for injecting his views on perceived racism into almost everything he writes.

It seems like a delicate thing to balance. I certainly don't want reviews to be these sterile pieces where only things like music, gameplay, and controls are considered, but in a growing number of cases on a variety of gaming sites it seems as if reviews are more concerned with pushing some kind of social message than they are about telling me if the game is a fun, entertaining experience.

After reading Polygon's review of Bayonetta I found myself thinking back to classics and how they would be perceived now. Would a game like Final Fantasy face lower review scores because of the way they portrayed a character like Barrett or the fact they gave Tifa an enormous chest and a belly shirt? Is that something that would have been highlighted in a review instead of the overall package that most would consider a classic? Is a game like FInal Fantasy 15 going to be docked points because of an all male playable cast?

At some point are those kinds of reviews a disservice to readers?

Who is Armond White? I guess they aren't that famous....?

The short answer is: It depends on the editor and what tone they were hired to bring to the publication. If the editor has been directed by the owners to bring a lot of "cake" into anything they publish then writers need to put "cake" into whatever they talk to or risk lower pay or their job.

ps. What does "At some point are those kind of reviews a disservice to the readers?" mean? How do you disservice a reader?

I wouldn't want all games criticism to be identical, that's for sure. So even if I don't agree, necessarily, I am glad that there are places like polygon that do that, and I wish there were more. There is room for more than one way to look at games in the critical space. It is certainly not a disservice to readers, as some want that, and there are many outlets for criticism.

I feel that if you're reading a form of writing that's based exclusively in opinion, which reviews are (reviews are criticism, not journalism), then you shouldn't be surprised or upset when the writer expresses his/her opinion.

I also feel that if you're unable to read a review and distinguish between the writer's opinions and fact, and are unable to account for being exposed to opinions you're unfamiliar with or may disagree with, then that's on you and not the writer to figure out.

Opinions are the sine qua non of reviews, reviewers are human beings, and they should feel comfortable expressing whatever opinions they might have.

Reviews and criticisms reflect the times. Final Fantasy 7 would rightfully get blasted for its stereotypical portrayal of blacks if it was reviewed today.

On the contrary, varied opinions in criticism is a great service to readers. If people know their own tastes, it becomes easier to determine what they would like based on opinionated pieces.

Frankly, I find this kind of uproar incredibly immature. Remember when it was fashionable to bash on Roger Ebert because he refused to take games seriously as art? Guess what, that's changing, and it seems to me that that same kind of gamer suddenly realized they don't like it. It's gone from "why won't people treat games more seriously?" to "it's just a game! Stop taking it so seriously!"

Because art gets actual analysis and criticism. People will tease out themes and messages within the narrative. This is a good thing for the medium, and people getting hyper-defensive about it aren't helping.

why read any criticism if it doesn't reflect the views of the author? i read reviews and critiques to get thoughtful opinions, not examination results.

granted- there will always be a basic implicit inquiry of is-this-thing-any-good to criticism- but i think that importance is frequently overblown. and it goes without saying- writers who use criticism primarily as a platform for their own egos and thereby drift astray of the work in question are undeniably obnoxious. but i'd almost rather that than a completely sterile 'report.' because as annoying as it maybe, i think it's more honest than pretending you're the objective truth incarnate.

I would say not central enough that they actually turn the review into more of an essay on one's views of perceived injustices and societal wrongs. Once your review goes from "here's what I think about the game" to "here's what I think is wrong with the industry and/or world" then I start to shake my head a bit. I mean, one or two quick asides about 'the bigger picture' or whatever you wanna call it is fine, but I think when you completely stop talking about the game to voice your own views, you done fucked up.

I don't take reviews that seriously since they are inherently subjective and just opinion pieces anyway. If a reviewer wants to discuss social issues in their games reviews, I just tend to avoid their reviews. I mainly only watch Quick Looks, though. Reviews aren't that useful to me.

Following Jeff's lead, I think, we've all been talking about the subjectivity of reviews, and all of that is totally right. A guy can't pretend to have a different opinion than the one he actually has. At the same time, a reviewer whose opinion is not reflected by a large share of his audience is not a very useful reviewer, and a reviewer has to be useful to be worth his paycheck. Let's put our euphemistic language aside and acknowledge we're talking about Polygon. I am not in Polygon's audience - I occasionally visit in boredom and am rewarded a low percentage of times.

Given that, it doesn't particularly matter if I find Polygon's reviews useful or not. However, based on the comments I've seen on Polygon articles, I'm not convinced that they know their audience well enough, or are considerate enough of what their audience desires. We've seen Polygon making some cutbacks recently. I don't think that this style of review will prove economically sustainable among gamers in the long-run.

@babychoochoo: can you give an example of a review which eschews talking about the game in favour of other things?

Game experience is all I want from a reviewer. I'm kind of amazed how little experience most game journalism personalities actually have in this industry, I guess if your a bit younger it's a bit more excusable.

At the end of the day experience is what is going to give the most informed view on a new release. Would you take movie advice from a reviewer who had only watched a handful of movies in only a couple of genres?

As far as all the societal opinion stuff, i'm always going to want to sum that up for myself without someone else telling me what i should think. I mean fair enough give some warning what to expect, but no need to jump on a soapbox. I don't think there is any problem with marking some points against a game if you think there are elements there that detract from enjoyment storywise, but there should be some room I would of thought to leave some of that open to readers taste.

If your not writing a review, well then go for broke write whatever the hell you want. If you are writing a review however, in my opinion you have some responsibility to the readers and developers to score it on it's merits.

Like others have said, when reviewing games as art rather than consumer products, it is possible and even necessary to respond to their social and political implications and arguments. If a reviewer personally feels that the Male Gaze in camera work is objectifying, and that a game rife with that is a worse artistic product, he can express that.

There is no danger here. Even a review that is factually inaccurate or rude does not endanger the game or the readers--it will be dismissed by the majority who write with care and caution.

Fact is, whether you personally care about the examples from past games or not, a reviewer caring about them is never a problem. It's just more information for you to take in and consider.

There is no danger in criticism, only in being afraid to know and experience more thought.

Personally, I try to give money to games that I respect. Respect, for me, comes from a game that respects its subjects. So, I listen to Arthur's point and consider it.

Leah Alexander and others argued that Bayonetta 1 was sex positive feminism, that Bayonetta was confident in her body and self and not being exploited. Arthur is distinguishing the camera as a demeaning tool, focusing on her sexual parts to titillate the presumed hetero male viewer. It'll be interesting to hear what others think about this.

@planetfunksquad: Nooope. I personally can't think of an example. It was more of a hypothetical really. In other words, I don't have a problem with anyone notable out there reviewing games at the moment, but if I did, that would probably be the reason why.

@excast: I would say that FF7 might suffer some in reviews based on modern standards; however, it also became a classic because it EXCEEDED its contemporary standards by so much. If you copy pasted that same game into today's market its writing and characters might not hold up and there is nothing wrong with that.

I doubt FF15 will receive heavy criticism for its "potentially" all male cast so long as the game handles that cast well. If the entire road trip story is a series of dudes discussing chicks for hours on end then there might be some flack, but I don't know enough about 15 to say.

Either way I don't see bringing up these issues as a problem. It is not much different than when Dan did his Metro Quick Look and ragged on the game for a while. He had an opinion on the game that colored his perspective and so long as you know that coming in and take that bias into account there is no problem.

Personal social views aren't helpful to me as a consumer.

I think it should be left to the discretion of the reviewer but I personally think it detracts from the review.

A reviewer should write about a game however they want. If the social aspects of a game matter to the reviewer, he/she should write about it.

Surely it very much depends on the game. I'd want a reviewer to write proportionatley about their thoughts on a game - and if, for whatever reason, their opinions on the game happen to stray into a lot of social issues, that's fine. To use some non-sexism-related examples, Alex's review of Blackwater contains a lot of discussion of the social issues around the game - which is totally understandable. Hell, even Jeff's review of Metal Gear Solid 1 for Gamespot had a section basically telling the game not to shove it's own anti-nuclear message down his throat. If reviewers feel that social or political issues are relevant to the discussion of a game, they should absolutley include it in their reviews - alongside anything else they feel is appropriate to the discussion of the game. The stuff just has to be talked about proportionatley.

I feel like it was refreshing at first to read reviews that considered games in a larger overall context but the stuff written nowadays comes off as extremely self-serious and pretentious. Like, do you think Roger Ebert would rant on and on about the degradation of women in games like Bayonetta or Onechanbara, or would he just say it's silly and kind of dumb, and move on?

The Christian Science Monitor reviews movies under the standards of their social issues or social preferences. They're included in Rotten Tomatoes metascores. They punish movies for including elements that they find sinful and objectionable.

So yes, they have the ability to do so and some in fact do so. I don't find the Christian Science Monitor's reviews useful from a consumer standpoint for the same reason I don't find Polygon's reviews useful; I don't agree with their theories or their moral posturing.

I do like that the Bayonetta 2 review might make some people realize that it's never been about 'emphasizing consent' or 'emphasizing agency'... Bayonetta has the most sexual agency of any character ever, and she basically represents 'enthusiastic consent' and yet even she is being sexually assaulted because a camera is looking at her while she cavorts towards it. It doesn't matter whether you make the female characters 'strong', it doesn't matter if you make the protagonist confident and literally using sexuality as a weapon, gratuitous sexual content will be called sexist and misogynistic because these people do not want it in the video games they play. And that's fine.

@veektarius: I feel extremely uncomfortable with the notion that a reviewer's opinion has to reflect his audience to be useful. I prefer to think that a useful reviewer can articulate why he thinks a game deserves a certain score, highlighting the good as well as the bad, and present his case to the reader. It's up to the reader to weigh the arguments and make up his mind for himself.

Anyway, back to the question: personally, I think it depends on the game and the reviewer. If a game's portrayal of certain groups is "problematic" but is limited to a few occasions, it's probably not worth mentioning beyond a sentence or two. If a game beats the player over the head with it, that's more of a problem. How a reviewer handles those is at their discretion.

I dunno. I most likely wouldn't get a lot from someone reviewing a Saw movie whose main complaint was that it is too violent and the blood bothered him. At some point a reviewer does need to have some kind of connection with the people reading their stuff or they are just talking to the wind.

I realize that some people want to turn all reviews into some sort of purely "objective" consumer advocacy pieces, but while I see value to representing those views (nobody likes getting ripped off), I think that reviews are and should continue to be primarily subjective opinion piece. People have different tastes and sensibilities, and I think it's only natural that it would be reflected in a person's honest review of a piece of creative media.

If you don't like gore, you're probably never going to like a Hostel movie or a Mortal Kombat game regardless of how well made it is, and you'd probably never be able to completely separate the production quality from the subject matter you find distasteful no matter how hard you try.

Your best bet is to find people with tastes and sensibilities that are largely in line with your own and weigh their opinions more heavily in your purchasing decisions. Likewise, don't be afraid to actually read a review to get a better sense of what impacted that bottom line score - if the review focuses on things you don't care about, you should probably just move on to another review.

@gaff said:

Yes, exactly. Critical writing that challenges my preconceived notions are just as valuable to me as the ones reinforcing them. I'm not interested in reading the dozenth positive review of Bayonetta — give me the one that says something different.

I guess I am just not sure what is gained by giving the Hostel or Mortal Kombat review to the staff member approaching the thing with that level of negative bias that has little to do with the product itself, but how the reviewer views the world.

The reviewer can write anything they want in their review. However, readers have the right to disagree and ignore that review. All people need to do is find reviewers and outlets they agree with and concentrate on them, and get out of the mindset of "I have to read every website!". A perfect example of this is Bayonetta 2, if you want the more social minded side read Arthur Gies's review, if you want a more game focused review read Dan's review.

Sure that wouldn't be useful, but no one writes that review. People usually complain that Saw has bad writing and uses gore as a crutch. Also arguing that a slasher movie shouldn't have gore is not the same as saying an action game could do with less stripper scenes. One is core to the genre and one is an aesthetic choice that permeates a game that has top notch mechanics.

This is where the question gets a bit sticky.

A review should be nothing more or less than a summary of the reviewer's personal experience with the game. And the more perspectives we get through different reviewers, the more useful they'll be to different types of gamers. But in a world where (unfortunately) metacritic matters, if those personal experiences are skewed by some kind of larger societal bias it can negatively, and arguably unfairly, affect the success of a given game.

As you point out, some sites may come from a place where they dislike seeing homosexual anything, so they'd most likely rate a game like Gone Home lower just because of its content, rather than its quality as an experience. Which alone, is fine. If that reviewer didn't like anything they're free to express it in their review. But if those reviews are added to a metacritic score, the perception of the game overall would get dragged down due to nothing but a reviewer's larger worldview which is unrelated to the game itself.

This is really more of a problem spawned by metacritic rather than reviewer's "social views", but with how games are perceived today and how review scores still impact sales (not to mention employee bonuses, likelihood of a publisher greenlighting a sequel, etc.), it's not a question that can be as easily dismissed as some already have in this thread.

@joshwent: Then the issue is with metacritic based bonuses and with metacritic's choice of reviewers that effect the critical score. Don't blame reviewers for the damage a score aggregation site causes.

Which is fine, though I also feel that there is this growing undercurrent that if you are just fine with the game focused review than you are some kind of neanderthal.

@excast said:

No, here's why. Different people have different views & values and different readers want different things. You may not be interested in a social commentary score on a game, but there are other other people who probably do. If you don't like what an outlet has to say or how they formulate their opinion go read another one whose methods you value more.

We already have too much lockstep among the gaming press when it comes to consensus opinion on large titles. How many 9/10 or betters did GTA V receive? Where the press lets us down is if they all agree. We need more diversity in thought, not less.

I may not like Arthur Gies and how he (or really much of Polygon in general) scores games, but that is his right to score games the way he does and I'd never want to deprive him of that.

Perhaps the largest negative effect of Metacritic is the way it promotes this incredibly toxic idea that there is one "objective true score" for a game.

I haven't read the Polygon review so I can't comment on that specifically. But when I read a review I am specifically looking for purchasing advice (and by that I don't mean the notorious "objective review" nonsense), not personal musings on someone's moral dilemma with a creative choice. Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly fine if that's part of the review, but it can't be the only thing in the review. That makes it completely useless to me.

Deeper game criticism is definitely interesting and should be explored, but I think a review specifically should at the very least cover all the basics. Otherwise it's sort of like someone reviewing a bottle of wine by instead of describing the underlying tapestry of flavors they go on and on about how silly the label is. It's just pointless information that does the reader no good.

Okay... like I said above, "This is really more of a problem spawned by metacritic rather than reviewer's 'social views'". I'm clearly not blaming reviewers in any way.

Just adding that in our world as it is now, this topic is a bit more complex than just dismissing it entirely.

Isn't Armond White a known troll?

On topic, reviewers should be allowed to write about what they want. If Arthur Gies was disturbed by Bayonetta getting upskirted by the camera multiple times, he has the right to bring that across as a detriment to the game. I don't generally read Polygon as I'm not interested in social messages as criticism. And that's OK. Put simply,if you don't like to read about social commentary, move on to the dozens of gaming sites that don't dwell on the topic.

I love reading reviews that come from different places and that can articulate different points of view. I honestly don't agree with everything I read, that would be silly, but I like seeing how one detail may be overlooked by one individual, and how it can change the gaming experience for another entirely. Some people can overlook janky mechanics if the story is fantastic (hello OG Mass Effect) and some people will not enjoy a game with bad controls no matter how good the story is. Some people may not enjoy a game's art style or animations to the point of it ruining their play time, while others may not even notice, or may love the art style. These are all things that interest me as a consumer. That's why I tend to read a sampling of reviews from major sites, and some minor ones, and see what a general feeling on a game is. Other details, such as what you are talking about with social commentary, is something that I consider but don't weigh heavily in whether a game interests me or not.

I tend to read reviews just to get a basic idea of what a number of reviewers feel about the game. If I know I share similar tastes with specific reviewer, I will weigh that reviewer's opinion more in my mind. Other than that, I view reviews as something to digest, but not so much as a way to decide what I purchase. It may warn me of a specific issue, such as bugs, lack or dearth of features, or so on, and that may change my opinion to purchase a game. Other issues mentioned, such as social issues and what they mean in a larger sense are things which carry much less weight with me, but they are good things to know about going in so that I can view the materials and come to my own conclusions about the game.

I am in no way saying someone like Gies doesn't have a right to write whatever he wants. I'm fine with different views. My only issue is when said views, which are sometimes based more on personal social opinions than the actual content being looked at, sometimes give an impression of a product that is neither helpful nor fair. While that is up to each individual to decide, it might go back to why a site like Polygon has experienced some struggles.

@excast: Who says a player who focuses on gameplay-centric reviews over societal views is a neanderthal? And why would you care to begin with even if they say so. Anyone closeminded enough to call you an idiot for your views is not worth the 2 seconds it takes to process the insult.

@joshwent: I took

This is really more of a problem spawned by metacritic rather than reviewer's "social views", but with how games are perceived today and how review scores still impact sales (not to mention employee bonuses, likelihood of a publisher greenlighting a sequel, etc.), it's not a question that can be as easily dismissed as some already have in this thread.

to mean that even though this is a metacritic issue, reviewers that express social views are still problematic because those realities exist (bonuses and whatnot). I think that the sooner the industry stops putting the review score on a pedestal, the better off the industry will be on all sides. Critics can write without worrying about their reviews taking food off of a table and game makers won't have to chase after some odd esoteric score. I'm sorry if I came off as argumentative, I just thought the back half of your statement meant that you were arguing against social commentary because it could effect developers unfairly.

Well for example I recently followed Alexa Ray Corriea on Twitter after her appearances on the morning show. She is extremely cool and a hell of a quest. Yesterday I see her retweet this.

And yanno, that is up to them if they wish to feel that way. It just seems that there is this constant need among some figures in the industry, many of them women, to degrade, belittle, and demean what they perceive to be "straight male gamers". It's as if a person couldn't just enjoy a game like Bayonetta because it has amazing controls and plays great. They are just dudes getting their rocks off by looking at a half naked female character. I guess a part of me is just growing a little tired of constantly feeling as if I am being lectured to, and if I disagree than I am somehow holding women back or degrading them.

I don't possibly see any issue with a reviewer bringing up anything they find objectionable about a game. It's THEIR review. They're relaying their experiences with and thoughts about the game. And it's obviously fine to not share those opinions. I haven't read the polygon review (or any bayo 2 review, because I knew I was going to buy it from the second it was announced) and maybe it's written poorly or something, but I don't see an issue at all.

If you know you don't think the stuff he brings up will bother you, disregard that part of the fucking review and go on with your day.

As for metacritic and bonuses bound to review scores, that's a whole other issue which Sessler already put to bed 5 years ago.

@excast: Not only are there dudes who enjoy the mechanics and dudes who enjoy the art design (arguably the vision as a whole), there are dudes who enjoy the mechanics AND the sexual content at the same time! Not only are there dudes who enjoy the mechanics and the sexual content at the same time, there are LADIES who enjoy the mechanics and the sexual content at the same time! There are vagina-havers who enjoy Bayonetta. There are chicks, birds, girlies, ladies, womyn, dames and mademoiselles who get their rocks off to Bayonetta pushing her ass towards the camera. And who is anyone to tell them they're wrong?

Well then it's pretty simple right? Don't read Polygon then. I rarely ever do. There are lots of other choices out there. If enough people don't read the site, then they will either change how they do things or go out of business. In fact they already have neutered the best part of Polygon (the longform articles), which while very unfortunate they certainly have shown a capacity for change.

As for whether their work is helpful or fair

I happen to agree with your assessment about their work, but that doesn't mean their readers agree with us. In fact I know there are people who quite like what they do. And I think Polygon has a right to express their opinion however intellectually lazily I think they often seem to come by it and I think their readers have a right to read Polygon's opinion and make their own decision as to whether it is helpful or fair.

What else is there to say?

@thatpinguino: I agree entirely.

I was the one who made a thread lauding Rev3 Games when they decided to get rid of scores altogether in lieu of a sort of review summary sentence (only to disappointingly find that I was pretty much the only one who cared).

I was basically saying above that Metacritic alone causes this friction when it comes to people expressing their larger worldview through review scores, so that's something that more prominent media folks should still be talking about. When someone says, "Well, he's just a SJ_ so of course his score is lower. These people are ruining games!". The rational response of, "That's just his personal opinion, if you don't agree then just read another review." doesn't completely resolve the conflict, because that low score could very really impact that game and its future (and the people that made it) negatively.

To put it more simply, the prominence of aggregate scores turns this absolute non-issue into yet another point of stupid contention.

this and a good viewable ethics policy with real teeth helps.

Yep. That would be an fantastic.

@excast: It just seems that there is this constant need among some figures in the industry, many of them women, to degrade, belittle, and demean what they perceive to be "straight male gamers".

But nothing in the tweets you quoted is demeaning, belittling, or degrading to straight male gamers. She didn't tell anybody not to play or enjoy the game, nor did she tell anybody to stop making games with sexualized characters. She's giving her opinion about subtext (or in the case of Bayonetta, just straight-up text) in a video game. That's literally it. She didn't say that she hates sexualized content, or that she thinks you should hate it too, or that you're wrong for not hating it. All she said is that she's disappointed that it's being ignored in the discussion around the game. That's all!

I think it's important not to conflate criticism of a media product with saying it shouldn't exist. Criticism is okay, it's healthy. Differing opinions are okay. You are allowed to like the things you like for any reason you want to, and other people are allowed to dislike them for any reason they want to, and you're both allowed to tell anybody you'd like to how you personally feel.

The notion that reviews of creative works should advocate for "the consumer" irks me.

I've seen your posts throughout this thread and to me you're basically half way there in basically remaining in the same position but otherwise being equipped to better interpret these kinds of situations. First, what I mean when I say these kinds of situations is being confronted with personal social views or otherwise moral statements about games which may be in a review, maybe not. The advice I would give to close the loop is to understand that there's no shame in considering a differing point of view and respecting where it's coming from. When a review like Arthur's is written, maybe you disagree that it would affect your experience and I want to emphasize that's totally okay but also respect that it's totally valid for them to feel that way and if you're feeling adventurous, try and sympathize with that viewpoint. It's not crazy to say that social views are important to varying degrees and it's better to be respectful of them and even give it some thought and still ultimately be in the same position than to dismiss it and perhaps engage in negative reaction against it. The reason this approach is useful is that it can seem like you're being moralized to and if you continue reading into it, displaying some sense of elitism. If you take the advised approach, that shouldn't happen and we reach the place we should be which is a collection of diverse views from different people.

In effect it's a question of tweaking the perspective or approach but not the general conclusion. Granted, this isn't full proof because one could have rather extreme views about race and gender and use the excuse that they "respectfully disagree" but I think with most people, who are relatively neutral on these matters, then it can behoove them to take this approach. Who knows, after a while you might find someone who articulates something like this in the right way and effectively changes your view a bit in that direction even if it's only because of how they said it. I know that I often disagree with the approach that many critics take when discussing social issues in games (largely because they're critics and journalists and not academics which is obviously fine) but it's often merely disagreeing with their approach or word choice and not that they do it or that I don't understand where they're coming from.

(By the way, I don't necessarily assume that Alexa herself feels that way about Bayonetta 2. She feels Anita is an interesting voice and one who pulls no punches so it could be as much for that if not more than out and out agreement. However, that's ultimately a fault of the lack of the nuance of the system more than anything. There's no absolute ruleset governing how one interprets retweets and often they're meant to demonstrate disagreement as much as agreement. Having met Alexa myself, I can say it's because she at the very least thinks that's interesting.)

To echo this idea, "Quick Looks" and "Lets Play" have overtaken the role of reviews for me. You get the impressions and feelings of the player immediate and in the context of the game which seem way more useful for "gut check" purchases.

Which goes back to what I wrote earlier where I pondered how reading something could "be a disservice". If I feel something I am reading is bunk or poor I stop reading it.