Support NeoGAF

[Narag]

I will throw another wrinkle into this. Here in North Carolina, the student body president of UNC Chapel Hill was carjacked and gunned down in the middle of the street. 911 callers said they heard a girl scream, followed by gunshots, and then silence. She was shot in the right temple and then shot two more times.

What if a reviewer reviewing GTAIV sees this act repeated in the game and suddenly this girl's murder has made him look at the game differently? Should he or she not say something in their review? How about 9/11? People were sensitive to violence in the games that were released at the time and even some games like MGS2 were altered. Should the events of real life not interfere with these games and their criticism?

I think it'd be fair for a local review to bring this up, especially if it affected a large portion of the campus, but he shouldn't color it as reenacting her murder and recognize it as a potential coincidence that'd upset people.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

I think it'd be fair for a local review to bring this up, especially if it affected a large portion of the campus, but he shouldn't color it as reenacting her murder and recognize it as a potential coincidence that'd upset people.

I agree. I think the act in the game could trigger an emotion and a simple line or two in the review cautioning people that the game may trigger an uneasy feeling would be ok.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Wow, someone at GameSpot needs a tampon.

Spoiler

Please tell me I'm the first one to make this pun

.

 

[Slavik81]

If EA didn't want to get called on Army of Two's storyline and message they shouldn't have made a trailer involving Eisenhower talking about the military industrial complex, have levels of the game take place in Iraq and provide some level of commentary on PMC's. If you want a game to just be about killing shit for points, then do what Serious Sam did. If you want to make a game that portrays a message then you touch these hot button issues and deal with them in a mature way. You can't have it both ways.

The problem isn't really what he's trying to cover, but the quality. The review is ridiculous.

"Army of Two is a decent third-person shooter that unfortunately sticks its boot in its mouth. It does so by belittling volunteer armed services and selling a power-but-no-responsibility mercenary fantasy..."
Fair enough. I wish the explanation that followed was more detailed so I could actually understand what he's talking about in the context of the promotional media available, but there's nothing wrong with this.

"...it's best not to think about the subject matter."
...but in the summary he's telling us to be careful not to think critically about the meaning of the game. Hmm...

"But if you like to think--and the fact that you're reading this review suggests that you do--be warned: Army of Two is less than the sum of its parts."
What the hell does that mean?

"Army of Two is a better than average shooter that roughly treads on a political landmine when it should have stormed some future battlefield. "
Perhaps he should justify why the political message would be A-OK if it were told through allegory. From my perspective, I see no difference if the message is still the same (and if the message is objectionable).


I'm sorry, but the review is confusing and he doesn't support his points very well. I don't even like Army of Two. The game seems like the most generic thing I've ever seen, but the review is an utter disaster. It's value is in informing me about the game and after reading his review and more confused than ever.

 

[∀ Narayan]

Wow, someone at GameSpot needs a tampon.

You could say that just about everyone complaining in this thread needs one, as well.

Spoiler

Please tell me I'm the first one to make this pun

.

You aren't.

 

[Flavius]

Wow, someone at GameSpot needs a tampon.

Spoiler

Please tell me I'm the first one to make this pun

.

Noun

* S: pun, punning, wordplay, paronomasia (a humorous play on words) "I do it for the pun of it"; "his constant punning irritated her"

Noun

* S: pun, punning, wordplay, paronomasia (a humorous play on words) "I do it for the pun of it"; "his constant punning irritated her"

Noun

* S: pun, punning, wordplay, paronomasia (a HUMOROUS play on words) "I do it for the pun of it"; "his constant punning irritated her"

humorous

wat

 

[Ten-Song]

How has a thread gone on THIS long talking about the story in this game? You can shoot gold plated rockets and punch people in the face so hard they do multiple back flips... Saying that there's a serious and deeply thought out story in Army of Two is like saying that True Lies was a great example of putting a deep political message into a film... and arguing that point for either no matter which side you’re on, is stupid. It's a co-op online shooter with no objective aside from "MAKE STUFF EXPLODE!"

Either you think the idea of Gears of War Jr. is okay, or you move onto the next game, there is NOTHING else of value to talk about for this game.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

I really love videogames. I really love them as a hobby and as a job.

At their best, they push me to my mental limit and my dexterous limit.

I find it absolutely incredible - and depressing - that this thread has gone down the way it has. That so many people think its possible to review the gameplay and not the story of a game, or that its truly possible to seperate technology and context is amazing. If it can be done with games, it would be the first time in human history - the first time - that its ever been possible.

An earlier poster used Micheal Moore's SICKO as an example, citing that they didn't read a single review that expressed an opinion about the political dimensions of the film. Which has to be a lie. The film is a political piece, everything written about is political and may sometimes refer to the filmmaking technique as a means to make the political possible.

Now, the original review wasn't great writing, but it wasn't terrible either.

The problem wasn't that it an expressed a political viewpoint.

The problem is that it prevaricated about what it wanted to say.

What it says is: "some gamers may be squeamish about politics."

..and in that respect, its right.

Army of Two is a deeply fascist game. It does promote a mercenary military fantasy and abstract the evil of groups like Blackwater, their inhumanity and waste, into game mechanics. Yes, I've played it. No, I don't care about intent, the same way I don't care about the 'intent' of the Iraq War itself. I care about humans and the conditions under which they live and breathe, and I make my judgements based upon the facts I have. Army of Two, then, is an unethical game, designed unethically. Possibly by ethical and smart people, I have no idea. I judge that by my sense of ethics. It promotes corporate war and does so using a real life setting. Yes, I do think films like Three Kings also go down that direction, but even there a sense of human cost was articulated.

The game could have gone down the road of something like Buffalo Solider and kept ALL the gameplay mechanics, been the same underneath the narrative hood, and been a totally different experience. Because ethics matter. Narrative matters. Context matters. If you don't think so, then I am here to stand up and tell you that you and your opinion not only don't count, but are bad for games, bad for games design, bad for fun and overall tend towards the idiotic on a vast, intercontinental scale. If you 'just don't care', then okay, say that - that you're an apathetic.

Either you believe that game design can be unethical, or you don't, and are tragically, hysterically, finally, mortally, overwhelmingly wrongola. Positively brimming over with wrongability.

I wrote this once:

When game writing is at its best, it puts play before the game. Gaming doesn't need a Lester Bangs. It doesn't need a Hunter S. Thompson. It needs anybody who has the inclination to make simple, human connections between technology and human truth.

..and I still really believe it.

 

[AlphaSnake]

wat

it's a pun because Army of Two uses tampons to stop bleeding wounds. Humorous or not, fuck off, ho.

*throws scarf, and leaves*

 

[RurouniZel]

I really love videogames. I really love them as a hobby and as a job.

At their best, they push me to my mental limit and my dexterous limit.

I find it absolutely incredible - and depressing - that this thread has gone down the way it has. That so many people think its possible to review the gameplay and not the story of a game, or that its truly possible to seperate technology and context is amazing. If it can be done with games, it would be the first time in human history - the first time - that its ever been possible.

An earlier poster used Micheal Moore's SICKO as an example, citing that they didn't read a single review that expressed an opinion about the political dimensions of the film. Which has to be a lie. The film is a political piece, everything written about is political and may sometimes refer to the filmmaking technique as a means to make the political possible.

Now, the original review wasn't great writing, but it wasn't terrible either.

The problem wasn't that it an expressed a political viewpoint.

The problem is that it prevaricated about what it wanted to say.

What it says is: "some gamers may be squeamish about politics."

..and in that respect, its right.

Army of Two is a deeply fascist game. It does promote a mercenary military fantasy and abstract the evil of groups like Blackwater, their inhumanity and waste, into game mechanics. Yes, I've played it. No, I don't care about intent, the same way I don't care about the 'intent' of the Iraq War itself. I care about humans and the conditions under which they live and breathe, and I make my judgements based upon the facts I have. Army of Two, then, is an unethical game, designed unethically. Possibly by ethical and smart people, I have no idea. I judge that by my sense of ethics. It promotes corporate war and does so using a real life setting. Yes, I do think films like Three Kings also go down that direction, but even there a sense of human cost was articulated.

The game could have gone down the road of something like Buffalo Solider and kept ALL the gameplay mechanics, been the same underneath the narrative hood, and been a totally different experience. Because ethics matter. Narrative matters. Context matters. If you don't think so, then I am here to stand up and tell you that you and your opinion not only don't count, but are bad for games, bad for games design, bad for fun and overall tend towards the idiotic on a vast, intercontinental scale. If you 'just don't care', then okay, say that - that you're an apathetic.

Either you believe that game design can be unethical, or you don't, and are tragically, hysterically, finally, mortally, overwhelmingly wrongola. Positively brimming over with wrongability.

I wrote this once:



..and I still really believe it.

*applaud*

 

[Ten-Song]

An earlier poster used Micheal Moore's SICKO as an example, citing that they didn't read a single review that expressed an opinion about the political dimensions of the film. Which has to be a lie. The film is a political piece, everything written about is political and may sometimes refer to the filmmaking technique as a means to make the political possible.

Now, the original review wasn't great writing, but it wasn't terrible either.

The problem wasn't that it an expressed a political viewpoint.

The problem is that it prevaricated about what it wanted to say.

What it says is: "some gamers may be squeamish about politics."

..and in that respect, its right.

Army of Two is a deeply fascist game. It does promote a mercenary military fantasy and abstract the evil of groups like Blackwater, their inhumanity and waste, into game mechanics. Yes, I've played it. No, I don't care about intent, the same way I don't care about the 'intent' of the Iraq War itself. I care about humans and the conditions under which they live and breathe, and I make my judgements based upon the facts I have. Army of Two, then, is an unethical game, designed unethically. Possibly by ethical and smart people, I have no idea. I judge that by my sense of ethics. It promotes corporate war and does so using a real life setting. Yes, I do think films like Three Kings also go down that direction, but even there a sense of human cost was articulated.

The game could have gone down the road of something like Buffalo Solider and kept ALL the gameplay mechanics, been the same underneath the narrative hood, and been a totally different experience. Because ethics matter. Narrative matters. Context matters. If you don't think so, then I am here to stand up and tell you that you and your opinion not only don't count, but are bad for games, bad for games design, bad for fun and overall tend towards the idiotic on a vast, intercontinental scale. If you 'just don't care', then okay, say that - that you're an apathetic.

Either you believe that game design can be unethical, or you don't, and are tragically, hysterically, finally, mortally, overwhelmingly wrongola. Positively brimming over with wrongability.

You're over evaluating the story of this game WAY too much. Just because it uses a modern setting and modern idea (the Blackwater shit) doesn't mean it's something that's trying to actively sway you towards either side of a viewpoint, that's like saying the new Rambo movie made a strong point about the world in how he BLEW PEOPLES HEADS OFF AND SHOT THEM WITH A BOW AND ARROW!

There's no fucking value anywhere in this game, and you even see that in the cheesy as hell action movie ending where you

Spoiler

blow up the corporate overlord as he's getting away in a chopper.

This is nothing more than a by the numbers mindless shooter, with a focus on co-op play over single player.

 

[Mr Jared]

My only problem with the review is that he doesn't talk about his griefs in the context of the game. It's written very much from the standpoint that you've already played Army of Two and know exactly what he's talking about.

If he had better explained what it does that is so ass backwards as opposed to just nailing it on the cross, it probably would have come across better.

That said, Army of Two is too dumb for its own good when it comes to its own message too.

 

[godhandiscen]

so wait, some game reviewer actually bothers to write something more insightful and deep than a rote review, you know, actually inject some critical thinking that journalists should have and now it's a bad thing?

make up your goddamn f'n mind gaf. do you want video game journalism to be equated with the bush league or do you want critical thinking and an actual opinion on all aspects of the game (beyond gameplay and technical)?

Bolded for truth.

 

[Flavius]

I really love videogames. I really love them as a hobby and as a job.

At their best, they push me to my mental limit and my dexterous limit.

I find it absolutely incredible - and depressing - that this thread has gone down the way it has. That so many people think its possible to review the gameplay and not the story of a game, or that its truly possible to seperate technology and context is amazing. If it can be done with games, it would be the first time in human history - the first time - that its ever been possible.

An earlier poster used Micheal Moore's SICKO as an example, citing that they didn't read a single review that expressed an opinion about the political dimensions of the film. Which has to be a lie. The film is a political piece, everything written about is political and may sometimes refer to the filmmaking technique as a means to make the political possible.

Now, the original review wasn't great writing, but it wasn't terrible either.

The problem wasn't that it an expressed a political viewpoint.

The problem is that it prevaricated about what it wanted to say.

What it says is: "some gamers may be squeamish about politics."

..and in that respect, its right.

Army of Two is a deeply fascist game. It does promote a mercenary military fantasy and abstract the evil of groups like Blackwater, their inhumanity and waste, into game mechanics. Yes, I've played it. No, I don't care about intent, the same way I don't care about the 'intent' of the Iraq War itself. I care about humans and the conditions under which they live and breathe, and I make my judgements based upon the facts I have. Army of Two, then, is an unethical game, designed unethically. Possibly by ethical and smart people, I have no idea. I judge that by my sense of ethics. It promotes corporate war and does so using a real life setting. Yes, I do think films like Three Kings also go down that direction, but even there a sense of human cost was articulated.

The game could have gone down the road of something like Buffalo Solider and kept ALL the gameplay mechanics, been the same underneath the narrative hood, and been a totally different experience. Because ethics matter. Narrative matters. Context matters. If you don't think so, then I am here to stand up and tell you that you and your opinion not only don't count, but are bad for games, bad for games design, bad for fun and overall tend towards the idiotic on a vast, intercontinental scale. If you 'just don't care', then okay, say that - that you're an apathetic.

Either you believe that game design can be unethical, or you don't, and are tragically, hysterically, finally, mortally, overwhelmingly wrongola. Positively brimming over with wrongability.

I wrote this once:



..and I still really believe it.

Not to be harsh, but if we're anthropomorphizing game design, here are some other choice descriptions that could be tossed into the pot:

1. sexist
2. racist
3. misogynistic
4. homophobic
5. sado-masochistic
6. xenophobic

We could stretch this list quite a distance. I'm not saying that I have a problem with a critic pointing out these traits when they discover them in reviewing a game, but at the same time, unless it hampers the overall experience, I'm not so certain I see the benefit in calling attention to something that is fairly easy to find, should you choose to go looking for it.

 

[No Means Nomad]

If you want a guide as to how to craft a review around a games political agenda (which Army of Two probably never intended) then look no further than Shawn Elliott's Blacksite review.
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3165120&p=1&sec=REVIEWS

 

[Brashnir]

I agree with you. So many people argue that a gaming review should be nothing but personal opinion, but I'm of the camp that feels it should remain as objective as humanly possible. Obviously that generally applies to the content of the game, but it goes double for personal takes on the morality of a title's plot. Talk about depth of story, and feel free to express a personal interest or lack of it; but don't try to pass your philosophy off as fact. Those last two sentences you quoted are grotesque attempts to manipulate reader opinion - "if you're smart, you agree with me". How pathetic.

I'm one who believes that reviews should be solely the subjective opinion of the reviewer, but I also believe that these sorts of comments are inappropriate for a review. If these things impact the game negatively, such as a poor game design decision to shoehorn in some political shit, then it might belong in a review, but this sort of soapboxing is not the purpose of a game review - The point is to discuss the game, not personal politics.

If a reviewer wants to put in a paragraph that mentions that some players might not like the game's gamorization of PMCs, that's fine, but leave the political editorializing out of it.

 

[besada]

I guess I draw a distinction between reviewers and critics. Reviewers are just there to tell us what the thing's about and the kind of play it has. Critics should be looking more deeply into the game. Mostly we have reviewers, who don't have anything interesting to say, but let you know if you want to rent or buy the thing.

We don't have that many critics. I'm not sure if the two should be mixed, but then again, I don't read reviews. I'd like more critics. I'd like more people discussing what's going on in the game. It may not be important to some gamers, but it's obviously important -- in this case -- to the devs, or they would have done a different, less controversial story around the same gameplay. It's fair game for discussion.

I do think think some of the discussion is a little overwrought. If you can get by torture in CoD4, I'm not sure why this is getting any more attention.

 

[Flavius]

If you want a guide as to how to craft a review around a games political agenda (which Army of Two probably never intended) then look no further than Shawn Elliott's Blacksite review.
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3165120&p=1&sec=REVIEWS

Yeah.

I don't want to inflate FartofWar's ego past its maximum psi, but when I first popped into this thread and checked out the review in question, I have to admit that my first thought was GS dude checked out Shawn's review and decided to make an attempt at a similar approach.

I'm not saying that I think that's the case. Rather, I'm merely pointing out the crazy thoughts that are bouncing around inside me noggin.

 

[SapientWolf]

so wait, some game reviewer actually bothers to write something more insightful and deep than a rote review, you know, actually inject some critical thinking that journalists should have and now it's a bad thing?

make up your goddamn f'n mind gaf. do you want video game journalism to be equated with the bush league or do you want critical thinking and an actual opinion on all aspects of the game (beyond gameplay and technical)?

It didn't have any commentary deeper than , "Army good, mercs bad." It wasn't exactly Pultzer prize material, and it seemed out of place.

Tycho made similar comments, but he is a better writer than the reviewer, and I thought he made a well thought out argument, even if I disagreed with him. We can defend critical thinking without defending this review.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I think it's jarring when something like this happens, because we always expect GameSpot to toe the line of their subject matter, which is enjoyable but deeply ignorant and dumb as shit. I think that's the same crux that troubles some older gamers about their hobby...and not others.

 

[FirstInHell]

I see an over-the-top game featuring two steroid monsters with flashy skull helmets blowing a lot of shit up. After they are finished, they high five each other.

Other people see a deep political commentary about PMCs and the Iraq war. There is also a profound statement being made about the US military.

If that does not define pretentious, than I do not know what does.

 

[bishoptl]

Or being willfully blind.

Pick your poison.

 

[Salazar]

It's selling like cakes, isn't it ?

I'm still pretty tempted to try it out. As much as I want a From Here to Eternity RPG, I won't go into this game expecting it. Turning the sound up and my brain off, and getting whatever this game has to offer the singleplayer is probably what I'll do.

 

[Uno Ill Nino]

I see an over-the-top game featuring two steroid monsters with flashy skull helmets blowing a lot of shit up. After they are finished, they high five each other.

Other people see a deep political commentary about PMCs and the Iraq war. There is also a profound statement being made about the US military.

If that does not define pretentious, than I do not know what does.

:lol :lol :lol Word.

Its fun, people. Did you think Mario Bros. was commentary on how italian men deal with overwhelming feelings of poverty and despair by mentally escaping to a fantasy world where they are people of great importance? Get the fuck outta here.

You kill dudes named "Mohammed Al Habib" with gold-plated AK-47s and then high-five eachother. Stuff goes BOOM. You wear cool masks that make you feel all badass. Its FUN. 'Nuff said.

 

[No Means Nomad]

It's selling like cakes, isn't it ?

As a professional pastry chef I can tell you that March is one of the worst times of year for cake in terms of sales.

Muffins do consistently well, as do bagels.

Like cake I wouldn't be surprised if Army of Two found it's way into most homes as part of a birthday.

 

[Salazar]

As a professional pastry chef I can tell you that March is one of the worst times of year for cake in terms of sales.

Muffins do consistently well, as do bagels.

Like cake I wouldn't be surprised if Army of Two found it's way into most homes as part of a birthday.

I am currently consuming quite a bit of cake (recovering, haltingly, from an eating disorder), but muffins are also damned high on my list - whatever the time of year. Bagels - I just do not understand.

 

[Darkpen]

I don't know where the OP gets the idea that the author of the review is "patriotic." If anything, he expressed his disapproval of how everything about the game is.

While I haven't played the game, just about every review of this game seems to veer to the negative, all for the same reason. Basically, if there's any game that's ever trivialized war, its this.

Anyone who agrees with this statement (which is just about everyone that's reviewed the game, and has expressed as much) will probably enjoy MGS4 when that hits.

However, in hind site, if you think about it, this is really a role reversal from other military shooters, where some part of a government's military is represented in glory and bravado. You don't really see a lot of games that express how horrible war is, to begin with. So in that respect, the game's accomplished something positive.

 

[bran]

Out of place. A videogame review is no place to express personal patriotism, or rather, attempts at patriotism.

 

[Flynn]

Arne is on point here. Even if this critic isn't making the best argument, he's looking at the game deeper, from a different angle. His effort is to be commended.

 

[XHitoshuraX]

How does this go again?


Oh yeah.


FUCK Gamespot.

 

[seattle6418]

Out of place. A videogame review is no place to express personal patriotism, or rather, attempts at patriotism.

but that's just one of the questions raised here. (and i don't agree with your statement, because i don't think that was the main reason behind the review).

i thought the main point was a discussion of what belongs/or not in gaming journalism. (opinion, judgement of values, context)

then people started discussing if the review was well written or not, and some people took this chance to diss gamespot one more time. in the end, we had a lot of useless posts.

 

[Brashnir]

Arne is on point here. Even if this critic isn't making the best argument, he's looking at the game deeper, from a different angle. His effort is to be commended.

I'm all for this sort of discussion about games. I just don't think a game review is the place for it. If Gamespot put up this discussion as an editorial piece, it would be perfectly fine. A game review is a place to discuss the relative merits of a game as a game, not a place to discuss farther-reaching social commentary on its story and setting.

 

[Flynn]

I'm all for this sort of discussion about games. I just don't think a game review is the place for it. If Gamespot put up this discussion as an editorial piece, it would be perfectly fine. A game review is a place to discuss the relative merits of a game as a game, not a place to discuss farther-reaching social commentary on its story and setting.

If a game critic can't talk about the game's damn stories, themes and characters then why bother having stories, themes and characters in games in the first place?

 

[the_zombie_luke]

But I really don't get what some of you GAFfers expect. Do you want a realistic portrayal of current conflicts? Do you want to see both soldiers and mercenaries committing atrocities? I think not. If EA had chosen to depict those things, you people would speak of it in shame. You're fine with WW2 games skipping over most if not all atrocities committed as well as the entire holocaust. And you're fine with them depicting all Germans as pure evil.

Good point. Most games avoid any kind of issues like that unfortunately and do their best to sanitize events. Honestly, I don't see any game tackling issues like civilians getting caught between armies, what guns really do to people,(though the Soldier of Fortune games showed it, they didn't really comment on it)people getting their homes destroyed, people starving and etc. It would make games better too. Not every game should be a soapbox, but more should take on issues.

 

[Brashnir]

If a game critic can't talk about the game's damn stories, themes and characters then why bother having stories, themes and characters in games in the first place?

They can talk about the stories. They can discuss whether or not they thought the story was good or bad, and they can even mention that some people may be offended by the game's take on things, but taking a political stand in a game review (which is to assess the quality of the game, not to critique its political ideology) is completely out of place. There's plenty of room for that sort of discussion outside the review.

 

[BravoSuperStar]

It does comes off extremely "preachy" and self-righteous. I do agree though gaming is coming to a point where these sorts of issues should be addressed.

 

[border]

You're over evaluating the story of this game WAY too much. Just because it uses a modern setting and modern idea (the Blackwater shit) doesn't mean it's something that's trying to actively sway you towards either side of a viewpoint, that's like saying the new Rambo movie made a strong point about the world in how he BLEW PEOPLES HEADS OFF AND SHOT THEM WITH A BOW AND ARROW!

Except that Rambo has something pretty obvious to say about the current situation in Burma. The atrocities depicted in the film are most definitely trying to sway the viewer towards a particular viewpoint. Just because you're too blind to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Duke Togo]

@ Joe Dodson

 

[Slavik81]

:lol :lol :lol Word.

Its fun, people. Did you think Mario Bros. was commentary on how italian men deal with overwhelming feelings of poverty and despair by mentally escaping to a fantasy world where they are people of great importance? Get the fuck outta here.

You kill dudes named "Mohammed Al Habib" with gold-plated AK-47s and then high-five eachother. Stuff goes BOOM. You wear cool masks that make you feel all badass. Its FUN. 'Nuff said.

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."

 

[Flynn]

They can talk about the stories. They can discuss whether or not they thought the story was good or bad, and they can even mention that some people may be offended by the game's take on things, but taking a political stand in a game review (which is to assess the quality of the game, not to critique its political ideology) is completely out of place. There's plenty of room for that sort of discussion outside the review.

So is it wrong to discuss the ideology of a Micheal Moore movie when you're reviewing it?

 

[the_zombie_luke]

Except that Rambo has something pretty obvious to say about the current situation in Burma. The atrocities depicted in the film are VERY obviously trying to sway the viewer towards a particular viewpoint. Just because you're too blind to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I didn't know there was a civil war in Burma until I saw Rambo. I've never seen it covered on the news.

 

[Brashnir]

So is it wrong to discuss the ideology of a Micheal Moore movie when you're reviewing it?

It's not wrong to discuss it. It is wrong, however, to take a stand one way or another on is ideology while reviewing it.

 

[Salazar]

It's not wrong to discuss it. It is wrong, however, to take a stand one way or another on is ideology while reviewing it.

I'd be bored to death, taken aback and a little irritated by a review of a political film (however shallow) which didn't take a stand one way or another on its ideology.

 

[Uno Ill Nino]

I'd like to add that the Gaming Journalism Industry's opinion on game stories is moot anyway. The way they heaped praise on BioShock last year was disgusting. Don't get me wrong, great game, FANTASTIC ending, but it never made me make any "tough choices". You either harvested little clone girls or you didn't. Either way, it was the same animation of the same little girl over and over so you got so detatched from the choice that it became a simple inventory decision. You stored up little girls for use later and got a reward, or you used them right away and got a different reward. It was not an emotional deal.

KOTOR, Jade Empire, and now even Lost Odyssey and Mass Effect have you more emotionally involved. So when they want to put in their two cents about how a game that combines Die Hard with Deadpool DOESN'T make a good political statement, all we ought to do is laugh. We knew MONTHS ago what this game was going to be all about. Their positive preview sessions apparently did not have any cutscenes or dialogue since this was such a shock come review time.

 

[Darkpen]

I didn't know there was a civil war in Burma until I saw Rambo. I've never seen it covered on the news.

And that, in itself, is a statement on how news journalism and governmental information control has molded this generation's view on war :/

Metal Gear Solid 2 says hi.

 

[border]

If the game took a stance that was more commonly considered morally abhorrent then I doubt as many people would be whining. If it promoted rape or genocide or abortion or fascism or segregation, people would want and expect that reviewers would bring this up as a negative message. So ultimately, it seems pretty stupid to say that "You can't take a political stance in a game review". Whether or not Army of Two was an appropriate game to bring up politics is another issue, but it just seems dumb to try and create some rule that a reviewer cannot take a moral stand, flat-out.

 

[SapientWolf]

I'd be bored to death, taken aback and a little irritated by a review of a political film (however shallow) which didn't take a stand one way or another on its ideology.

You can take a stand, but the audience expects some degree of objectivity from a review. Political elements of the narrative don't invalidate a piece of entertainment.

 

[Flynn]

It's not wrong to discuss it. It is wrong, however, to take a stand one way or another on is ideology while reviewing it.

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?

 

[ArtG]

If the game took a stance that was more commonly considered morally abhorrent then I doubt as many people would be whining. If it promoted rape or genocide or abortion or fascism or segregation, people would want and expect that reviewers would bring this up as a negative message. So ultimately, it seems pretty stupid to say that "You can't take a political stance in a game review". Whether or not Army of Two was an appropriate game to bring up politics is another issue, but it just seems dumb to try and create some rule that a reviewer cannot take a moral stand, flat-out.

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?

:lol

Right.

 

[Slavik81]

So is it wrong to discuss the ideology of a Micheal Moore movie when you're reviewing it?

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.

"I think he's wrong" isn't meaningful.