You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech means. It's not some sort of protection from criticism. It's a protection from censorship.hclflow said:OHHH GOD FREEDOM OF SPEECH I CANT HANDLE IT!
Freedom of Speech. Fucking deal with it.
You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech means. It's not some sort of protection from criticism. It's a protection from censorship.hclflow said:OHHH GOD FREEDOM OF SPEECH I CANT HANDLE IT!
Freedom of Speech. Fucking deal with it.
Bang on.chespace said:Wah wah, games are art, wah wah.
Wah wah, but don't critique games as art, wah wah.
Pretty much.
chespace said:Wah wah, games are art, wah wah.
Wah wah, but don't critique games as art, wah wah.
Pretty much.
chespace said:Wah wah, games are art, wah wah.
Wah wah, but don't critique games as art, wah wah.
Pretty much.
The Sphinx said:You're knocking down a straw-man. A good review doesn't try to censor the developer: it tries to inform the viewer/player. EA can do whatever the fuck it wants but I want to know "Should I play this game?"
If you insist on putting this in terms of "freedom of..." then reviews are directed at the "freedom to make informed decisions", not "freedom of speech".
Slavik81 said:You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech means. It's not some sort of protection from criticism. It's a protection from censorship.
I think it's confusing people because it's what they want, but it's a terribly written review.chespace said:Wah wah, games are art, wah wah.
Wah wah, but don't critique games as art, wah wah.
Pretty much.
That's not a call for censorship. A call for censorship would be to request the government to make it illegal to put 'political shit' in reviews.hclflow said:You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, then. There were posters from the get-go saying KEEP THAT POLITICAL SHIT OUTTA MAH REVIEWS. I see that as a call for censorship.
Try again, pal.
Captain Pants said:So I realize that Gamespot has become a laughing stock when it comes to their reviews, but their review of Army of Two in particular doesn't sit right with me.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want reviewers getting up on a soapbox when they review games... I also don't like being encouraged to 'not think about the subject matter'. The whole review is laced with this guy's opinions on the military and PMCs. While I can understand and respect that the reviewer, Joe Dodson, must be a patriotic person who agrees with what the US is doing over in Iraq, I don't need that information when I'm reading a professional game review.
I think the industry is in a sad state of affairs if our own journalists are encouraging games to not take on modern issues... I mean, he actually states that the game would be better if it took place on some future battlefield instead of taking place in Iraq.
AltogetherAndrews said:Er, aren't most military games pretty damned one-sided? That was one thing I was hoping we'd see some alternative to (with Haze, lol), as it gets pretty damned tiring to be the good guy against a world of bad guys, aka gun fodder.
Good points.Slavik81 said:Or not. Clearly there is political commentary. This review is totally incomprehensible. It's complaints are vague and I'm getting the impression that the reviewer doesn't clearly convey WHY this is objectionable because he either doesn't know or doesn't realize that he needs to justify his opinions.
Based on reviews and media I've read, it seems clear that the game IS trying to provide political commentary, and contrary to what the reviewer suggests, they are not portraying PMCs in a positive light (at least in their trailers.) See:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/31199.html
The game tries to stay unbiased on PMCs really. It refrains from any judgment on the matter.Slavik81 said:they are not portraying PMCs in a positive light (at least in their trailers.)
There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do it ) decided to inject his opinions on the topic. People looking at that review don't get the information they need to make an informed descision as to whether or not they would want to play Army of Two.Peru said:I can't believe the shit that's written on GAF sometimes, on one side gaming journalists are always mocked and journalism is put in quotes, on the other a thread like this is full of people claiming those journalists should just be consumer reporters delivering spec facts and technical performance. Since when was it not relevant to focus on the content? Dependant on the genre, a focus on story, themes, ideas communicated is very much a part of the game and what should be analyzed by good reviewers.
Madman said:There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do it ) decided to inject his opinions on the topic. People looking at that review don't get the information they need to make an informed descision as to whether or not they would want to play Army of Two.
If he had done a seperate opinion piece going into detail in an articulate manner on how he felt about the game, I would be fine with it. He could have linked to it in the review itself. But reviews are supposed to inform the consumer what a game is about, what it's graphics are like, how it controls, ect. and should, to the best of one's abilties, not include personal feelings(such as if one was reviewing a street racing game and went off on the dangers of street racing).
I know this is a sensitive topic for all, but he should have kept that out of it. He was supposed to inform the consumer what the game was like, not go on a tirade about the fairly shallow and more importantly satirical plot.
It's basically all over the top ridiculousness.VaLiancY said:Does AoT carry the slapstick mood or does it carry a serious tone at all in the game? Just curious.
Hope that they can keep their opinions in check and not dedicate a large portion of a review speaking their opinion, which may or may not be factual, on a topic.Mifune said:He spends the vast majority of the review talking about the actual game.
And oh no! Opinions in a game review! Whatever will we do??
Madman said:There is a difference between reviews and opinion pieces/editorials. I would have been fine if the review read more like "Army of Two's plot is a satirical take on modern warfare and more specifically, the current conflict in the Middle East. References to today's real life conflict are found throughout the game. The mechanics in the game..." Instead, this "journalist" (I had to do it ) decided to inject his opinions on the topic. People looking at that review don't get the information they need to make an informed descision as to whether or not they would want to play Army of Two.
If he had done a seperate opinion piece going into detail in an articulate manner on how he felt about the game, I would be fine with it. He could have linked to it in the review itself. But reviews are supposed to inform the consumer what a game is about, what it's graphics are like, how it controls, ect. and should, to the best of one's abilties, not include personal feelings(such as if one was reviewing a street racing game and went off on the dangers of street racing).
I know this is a sensitive topic for all, but he should have kept that out of it. He was supposed to inform the consumer what the game was like, not go on a tirade about the fairly shallow and more importantly satirical plot.
Either you want the reviewer's opinion on the game, or you don't.Madman said:horse shit
Why? In trying to convey whether or not a game is a good game, injecting opinions on the topic at hand does nothing to inform the consumer. It's just waving around your opinion.KennyL said:If all game reviews have to fit into your review template, then "game journalism" will be forever be wrapped between double quotation marks.
Vrolokus said:Does anyone else see the claim that games with potentially offensive themes are "satirical" as sometimes disingenuous? "Oh, you were offended by my concentration camp management simulator? Well joke's on you, because it was purely satirical. Ho ho ho!"
Everyone talks about all this biting, clever satire in certain games... which makes me think they don't really know what that means.
Where did you get that? I figured he probably knew some soldiers over there and took offense to them being portrayed as "slow". Regardless though, he gives his opinion of the game, and he backs it up with reasonable points. The game isn't deep. He even wrote it in his summary points, "Provides a dumb take on a real issue". "If you're the type of person who would rather shoot first and ask questions never, by all means, pick up Army of Two." Those are valid comments. They're clear. He explains what he meant by them in the text. What the hell do people want?Captain Pants said:While I can understand and respect that the reviewer, Joe Dodson, must be a patriotic person who agrees with what the US is doing over in Iraq, I don't need that information when I'm reading a professional game review.
Madman said:Why? In trying to convey whether or not a game is a good game, injecting opinions on the topic at hand does nothing to inform the consumer. It's just waving around your opinion.
Vrolokus said:But my point was: judging a game "on its own terms" is a dead end, because eventually, if you're being intellectually honest, you have to admit that some games' "own terms" are crappy to begin with.
I think the lowest score I even gave was to Pocket Pool for the PSP. If you get lost in that "but how is it on its own terms" BS, you can catch yourself saying, "Well, it's a $20 game that only meant to be a crappy billiard sim padded with lots of pics of skanks in their underwear. That's all it ever intended to be, so I can't damn it for not being more."
Obviously, that's bull. Even at best and giving the developers all the benefit of the doubt for their intentions, the whole concept was terrible. As Ebert aptly put it (paraphrasing), a thing can be great for what it is and still have no real value, the example being a bowel movement.
MisterSINISTER said:i think the funniest thing is that everyone is freaking out trying to make sure army dudes dont get offended, when the group of marine guys i know IRL were so excited to get their hands on the game
bishoptl said:Either you want the reviewer's opinion on the game, or you don't.
Can you imagine a review of "Three Kings" that didn't touch on the the politics of the Middle East, or mention how the low base pay for army personnel can affect one's moral center? Why not just concentrate on how the movie looks, and whether or not it is fully THX-certified, and oh-my-isn't-it-nice-to-see-that-Ice-Cube-rapper-in-a-serious-role fluff that counts for review in the likes of People magazine? Never mind, I take that back. Even People magazine would at least touch on the storyline issues that make the film, y'know, the film.
If you want your hobby to continue to be marginalized, by all means, hoot and holler when somebody - no matter how ham-fisted or poorly written - attempts to shine a light on aspects of a game other than bonus multipliers, rim-shading, sparks, pixel-counts and aim-assist.
Mifune said:I wonder...if the reviewer had praised the game for its mature and thoughtful treatment of the Iraq War and how it honored American soldiers, would we still be having this discussion. A positive opinion would still be an opinion, right, and therefore worthy of scorn and LOL Gamespots?
No, of course not.
Captain Pants said:To be honest, I would have started the topic either way. My beef with the review was about how he was revealing his own political biases in the review. I could care less what those biases are.
WinFonda said:The problem here being that, we're comparing film to video games. They're two completely different mediums. And no, I don't want them reviewed the same way, because they're meant to be enjoyed in different ways. A movie can really suck if it doesn't have a good story. A game can still be, and usually are, fun and entertaining without a semblance of a plot. That doesn't make video games illegitimate. That doesn't make video games "non-art," and it doesn't mean they can't have deep or complex storylines. But the two mediums are fundamentally different.
Kintaro said:COULDN'T! IT'S "COULDN'T CARE LESS!"
*throws things*
=)
First, thanks for the respectful nature of your reply. It really helps your point.bishoptl said:Either you want the reviewer's opinion on the game, or you don't.
Can you imagine a review of "Three Kings" that didn't touch on the the politics of the Middle East, or mention how the low base pay for army personnel can affect one's moral center? Why not just concentrate on how the movie looks, and whether or not it is fully THX-certified, and oh-my-isn't-it-nice-to-see-that-Ice-Cube-rapper-in-a-serious-role fluff that counts for review in the likes of People magazine? Never mind, I take that back. Even People magazine would at least touch on the storyline issues that make the film, y'know, the film.
If you want your hobby to continue to be marginalized, by all means, hoot and holler when somebody - no matter how ham-fisted or poorly written - attempts to shine a light on aspects of a game other than bonus multipliers, rim-shading, sparks, pixel-counts and aim-assist.
Absolutely. But he went beyond simply addressing and critquing it.Vrolokus said:If the content is in the game, it's fair game to address and critique it in the review.
If that's somehow off limits because "it has nothing to do with the game", then maybe we should penalize games for having extrainteractive content, since apparently games should just be about play.
Kintaro said:COULDN'T! IT'S "COULDN'T CARE LESS!"
*throws things*
=)
If we're reviewing video games like movies, 99% of video games would get panned for having a poor plot, bad dialog, acting, etc. Did Super Mario Galaxy get the shaft because Mario is saving the Princess for the umpteenth time? Do we penalize a game for that? Do you think we should?bishoptl said:The story is part of the game, which makes it fair game for commentary in a review. Or is there some other aspect of games that we should also be ignoring?
Does Consumer Reports even do movie reviews?
Nobody's answered this yet.bishoptl said:The story is part of the game, which makes it fair game for commentary in a review. Or is there some other aspect of games that we should also be ignoring?
Is the storyline integral to SMG? Seriously, I haven't played it so you'll have to let me know. At the end of the day, however, it doesn't matter - if it's in the game, reviewers have free reign to comment on it in their review. What weight you assign said review is up to you - but to piss and moan about the insertion of "political views" in a game that revolves around a politically volatile storyline is asinine.WinFonda said:If we're reviewing video games like movies, 99% of video games would get panned for having a poor plot, bad dialog, acting, etc. Did Super Mario Galaxy get the shaft because Mario is saving the Princess for the umpteenth time? Do we penalize a game for that? Do you think we should?
bishoptl said:The story is part of the game, which makes it fair game for commentary in a review.