Support NeoGAF

[Sinatar]

So apparently the fact that this mercenary company that is supposedly being glorified betrays you, frames you, and gets shut down by you doesn't factor into this at all? It's certainly trying to sell the lifestyle at first but then completely pulls the rug out from under you and shows you why such organizations are bad.

Of course to know this the reviewer would have actually had to play past the first level.

 

[ArtG]

What you're saying is if somebody comes out with a game about Jew killing, that reviewers should first review it and tell us if its fun or not, or has a nice steady frame rate. Then, somewhere else where the political discussion won't taint the review, write an editorial about how Jew killing games are bad?

Again, like I said to the other poster. WHY IN GOD'S FUCK WOULD A GAME ABOUT JEW KILLING EVER...EVER...EVER...be released on a game console?!

Show me where Army of Two ever reached that sort of level or GTFO.

 

[Flynn]

If he's factually inaccurate, misleading or omissive it's a entirely valid criticism of the quality of his film. If you simply don't like the opinions he expresses, that's not a significant criticism.

Sure it is. That's what criticism is for! You refute his opinions. State why he's wrong. Argue against the position he's taking and explain how the film misses the point.

 

[Slavik81]

Again, like I said to the other poster. WHY IN GOD'S FUCK WOULD A GAME ABOUT JEW KILLING EVER...EVER...EVER...be released on a game console?!

Show me where Army of Two ever reached that sort of level or GTFO.

Does the extent really matter? Where do you draw the line? Why not talk about it in proportion to how important it is?

 

[Flynn]

Again, like I said to the other poster. WHY IN GOD'S FUCK WOULD A GAME ABOUT JEW KILLING EVER...EVER...EVER...be released on a game console?!

Show me where Army of Two ever reached that sort of level or GTFO.

Okay so somewhere between jew Killing and Army of Two there's an imaginary line where suddenly everything stops having any political context.

 

[border]

Do you actually think that a game that actively promoted rape, genocide, abortion, fascism and segregation would ever see the light of day on any video game console?

How is that question even relevant? It's a hypothetical situation used to prove a point. Depending on the context, sooner or later you will start to expect reviewers to examine and critique a game's moral dimension. It's idiocy to say that they never should.

 

[Slavik81]

Sure it is. That's what criticism is for! You refute his opinions. State why he's wrong. Argue against the position he's taking and explain how the film misses the point.

You can't refute opinions. You can only refute facts. Ultimately, if neither of you are logically or factually incorrect, your job is to take it down to the fundamental assumptions from which your arguments differ. You can go no further because neither of you have any logic or factual evidence that proves those assumptions.

 

[Flynn]

You can't refute opinions. You can only refute facts. Ultimately, if neither of you are logically or factually incorrect, your job is to take it down to the fundamental assumptions from which your arguments differ. You can go no further because neither of you have any logic or factual evidence that proves those assumptions.

So is it a fact that killing an innocent person is bad? How do you argue that?

 

[Foxtastical]

:lol at the people that think games reviews should be objective. It's fucking impossible to achieve objectivity in normal journalism (fair and balanced coverage is something different) so I don't see how in the hell we expect the same from game reviews.

 

[ArtG]

Okay so somewhere between jew Killing and Army of Two there's an imaginary line where suddenly everything stops having any political context.

The point is that you're going into extremes to try and prove a "point". The difference being, Holocaust: The Game, isn't going to be released in Q4 2008, nor will it ever be. You're trying to equate a genocide simulator with Army of Two.

How is that question even relevant? It's a hypothetical situation used to prove a point. Depending on the context, sooner or later you will start to expect reviewers to examine and critique a game's moral dimension. It's idiocy to say that they never should.

EDIT: Read above. Going to an extreme to prove a point that at some threshold, reviewers should inject personal morals into a review isn't a valid argument. You can justify almost any argument by going off the deep-end with hypothetical situations that will never see the light of day.

 

[Slavik81]

So is it a fact that killing an innocent person is bad? How do you argue that?

It would stem from an axiom. A fundamental assumption about the way the world works.

 

[Flynn]

The point is that you're going into extremes to try and prove a "point". The difference being, Holocaust: The Game, isn't going to be released in Q4 2008, nor will it ever be. You're trying to equate a genocide simulator with Army of Two.

I'm not equating them. I'm presenting a scale. At one point is genocide. Somewhere below it is Army of Two.

You haven't yet told me where the cut off is. Where can we discuss the political implications and where can't we?

 

[Brashnir]

Sorry, but that's just crap. If a reviewer finds something morally objectionable they should call it out. Anything short of that is intellectually dishonest.

I'm really disappointed that so many people aren't ready for this kind of discussion.

What you're saying is if somebody comes out with a game about Jew killing, that reviewers should first review it and tell us if its fun or not, or has a nice steady frame rate. Then, somewhere else where the political discussion won't taint the review, write an editorial about how Jew killing games are bad?

that is so far beyond what this game is about that it's not even relevant to the discussion. However, I'll humor you and respond in kind.

In the case of said jew-killing game, It would have been discussed to death, ad nauseum, via all different forms of media long prior to the game ever being reviewed. A reviewer should mention the controversy, and inform buyers that the content in the game is potentially offensive. Going on a tirade against the game's content would be out of place, even in this ridiculous circumstance.

 

[Flynn]

It would stem from an axiom. A fundamental assumption about the way the world works.

We're not talking about logical proofs here. We're talking about opinion.

 

[border]

The point is that you're going into extremes to try and prove a "point". The difference being, Holocaust: The Game, isn't going to be released in Q4 2008, nor will it ever be. You're trying to equate a genocide simulator with Army of Two.

Try reading. I explicitly said "Whether or not Army of Two was an appropriate game to bring up politics is another issue". That's not equating -- it's making a blindingly obvious distinction between Army of Two and rape/genocide games.

RTS simulations involving Nazi concentration camps have already been released. No need to wait until Q4 2008.

 

[OmonRa]

if you play through the game it becomes rather obvious that the game isn't glorifying PMC's at all... nor is it shitting on the army. It's rather the other way around.

 

[polyh3dron]

Why even post? this is as annoying as trolling, tbh

Too bad he posted the correct response.

Gamespot :lol indeed.

 

[Flynn]

Really, what we have here is a segment of the gaming public that don't want politics and gaming to mix. I'd argue that it's way too late for that. Maybe game critics have been remiss for not calling games out sooner on this kind of thing.

Now we're stuck with a huge segment of the population who will throw a fit if you happen to mention that you're uncomfortable with a game's message. That's a real bummer.

 

[Slavik81]

We're not talking about logical proofs here. We're talking about opinion.

Axioms are not just for math and logic, though that's their main purpose. Every field has at least a few axioms.

Anyways, normative statements should still have a logical backing, even if they are not falsifiable. Like I said before, you trace that logical backbone as if it were a positive statement all the way back to where you encounter something that cannot be proven. It gives you a clearer view of where you really disagree.

Really, what we have here is a segment of the gaming public that don't want politics and gaming to mix. I'd argue that it's way too late for that. Maybe game critics have been remiss for not calling games out sooner on this kind of thing.

Now we're stuck with a huge segment of the population who will throw a fit if you happen to mention that you're uncomfortable with a game's message. That's a real bummer.

Warren Spector's reading this thread and turning in his grave bed.

 

[Flynn]

Axioms are not just for math and logic, though that's their main purpose. Every field has at least a few axioms.

Anyways, normative statements should still have a logical backing, even if they are not falsifiable. Like I said before, you trace that logical backbone as if it were a positive statement all the way back to where you encounter something that cannot be proven. It gives you a clearer view of where you really disagree.

I see the appeal of your methodology here. I'm gonna think on this a little more.

Everybody else:

Is this Zero Punctuation review of Uncharted unprofessional or too political?

 

[ArtG]

I'm not equating them. I'm presenting a scale. At one point is genocide. Somewhere below it is Army of Two.

You haven't yet told me where the cut off is. Where can we discuss the political implications and where can't we?

Yes, you are equating them. You're saying that if Holocaust: The Game came out, a reviewer would be well within their rights to mark down the game because of the subject matter. Therefore, they are within their bounds to do the same for Army of Two, with no such evidence to suggest that they are even supportive of PMCs. (Though, opinions about what Army of Two says have ranged from it says nothing about them all the way to the entire story means jack shit and is just a mindless shooter.)

I have no cut-off point for personal morals in a game review, because I don't think there is a place for them currently. Even if a game dealt with a hot-button issue, the reviewer shouldn't say that it is a worse game BECAUSE it says that we should or should not have have invaded Iraq. It's not their job to tell me that I will dislike a game because it espouses this or that, it's their job to tell me whether the game is good or not. If they want to include a disclaimer that "opponents of the Iraq War may have a tough time swallowing the plot and the story," fine. That's completely fair.

But don't assume that because you have a political opinion, the rest of the game goes out of the window. That's unfair to the people that worked on the game and it's unfair to potential buyers.

 

[Brashnir]

I see the appeal of your methodology here. I'm gonna think on this a little more.

Everybody else:

Is this Zero Punctuation review of Uncharted unprofessional or too political?

Yahtzee is more interested in being funny than honestly reviewing a game. While they may be labels as "reviews," they're clearly more on the side of satire.

 

[Slavik81]

Yahtzee is more interested in being funny than honestly reviewing a game. While they may be labels as "reviews," they're clearly more on the side of satire.

But there's always that hint of truth to them. Often overblown, but he doesn't just make things up.

I look at it kind of like Dilbert, or something like that. There's always that hint of truth that makes it funny.

 

[Flynn]

It's not their job to tell me that I will dislike a game because it espouses this or that, it's their job to tell me whether the game is good or not.

You're absolutely correct here. It's not their job to tell you if you'll dislike a game because of the politics. It's their job to tell you if they disliked the game because of the politics.

It's your job to decide if you agree.

 

[border]

You're saying that if Holocaust: The Game came out, a reviewer would be well within their rights to mark down the game because of the subject matter.

And most people would expect them to do so. Which is why it makes little sense to say that morality has no place in critique. It is a part of criticism of every other artform. At this point, it's just people drawing different lines over whether or not morality should be brought up.

But don't assume that because you have a political opinion, the rest of the game goes out of the window. That's unfair to the people that worked on the game and it's unfair to potential buyers.

The rest of the game doesn't go out the window. It is discussed in the 5-8 other paragraphs of the Army of Two review that nobody complaining about it seems to have bothered reading.

 

[ArtG]

You're absolutely correct here. It's not their job to tell you if you'll dislike a game because of the politics. It's their job to tell you if they disliked the game because of the politics.

Sorry, no.

A video game is so much more than a story to be told, and if they are completely disregarding a game because they simply disliked its politics--they deserve to be fired on the spot.

 

[BigBoss]

What the fuck is up with the spoilers in the second paragraph of the review? I haven't played Army of Two yet but I imagine thats a pretty big plot twist, at least put a spoiler warning or something.

 

[seattle6418]

:lol at the people that think games reviews should be objective. It's fucking impossible to achieve objectivity in normal journalism (fair and balanced coverage is something different) so I don't see how in the hell we expect the same from game reviews.

that's what i've been saying since the start of the thread, but i think you made it more clear than my attempts.

a lot of people are also confusing judging if he's voicing opinions/how he is voicing them.

 

[Flynn]

Sorry, no.

A video game is so much more than a story to be told, and if they are completely disregarding a game because they simply disliked its politics--they deserve to be fired on the spot.

How is 1000 words of game review completely disregarding anything?

 

[Helzown]

Man the comment these guys made about Army of Two on their sitemade me laugh so hard. I couldn't believe they were serious. I mean, are you freaking kidding me? There reaction over the way these guys go about their business in the game was a little over the top. They needed a Whaaaaaambulance for sure. Maybe EA can buy em out

Hopefully there's some sort of psychedelic in my gum, and I didn't really see you say that.

 

[ArtG]

And most people would expect them to do so. Which is why it makes little sense to say that morality has no place in critique. It is a part of criticism of every other artform. At this point, it's just people drawing different lines over whether or not morality should be brought up.

Critique and a product review are two different things. I'm of the opinion that game reviews are buyer's guides. Everyone out there that sees games in their current form as "artwork" are completely up their own asses and are expecting too much. It's in deep connection with this cockamamie belief that some gamers have that games need to fit in with literature and film. Literature and film are narrative devices and ways to convey thoughts. That's their sole purpose. Games deliver an experience that is multi-faceted and multi-layered, and the story takes a back-seat to, you know, the game.

Perhaps that's the fundamentally schism in what I see in reviews and what you do.

 

[Kabouter]

So apparently the fact that this mercenary company that is supposedly being glorified betrays you, frames you, and gets shut down by you doesn't factor into this at all? It's certainly trying to sell the lifestyle at first but then completely pulls the rug out from under you and shows you why such organizations are bad.

Of course to know this the reviewer would have actually had to play past the first level.

Well, it doesn't technically portray such organizations as bad per se, just as sensitive to abuse.

 

[ArtG]

How is 1000 words of game review completely disregarding anything?

I'd say that about 3/4ths of the review actually deals with the game, and then the other 1/4 deals with whatever the hell Dodson thinks about this or that.

(I'll post all "offending" words, if you want, just let me know. But I'm sure you can scroll through the thread and find all the words that people took "offense" to.

 

[buckfutter]

Critique and a product review are two different things. I'm of the opinion that game reviews are buyer's guides. Everyone out there that sees games in their current form as "artwork" are completely up their own asses and are expecting too much. It's in deep connection with this cockamamie belief that some gamers have that games need to fit in with literature and film. Literature and film are narrative devices and ways to convey thoughts. That's their sole purpose. Games deliver an experience that is multi-faceted and multi-layered, and the story takes a back-seat to, you know, the game.

Perhaps that's the fundamentally schism in what I see in reviews and what you do.

And games are never going to be perceived as a valid medium for art when people like you expect them to be some intangible, multi-faceted "thing" that, however complex, should never contain meaning. Or when people expect critics not to write critiques, but "buyers guides".

Films and literature do not necessarily need to convey narrative or "thoughts", either. You shouldn't pigeon-hole mediums, especially young and fluid ones.

 

[ArtG]

And games are never going to be perceived as a valid medium for art when people like you expect them to be some intangible, multi-faceted "thing" that, however complex, should never contain meaning. Or when people expect critics not to write critiques, but "buyers guides".

I'm all for pushing into thought-provoking, mature areas in gaming. Hell, my favorite games are ones with deep, meaningful stories. (Bioshock and Okami being recent examples) But I don't seek acceptance from people for playing games. I'm not ashamed to play games. I don't care what literature and film do. Games aren't literature or films and never will be. Gaming will have to carve its own niche somewhere in middle of fun and meaning.

But I hate this mentally that games, in their current form, are something to be ashamed of.

 

[godmoder]

.

 

[Flynn]

Critique and a product review are two different things.

I guess that really is the fundamental difference here. And Gamespot really hasn't had a track record for critique. So maybe the audience is expecting one thing and in this case got a little something else.

I'll tell you, though. I'm expecting (or maybe just secretly hoping for) the pendulum to swing towards critique. It's just so much more interesting and stimulating to read an entertaining opinion piece than a rote, by-the-numbers rundown of all the features, bells and whistles.

I think that's why Penny Arcade and Zero Punctuation are so popular. They really are reviews. Tycho's essays and Yahtzee's rants are cogent, funny and entertaining critiques of games. What Gamespot and so many other sites do is simply informative.

And honestly, I've been a consumer of media for a long time. I know, for the most part, if I'm going to like a movie or game before I've even played it. I'm familiar enough with all the genres, creators and whatnot to know what to expect. Sure, I'm sometimes surprised, but I don't really put that on reviewers for not properly informing me or the creators for somehow tricking me. It just turns out that I didn't like the thing as much as I thought I would.

I don't think any amount of words on a website could ever prevent that from happening. Nor would I really want them to.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

When violent videogames are banned, and you wonder what on earth happened, come back to this thread. Make a cup of tea. And drink in the heady taste of history.

 

[Brashnir]

I guess that really is the fundamental difference here. And Gamespot really hasn't had a track record for critique. So maybe the audience is expecting one thing and in this case got a little something else.

I'll tell you, though. I'm expecting (or maybe just secretly hoping for) the pendulum to swing towards critique. It's just so much more interesting and stimulating to read an entertaining opinion piece than a rote, by-the-numbers rundown of all the features, bells and whistles.

I think that's why Penny Arcade and Zero Punctuation are so popular. They really are reviews. Tycho's essays and Yahtzee's rants are cogent, funny and entertaining critiques of games. What Gamespot and so many other sites do is simply informative.

And honestly, I've been a consumer of media for a long time. I know, for the most part, if I'm going to like a movie or game before I've even played it. I'm familiar enough with all the genres, creators and whatnot to know what to expect. Sure, I'm sometimes surprised, but I don't really put that on reviewers for not properly informing me or the creators for somehow tricking me. It just turns out that I didn't like the thing as much as I thought I would.

I don't think any amount of words on a website could ever prevent that from happening. Nor would I really want them to.

You honestly believe this? Do you also think the Daily Show is the only real news source?

 

[Zer0]

if you play through the game it becomes rather obvious that the game isn't glorifying PMC's at all... nor is it shitting on the army. It's rather the other way around.

that´s the problem of the ppl who are defending the review,they havent played the game

the game ITS A FUCKING SATIRE of the PMC,yes...a FUCKING SATIRE

 

[blame space]

You honestly believe this? Do you also think the Daily Show is the only real news source?

LOL YEAH I THINK HE DOES!

 

[Flynn]

You honestly believe this? Do you also think the Daily Show is the only real news source?

Well, I'd rather take an icepick in the eye than watch what passes for news on Fox or CNN. Haven't you seen the statistics that Daily Show viewers are more informed than people who watch regular news or read newspapers?

 

[arne]

I'd say that about 3/4ths of the review actually deals with the game, and then the other 1/4 deals with whatever the hell Dodson thinks about this or that.

(I'll post all "offending" words, if you want, just let me know. But I'm sure you can scroll through the thread and find all the words that people took "offense" to.

It's 81% of the review. 43 out of 53 sentences.
math, it's fun.


Good post, Wolves Evolve.

 

[scorp92]

Gamespot :lol

Gamespot need to get a grip, or maybe get busy and do some actual work rahther than judging a game which as we know all is a fantasy rather than reality. if i was the boss of the guy who wrote that article, i would sack him coz he is properly not using his time to judge a game on his playablitiy but more on its political side/ content. Get a grip and stop wasting your time by swriting such foolishness. this game is awesome and such a breath of fresh air. i have been playing it with my pal the whole weekend and what a laugh and entertainement it was!! anyway peace out to the world!!

 

[industrian]

My understanding is that he feels that games should not make political statements.

MGS4 to get 4.9 from Gamespot confirmed.

 

[Zer0]

I recommend watching their trailer 'Politics'.

"With an elevated terrorist threat level, politicians are looking to private military corporations to get the job done by any means necessary."

thats one of the points of the game,even the first teaser was about that subject

 

[DangerStepp]

All this over Army of Two... wow. To me, the whole game felt like a cheesy summer flick. I never would've figured it would garner deep discussion involving questions of whether or not it infringes on moral ground.

 

[ArtG]

I guess that really is the fundamental difference here. And Gamespot really hasn't had a track record for critique. So maybe the audience is expecting one thing and in this case got a little something else.

I'll tell you, though. I'm expecting (or maybe just secretly hoping for) the pendulum to swing towards critique. It's just so much more interesting and stimulating to read an entertaining opinion piece than a rote, by-the-numbers rundown of all the features, bells and whistles.

I think that's why Penny Arcade and Zero Punctuation are so popular. They really are reviews. Tycho's essays and Yahtzee's rants are cogent, funny and entertaining critiques of games. What Gamespot and so many other sites do is simply informative.

And honestly, I've been a consumer of media for a long time. I know, for the most part, if I'm going to like a movie or game before I've even played it. I'm familiar enough with all the genres, creators and whatnot to know what to expect. Sure, I'm sometimes surprised, but I don't really put that on reviewers for not properly informing me or the creators for somehow tricking me. It just turns out that I didn't like the thing as much as I thought I would.

I don't think any amount of words on a website could ever prevent that from happening. Nor would I really want them to.

I wouldn't mind if there was game critique, honestly. (Though, games haven' reached, and may never reach that kind of intellectual sophistication.) But if you're going to call it a review...you can't do the things that Dodson did. Like you said, the audience isn't expecting any of the superfluous opinions on PMCs, they've been expecting a more by the numbers..."Are the graphics pretty, does it control well, does it put you in exciting situations...etc.."...and I don't understand why a lot of people find this "dull" or "boring". Reviews aren't there to entertain you, they are there to educate the consumer that isn't like you or me--that don't know whether or not they'll like a certain game or not.

If at some point in time a game critique website pops up that doesn't focus so much on all the technical points in the review, but focused on the philosophical meanings of a game, it's shady morals, etc., I'm perfectly fine with it. But game reviews have been narrowly defined for almost two decades, and I don't think there is a place for personal moral opinions to seep into the reviews.

Notice I said moral opinions. Obviously, a review is going to be subjective. From how good the graphics look, how well the game played and how well they liked the story, the characters, etc. Just keep your politics at the door in game reviews, please, and put it in an editorial.

It's 81% of the review. 43 out of 53 sentences.
math, it's fun.

Is it hard to sit with that dick so far up your ass?

 

[Speevy]

How did they turn this mediocre game into such a controversial topic?

 

[ArtG]

How did they turn this mediocre game into such a controversial topic?

This is GAF, remember? :lol