I'm not claiming that Hohokum is selling consoles. But given the homogeneous AAA market on the consoles there's little reason to believe that FIFA being more Ps sold 4 million more consoles than Microsoft.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
I'm not claiming that Hohokum is selling consoles. But given the homogeneous AAA market on the consoles there's little reason to believe that FIFA being more Ps sold 4 million more consoles than Microsoft.
??? There numbers already to prove that?
Hahaha I see you don't follow them very closely. My point is not that they have a connection to Zoe Quinn, my point is that they both hire friends and have extremely close relationships to developers.
It was literally the opposite of what folks are trying to say now is their chief concern in gaming journalism.
What does this say: http://www.giantbomb.com/jeff-gerstmann/3040-89712/
Bingo.
That discussion resulted in many posters on GAF tirelessly defending GB and altering the conversation to focus on Samantha Allan along with tons of personal attacks. It was probably one of the worst discussions I've seen here.
So shouldn't reviews of his games be seen with even more skepticism than ones of Quinn's? After all, he has many friends and former co-workers giving him write ups and coverage.
notworksafe
Member
GB rarely does reviews anymore fwiw. The one thing I did find "interesting" was their coverage of Dance Central 3. Jeff reviewed the first two games with high marks but when the third was released he declined to review it while also stating on the podcast how much he disliked it.
At this point, the team in general has moved on from doing reviews and it's only a small subset of games that get them (Madden and Diablo 3 are recent ones)...and not games worked on by people they know.
That being said if you listen to their podcasts and watch their videos, their opinions show even if they decline to put a score and text out there.
I've cut this paragraph of text from your post, but I didn't want to take it completely out of context. In brackets I've pasted a line of text from your earlier paragraph, so anyone reading it out of context can know what you mean by "such games." If I've read incorrectly however feel free to respond and let me know.
How "political" am I for thinking this is out of control?
I don't understand your argument that Japanese developers should not be attacked for producing games with content like the above picture. Your thesis seems to be that since the game is up-front about its intended audience, disinterested parties shouldn't take offense. Whether or not the developer is marketing its game to an intended demographic "honestly" is irrelevant. The attacks, or criticism, on the game's portrayal of women is for the sake of the medium as a whole. Whether or not you're interested in this game doesn't matter - you still stand to benefit from an industry that takes itself more seriously, and doesn't green light infantile images like the above. What's at stake is not necessarily the way a game is marketed, or whether or not it is "honest" in its representation, but rather the quality of its content. In this case, that content is a grotesque over-sexualization of its characters. It's trash, plain and simple, and deserves to be criticized for it.
Your second argument, about website's letting "biased" staff members write about the game, also doesn't hold water. Recognizing when something is over-exaggerated to the point of becoming a self-parody is part of being a critic. You're just as "biased" for pointing that out as you are "biased" against Superman 64 for being hot garbage. Criticism is inherently subjective, and one hopes to read criticism which aligns with your personal values and interests. It's often useful to read criticism from the other side of the fence as well, but hopefully a good critic is able to acknowledge all arguments and objections regardless of their personal preference.
It is not disrespectful or disingenuous to any artist to criticize their work. That's part of producing any content that is made available publicly. Furthermore, arguing that the characters in Dragon's Crown are over-sexualized to the point of absurdity is hardly a "political" stance. They look ridiculous to the point that it detracts from the game. Personally, if I put the game on the TV with the Sorceress as my character, my girlfriend walks out of the room. The sight of it disgusts her. I thank any game critic for pointing that out, because I do not want to buy a video game as unfit for public consumption as this one.
But you have to understand that japanese culture is much different then our culture and how it views sex. American and western culture have an incredibly angry stance towards anything that may happen to have "sexiness" and such and make it out to be a bigger deal then it is. Japan might not have this culture towards sexiness, and might more embrace it.
And even then, you have to ask why does it detract from the game, what is so wrong about it? Are you embarrassed, then why are you embarrassed? How do large breasts in a video game detract from the experience? Does the Avengers get points detracted because it might feature a butt of thor, or him without a top on acting sexily. Sexiness isn't inherently bad, drawing sexualized characters isn't inherently wrong. Sex is not bad. There's a difference between it not appealing to you and it being bad.
I mean I heard them reference that it was a rough week and just saying that some bad stuff was going on on the internet in relation to Phil Fish and the various other fallout. Its one thing that they hire friends its there own company and thats fine. What doesn't come off to me in there content is some overwhelming bias or game reviews that curb towards specific developers. They may be more centric towards certain types of games but if anything they have a joking/mocking manner about what they are reviewing/playing. I dunno they haven't been huge offenders in all this mess and have kept the topic on the games during all this so honestly I have to give them the nod.
I mean, Giant Bomb would never cover a game and then I don't know, have an exclusive Giant Bomb expansion come out for that game right? Or have their dedicated news resource work out of their offices, right? That would just be an insane conflict of interest, wouldn't it?
They're generally "ok" about it. Not awesome. They're still generating publicity, but it's entertaining so I give it a pass. But the point is that Kotaku is also "ok" about it. Probably better. But they're being attacked and GB isn't.
They're generally "ok" about it. Not awesome. They're still generating publicity, but it's entertaining so I give it a pass. But the point is that Kotaku is also "ok" about it. Probably better. But they're being attacked and GB isn't.
Moon_frogger
Member
Depression quest is critically acclaimed? I think you need to check metacritic and then reevaluate that claim. Depression quest isn't even being evaluated on it's merits as a game, at all, in any way shape or form.
Gsak
Member
It's ok, many more like this on his Twitter feed. If Alex Lifschitz is reading this, I hope in the future he can learn how to discuss, instead of insulting gamers and calling them "shitboys", "trashboys".
Again though we're (not... me, okay you're) building this ire out of a house of cards. Twitter is anything but an avenue for nuance or complexity and the integrity of journalists cannot be called into question because they didn't participate in a stupid hashtag slap fight.
For example, Leigh Alexander didn't participate that I can find.
Their passion for games shouldn't be called into question because of something as banal as #describeagamerin4words.
The thread has been lost in all the anger though. People are made at journalists for corruption... or for marginalization... or... SOMETHING! And nobody knows what journalists can do to stop the anger because it was spawned from persecution that was never there. In response some journalists and some developers have given sideways sneers at "gamers" by enthusiastically insulting them but just as with the death of "gamers" debate it's not even a large minority who're doing this.
Metacritic is the be all end all for games criticism?
There aren't many recorded critical reviews of Depression Quest because it's not a traditional game that Edge is going to review.
I could describe Candy Box as being critically acclaimed without needed back-up from Metacritic as well.
What do you mean by this?
Even if we talk about Dragons Crown, how does it detract away from the game when literally part of the game is it's incredible attachment to hyper sexualization. Is the Summoner really awful compared to a whole slew of other characters which are very much hyper sexualized? And even then, how does sexiness detract the game more then others, is the summoners sexiness worse then a game featuring Wonder Woman and such?
CambriaRising
Member
The game is full of gratuitous sexualization. Having played a lot of it I can totally see how it would make people feel uncomfortable. Its honestly pretty distracting.
But why is it distracting? Why does it make you uncomfortable?
If I had a video game where cows get shot, you might not care, but an Indian or Hindu might care a lot about it. Western culture has an incredibly backwards view on sexuality, and you ahve to understand that you have a bias of said backwards view. It's important to note that different cultures like different things, and while it might personally make you uncomfortable, that might be the result of a cultural bias.
Gsak
Member
I guess you missed, amongst others, all the "Go away nerds" or the "washed-up crackhead" aimed at Baldwin (which she promptly deleted afterwards because, backlash). Your vision is kinda selective isn't it?
Baldwin does need to go away though, forever. He needs to stop making me dislike Jayne in retrospect.
More to the point: Leigh Alexander was responding to someone who misunderstood an earlier tweet. She said she couldn't understand nerds. Not exactly controversial. Someone made up a silly info-pic taking her tweet out of context and she repsonded that "Gaming isn't for nerds. Go away"
I see nothing wrong with that statement. Gaming isn't for nerds. It's for everyone. Anyone can play, enjoy, and write about video games. Even people who don't understand nerds.
CambriaRising
Member
It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable but like I said, I can understand why someone might feel that way. Its all relative.
For instance I recently reviewed Sword Art Online for Vita, and the dating sim stuff in that game was pretty sleazy considering its all teenage girls and the game presents almost every female character as an object of conquest obsessed with the MC, instead of real human beings. It put me off on the game, and affected my enjoyment of it. (Not that I had much anyway, I didn't like the gameplay at all)
But also at some point all humans respond to titillation whether negatively or positively, and Dragon's Crown definitely goes for that in a lot of places. Sometimes it feels out of place, or forced, in a game where the prime focus to to complete the quests at hand. In that way, it was distracting to me.
So, all women within that title are portrayed exactly the same?
Baldwin does need to go away though, forever. He needs to stop making me dislike Jayne in retrospect.
More to the point: Leigh Alexander was responding to someone who misunderstood an earlier tweet. She said she couldn't understand nerds. Not exactly controversial. Someone made up a silly info-pic taking her tweet out of context and she repsonded that "Gaming isn't for nerds. Go away"
I see nothing wrong with that statement. Gaming isn't for nerds. It's for everyone. Anyone can play, enjoy, and write about video games. Even people who don't understand nerds.
I really didn't need to see much beyond her actual article. It has several insulting terms in it and casts a very wide, generalized net. It also takes a purposely antagonistic, aggressive, and militaristic tone. She was literally demonizing and dehumanizing gamers, and calling people to action in aggressive terms. Movements like the 4 words to describe a gamer thing on twitter are the predictable and, likely intended, result of her actions.
I think there is a segment that believes because this happens that the majority of the game press are pretty much what is described there, because it only takes a few bad apples for people to assume everyone is guilty(kinda ironic, honestly, how this mindset is by no means only being used by the press, but I agree the mindset is a problem).
I think these links to a good idea of what some assume everyone is doing, and because of this, they blame everyone.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/09/b...sts-on-moral-appeal-in-videogames-journalism/
http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/01/your-friend-the-videogames-journalist-no-gods-or-kings/
Also, there is a belief from some that blogs require less ethical awareness(or maybe less important), and it causes some of it's own problems, imo.
http://leighalexander.net/page/25/
Her whole view on how the games media works, to me, is interesting. Definitely worth a read.
Some games journalists did participate. It's hard to say what Leigh Alexander did or did not say on twitter, because she deletes a lot of her more inflammatory tweets. But she was in fact saying a lot of insulting things on twitter directed at "nerds" and "gamers".
The move to use gamer as a slur to spread hate against people who play video games came about in response to the death of a gamer articles. I'm saying if they did not want their message associated with that kind of hate, they could have spoken up and clarified instead of joining in the dogpile against people they look down on.
But honestly, I find the whole perpetuating stereotypes, but saying it doesn't apply to you because "you're one of the good ones" to be disingenuous in the first place. If we want to have a conversation about people being hateful, we already have words for that. If we want to have a conversation about people being mindless consumers, we already have words for that. The leap in logic to assume those were the same people was already drastic, but I digress. They chose to continue to harp on the fact that "gamers" means "bad people that we want to do with" when they could have chosen to word it any number of ways. They could have (should have) realized that it was going to be interpreted a different way by people who identify as such. They could have also predicted that there are a lot of people who already look down on gamers and nerds, and love getting opportunities to hurl insults at them.
I do agree with this though. There are legitimate discussions to be had about ethics in journalism, but so many other issues have spilled in from other tangentially related threads that it's a complete mess.
Gsak
Member
Baldwin does need to go away though, forever. He needs to stop making me dislike Jayne in retrospect.
More to the point: Leigh Alexander was responding to someone who misunderstood an earlier tweet. She said she couldn't understand nerds. Not exactly controversial. Someone made up a silly info-pic taking her tweet out of context and she repsonded that "Gaming isn't for nerds. Go away"
I see nothing wrong with that statement. Gaming isn't for nerds. It's for everyone. Anyone can play, enjoy, and write about video games. Even people who don't understand nerds.
Yes gaming IS and should be for everyone. Thing is Alexander, is not that bad a writer that she can't know when a word makes a huge difference.
"Gaming is not for nerds".
"Gaming is not for nerds alone".
See that difference? I really doubt that Alexander was not aware of it.
Oh, it's not hard at all, thanks to screen-shots. As I said earlier in this thread, like it or not, in the age of the Internet, more than ever, Scripta Manent.
The difference in those two games are that in Dragons Crown, you control the Summoner, while in SAO, the girls are not only to young to give consent (pedophilia and having sex with underage kids is inherently wrong) and are also just nameless NPCs that you have to crush over to get laid. In Dragons Crown, there is no such pedophilia (much to Jason Schreier's dismay) and no use of using the girls as objects.
And why was it distracting to you, why was it out of place, in a game that featured an incredible amount of sexiness, why was some of it out of place? Is the Summoner out of place in that game, a game featuring a barbarian warrior with one of the biggest chest and abs ive seen on a man, a knight who is a bishi super model while also being incredibly muscular, A mermaid with an ass, and a whole slew of other things. And while the main focus of the game is solving quests, there needs to be m,ore to it then just that. There needs to be artistic themes present, among other things, and Dragons Crown took hypersexualization as it's theme. Is Diablo worse because it features scary monsters during it's questing?
Give us some proof that this game is critical acclaimed please. You can't just say it is without proof.
She absolutely did anticipate that. The intended plan was to shame people and bully them until they chose to abandon the label because it was too toxic to be worth using anymore. She even adds, (paraphrasing here) "if it upsets you, good. I'm louder than you and I have an army."
If you really take that concept to heart and think about it's implications, it's undeniable that it's literally textbook bullying, and harassment. That was the actual intended plan.
Point to me once questioning "their passion for games"
And as I said above, it's not just a matter of Twitter, though that's where the majority of people who aren't gamers or the gaming press are going to draw their information. There amd Facebook which has been equally vitriolic.
"That was never there as far as I have personally read these things to mean."
You want to hold Leigh Alexander up as an example of not engaging but she has been just as nasty on her Twitter. And there have been some people who have expressed themselves in genuinely reasonable amd heartfelt ways without a response. There isn't so much as a "sorry if I came off as making and indictment against all of you, it wasn't meant that way." Granted, I may have missed it in the oceans of bile.
But no, surely no journalist whose profession it is to convey thoughts in words can see clear on assuaging the hurt feelings of those who you so vehemently insist (based again on nothing but YOUR personal interpretation of that Leigh Alexander piece and the writings that spun off from it) were merely caught in the crossfire amd never meant as targets.
"It's not even a large minority?" This is a profession. People apologize for the hurtful actions of a single colleague all the time. What's so hard about it now? And yet they have the right to pass judgement on a community because they are unable to stop the disgusting behavior of "not even a large minority" who they have no personal knowledge of and with whom the only connection they share is a mutual interest in games?
What the fuck?
CambriaRising
Member
Different people have different likes and dislikes. I genuinely like Dragon's Crown, and its their prerogative to use hyper-sexualization as a theme for both genders, and enemy creatures. Like I said, it didn't make me uncomfortable, but I can understand why it made some.
Its hard for me to explain fully what was so distracting but if I had to boil it down, its probably less about the content and more about the amount of it.
Also, shes a Sorceress
She was well aware of it. It was a typically inflammatory response from her brought on by one of the typical inflammatory accusations leveled at her. Those exchanges between her and someone who doesn't like her happen literally every day on Twitter. The meaning of "gaming isn't for nerds" remains whether you add 'alone' to the end or not. She wasn't looking to assuage her accuser and so didn't sugar coat her language.
Either way, we're arguing about a heated response to one of multiple aggressors who target people like Alexander. It's no wonder she's terse.
I completely agree. As I said above, people like Alexander are inflammatory. It's what they're known for and it's why people like me enjoy reading them... and far be it from me to police her tone... but there's a lot that could have been done during the first phases of this entire debacle that would have cooled heads across the board.
Unfortunately both "sides" have had to deal with threats and aggression both perceived and imagined for so long that it was inevitable something would blow up.
CuckFupertino
Banned
Moral relativism isn't a counter-argument for a culture of misogyny and over-sexualization. Just because something is a cultural norm doesn't make it okay.
Why does it detract from the game? Because those characters are over-exaggerated to the point of being disgusting. Human beings do not look like the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown. They don't look like the Warrior. I recognize that realism isn't the goal, but the artists have taken a human image and exaggerated the sexual parts of it to the point of absurdity. If absurdity were the point perhaps it would be a good parody or satire piece, but it was not the point. The game isn't making any sort of statement about over-sexualization, it's just falling victim to it.
Nobody is saying sex is bad. Sex is great, in fact. And there's nothing wrong with looking at images of sex or sexiness, but these images are not sexy. They are distortions and over-exaggerations of what the artist believes is sexy. If anything, the representations of men and women in this game do more damage than good for sex, as they serve to further reinforce the widening gulf between the "ideal" human body (the boobs and butt of the Sorceress) and the reality of it.
Large breast detract from a video game when they come to define that video game. In this game, you cannot play the Sorceress without constantly having her breasts on display. They flop, jiggle, and practically pop out at all times. It's a shame because Dragon's Crown is a good game without those things, but ultimately any game is the sum of its parts.
There's actually some extremely cool hints at a deeper story in terms of that, and her appearance.Also, shes a Sorceress
She's actually an extremely old witch on her character card, clearly using magic and illusion to become her fantasy self.
Wasn't that expansion basically cancelled? I have seen nothing about a release on it. Also isn't Patrick is paying for the office himself? Also I think Jeff has said that they are going to stop doing game reviews and just focus on quick looks. Anyway this whole situation is messed up and leading to a dark place for anyone into gaming. People need to lay off Quinn and anyone else who has criticism about the culture. Like with everything you should read the articles and try to get the information being given. Are press and pr/devs to close sometimes? Sure it's a problem in every industry. Does that make it ok to harass people? Hell no.
Different people have different likes and dislikes. I genuinely like Dragon's Crown, and its their prerogative to use hyper-sexualization as a theme for both genders. Its hard for me to explain fully what was so distracting but if I had to boil it down, its probably less about the content and more about the amount of it.
Also, shes a Sorceress
And while it's ok to have different likes and dislikes, I honestly want people to sit there and think about why they like or dislike certain items. What bias goes into it, what ideas go into it and why. A lot of game reviewers are very reactionary with game reviews, and even if we sit there and completely ignore any type of corruption that may or may not exist, it's the reason why games like Dragon Age 2 was able to get a 9/10, even though as a game, it was obviously incredibly flawed. Too many game reviewers hold reactionary views on items, and while the line "it's an opinion" comes somewhat into play, if there's no thought behind said opinion, then the only difference between you and me and game reviewers on sites is that they can write well.
How is it misogynistic though. Are you an expert on the sociological problems of japan, and how this game fits a narrative of this sociological issue. Do you have any clout to make that statement?
And even then, the game is Rated M, it's a game made for adults, if adults are being shaped by a japanese video game featuring hyper sexualization, then that might be an issue to write about later in a piece, but not in the review.
Also, you are not the gatekeeper of what people find sexy, and neither is the western culture you come from, especially when that same western culture has stifled sex for so long. And if you honestly think that the game is defined by the sorceress's large breasts, or the hyper sexualization, then you're wrong, it's part of the game's theme, but there's still a whole lot more to it then just said breasts.
And not every piece of narrative needs to fit a specific societal ideal. Yes, people have body issues, is that the fault of dragons crown, or is that the fault of other factors? Is Lolita bad for portraying a child and another man having a romance, maybe it's "uncomfortable" but that doesn't imply that it's harmful in the least.
I found the Sorceress more "provocative" than actually sexy, and that on its own was distracting in the sense that I found it annoying and gratuitous. I'm all for genuine sexiness though, if a game were actually able to accomplish that without making me roll my eyes. Bouncing or waving boobs do not count.
Still a fan, but wish they were better.
The point is that's only one of the many, many, egregious conflicts-of-interest that they've routinely been involved in (remember that they not only still do reviews, but they also do interviews, previews, and news coverage), and yet the people claiming that nepotism and closeness-to-devs are their major complaints about game sites are completely silent on the topic.
Still a fan, but wish they were better.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Think of all the old statues of gods that represent fertility and whatnot. They are totally exaggerated sexualised icons. I will never understand why something is bad because it has been sexualised, and personally I see a very big difference between that and objectification. Very big difference between sexualising a character and trying to state that one sex is beneath another.
https://www.google.de/search?q=gods...XXyQOAnYGoDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=965 (NSFW, maybe?)
We want more diversity in games? Great! Make more self-empowered female protagonists or more games that target female gamers, but since when is sex a bad thing? I thought we are past the Victorian era.
Make more sexy male characters for females. From what I understand, a lot of female gamers are arguing that the male characters are just power-fantasies and don't cater to them. So let's slowly fix that, but why take sex out of the equation?
Kind of baffling to me.
Reading this comment about Dragon Age 2's rating its a little off topic but I thought we were getting away from the whole 9/10 7/10 thing and going for a more thumbs up thumbs down approach. Honestly I was having a discussion with a friend about reviewing systems for music and I think this applies to games as well. The real fair way to inform the consumer would be to say:
If you like game x or genre x buy this game.
If you like game x or genre x try this game.
If you like game x or genre x do not buy this game.
Seems fair to me and doesn't offend anybody with a number. I honestly don't care about certain editorial opinions of a game in review unless it tells me if I will like this game or not.
Just an observation.
That's exactly how I feel about it. I wrote a post yesterday touching on how the word "sexism" has morphed over time to refer to something that people literally can't even define anymore. "Objectification," while I understand the concept, is also one of the most abused slippery-slope words out there.
Any physical attraction can be classified as objectification. Any attraction to specific anatomy can be classified as reducing people to sex objects. If we can abuse the terms so freely, and they in fact, barely have a definition - then in reality the words simply express now, nothing more than "I don't like this."
If being attracted to breasts and butts is not bad since it's a normal part of heterosexuality, then artwork celebrating someone's sexuality, and what they are attracted to, is not bad. The women in the game are all pretty strong, particularly the Amazon.
I'm fine if people are not into it. Totally get that. But to say the game is objectively bad is not really fair, at all. It's a fantastic game with great production values, and a fantastically detailed erotic art style. If you don't like it, that's okay with me if you want to play something else.
It sure feels like you're attacking me. I'm genuinely sorry if you're not, but at the very least there is a huge messaging problem going on. Clearly, a large number of people feel like they are being attacked for being gamers. Whether it was intended or not isn't totally irrelevant, but even if it was unintended it is still an issue.
That is the only difference between you and reviewers though. Reviews are all opinion. Every review should be taken with a large grain of salt because it's just some person sitting at a keyboard or in front of a camera saying their opinion on a highly subjective work.
I mean, I hate quoting Wikipedia, but these reviews are easily sourced soo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_Quest#Reception
They aren't passing judgement on a community. This is where we will continually not be able to understand each other. I do not identify with the community that they are passing judgement on. I can't.
I'm a gamer though. I will always call myself one and proudly at that. Twitter slap fights are incidental to my identification and enjoyment of games and the people who write about them. This isn't a campaign of harassment
lol) or bullying, this is a campaign of self-discovery within the gaming community.I simply cannot understand how people can be insulted by Alexanders article unless those people are themselves the stereotypical knuckle-dragging gamer. Obviously you and other in this thread aren't that... so I'm experiencing genuine confusion as to why there's been such a vitriolic reaction from otherwise reasonable gamers.
Of course, people will always point to Twitter to say "see! Gamers are being picked on!" but I can point right back to Twitter to say "See! Developers are being picked on!" this cannot become a game of metooism because that misses the point.
What would you, The Adder, specifically like to see come of #GamerGate? Do you have a target in mind?
Im not sure, as I dont really read game reviews anymore other then for games I was already previously interested in. But, that would be a way to make reviews better. The number scale still applies in most game reviews, i doubt that you can remove that, especially with the importance that devs give metacritic scores.
Almost all of the people who reviewed Bastion and Transistor never worked with him.
Yes and no. I hold professional reviewers to a higher standard then the average person sitting in front of a keyboard. These people are paid to review games, and while opinion does hold some merit, there also needs to be a look at things objectively and not reactionary.
Games Journalists and Reviewers are very reactionary, they have a hard time with the objectivity part.
But there were some correct? I believe his game even showed up on game of the year lists from former co-workers and websites while they continued to cover his games with many previews. If what Quinn is said to do is bad then he should be treated in the same way. It is, whether inherent or not, a pre-existing relationship that could form large amounts of bias in coverage.
Then, that is a mistake. They are just regular people who happen to play a lot of games. In the same way most mainstream film critics are just people writing up a few hundred words about why Transformer 4 sucked or how awesome Guardians of the Galaxy was in a very nice way. To try to review somethign objectively is to miss the point of reviewing a work of art. There is no way to do it without a review becoming a list of features with no input from the writer.
I agree with this statement, make a comment on it and pass it along to some games journalists to see if they can do a piece on it.
- Status