My general opinion is that personal social views are absolutely something that should be part of a review. Reviews are fundamentally opinions, and I would argue that it is largely impossible for anyone to prevent deeply held beliefs from informing their opinion on a particular subject, even if they try really, really hard. If a reviewer doesn't like Bayonetta because of how they feel it portrays women, that's perfectly O.K. That social view is part of the author's opinion, and if it was distracting enough to limit his or her enjoyment of a particular game, than that's something that should certainly be expressed in the review. That said, it isn't the social view itself, but rather how that social view is expressed that makes for a "good" or a "bad" review.
To be reductive, when a writer is saying that they like, dislike, or are kind of "meh" about a game, they are really making a thesis statement for their review. A "good" review is one that will take that thesis statement and defend it in an intelligent and cogent manner. Even if you don't necessarily agree with the ultimate score or opinion, you can at least see where the reviewer is coming from. By contrast a "bad" review is going to leave you feeling a disconnect between the score the game is given, and what the reviewer actually wrote about their experience. Consider the following examples, which I totally made up on the spot without actually playing the game. Maybe I can get a job working for a publisher's PR and Marketing Department? (Ha. I kid. Or do I?)
EXAMPLE 1 - "Bayonetta 2 is a game that has awesome combat, and an enjoyably ridiculous plot, all of which make for great fun when it works. However, its constant fetishization of the female form left me feeling uncomfortable and frequently embarrassed while playing. It's repeated focus on Bayonetta as a sex object instead of a kick-ass heroine is something which took me out of the flow of the gameplay and made me enjoy my playing time significantly less. Such a portrayal of the title character is as distracting as it is unnecessary - I don't need gratuitous shots of Bayonetta's rear end to enjoy the over-the-top story or addictive combat mechanics." - Score: 7.5
EXAMPLE 2 - "Bayonetta 2 is a blast to play. Whether you are chaining up massive combos using ridiculously over the top and beautifully rendered special moves or simply enjoying the zaniness and energy of the story line, Bayonetta 2 is a experience well worth the $60-plus price of admission. Years from now, it's a game we'll be talking about as part of the pantheon of great action games, right along side the best of the Devil May Cry and God of War series. However, the portrayal of Bayonetta leaves a lot to be desired, particularly given this is 2014." - Score: 7.5
Now, both reviews gave the game the same score, and both took issue with the way the character is portrayed. However, I'd argue that Example 1 was a "good" (or at least "better") review, because it did a better job of expressing exactly what it was about the portrayal of Bayonetta that was so off-putting. For example, the review mentioned what the reviewer felt was gratuitous focus on Bayonetta's body, and that he or she was uncomfortable and embarrassed to be playing the game. Not exactly something you would call a positive. It would be difficult to read that review and not guess that those issues were going to affect the score somehow. In other words, the author's social opinion was used to effectively explain and defend the thesis that Bayonetta 2 deserved a 7.5.
By contrast, Example 2 is what I would think of as a "bad" review. I can tell the author has an opinion about how Bayonetta was portrayed, but that opinion is never fully engaged with. Instead, it is thrown in right at the end as an afterthought. As a reader, I'm having a much harder time working out how, if at all, the author's social opinion informed the 7.5 score. Was the portrayal of Bayonetta really that bad, or were the story and gameplay not quite as awesome as the author made them seem? If the portrayal really was that bad, it would seem to demand more attention given the praise lavished on the game. But if it wasn't that distracting, why mention it at all? The author isn't taking their social view and using it to defend their thesis effectively. It's just sort of there to be there, which makes for an ineffective review.
Log in to comment