No, but I'm sure Danielle Riendeau knew that the score she gave for Dragon Crown would be controversial. You just have to look at Polygon's own thread for the review for that.
Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown
- Thread starter dmr87
- Start date
No, but I'm sure Danielle Riendeau knew that the score she gave for Dragon Crown would be controversial. You just have to look at Polygon's own thread for the review for that.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
But, people in this thread keep saying it's not about the score?
I don't know which is crazier. Scheming that a 6.5 would be a controversial score and thus give you attention, or the fact they were so right.
I'd imagine the source for at least some of the hate from each side of the 'art' debate is that in the end public opinion can affect sales of DC. Of course, any negative attention hoping to be brought out was quickly turned into hype and Vanillaware got free positive publicity. Let's put it out on the table, Kamitani is a dude and he's a dude that likes women. Nothing wrong with it.
Someone I was arguing with back in April during the whole Kotaku fiasco said that if Kamitani's work is inspired by historical works then those works are sexist too. I can see that opinion being at least somewhat prevalent among people today.
Someone I was arguing with back in April during the whole Kotaku fiasco said that if Kamitani's work is inspired by historical works then those works are sexist too. I can see that opinion being at least somewhat prevalent among people today.
Those people can say that, sure.
If Riendeau gave the same exact review with a 8.0 score, I don't think we would have gotten a video by Jim Sterling about it.
Or maybe we would, I don't know. Only Jim can tell us why he picks his topics.
Yeah you can but I can understand why she would be uneasy about those touching segments. They don't seem to do anything in terms of actual meaningful gameplay or act to better understand the type of character you're controlling.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I'm not saying you can't react to an opinion at all or disagree. But what I'm saying is that I personally find it silly to be emotionally invested in terms of being angered or saddened that another human being has a different opinion than you do about a game.
I suppose. I just can't relate though; I really cannot find reason to take offense at a game being called an adolescent power fantasy or whatever. 1. It's a pretty accurate description of a lot of games and 2. It's a remark/criticism/insult aimed at the game itself, not me.
That would be hilarious. A bunch of reviewers sitting around a computer, not wanting to be the first guy but knowing one of them has to be.
Giolon
Member
Neither do any of the other touching segments. From what I understand it's just a reaction the NPCs have to you clicking on them with your ever-present cursor hand. I don't think it's ever required to click on an NPC instead of their dialogue choices.
Weltall Zero
Member
We do not question if there was a reason Goya did the Maja Desnuda. There was, in fact, a group that DID question it; the Spanish Inquisition (it's all there in the Wikipedia article).
So, why does Kamitani need a reason? Why is it any different when Kamitani does, say, the "spirit" one (let's assume there wasn't, in fact, any prior art reference) than when Goya does it? Why is the work of one of them art, and the other one a cheap titillating attention grab?
Honest question here.
If you're offended by a critic calling something an adolescent fantasy, the problem is with you, not the critic. It's a perfectly legitimate way to describe something, especially when we're talking about media in eg the "action" genre (inc movies, books, etc). I mean, if you take DC as an homage, that's the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_maja_desnuda
Being Spanish, of course, it's not exactly like this is not common knowledge to us; probably not so much for Americans?
I would like to point out that nobody in their right mind in Spain would question that this is one of our most famous works of art. The sensuality in it should be obvious to anyone, would you contest it's art because of that intent?
Isn't there a little irony to all this in this seeing the "Bound Spirit" artwork is fully clothed compared to the La Maja Desnuda?
Wouldn't one have an issue with the original artwork before being upset about Katimani's? I digress..
As I said before, I based my comments on the gameplay I've seen firsthand. I'll be glad to retate myself after I grab the game tommorow and play it firsthand.
The reason I made the "curvy women" comment is because there are hundreds of thousands of beautifully voluptuous women in this world. Yeah, the Sorceress is super exageratted somewhat, but I've seen women not that far off. (Pornstars, Video Vixens aside) It doesn't strike me as "unrealistic" or "out of proportion" at all. Now does it have context? I can't really answer that, but let me ask you this.. In what context is sexuality appropriate.
If I'm making a game, and I wanna make my lead character this awesome badass sexy girl, how do I do it without someone saying "He just wanted to draw tits!!!"??
Is it over the top? Yes, I never denied that. Im saying what is the big deal? Why is everyone kicking up a storm when people have been regaining health from hookers in GTA for years now? It's like now, some want to show this moral edge but yet pick and choose what they personally constitue as innappropriate or not rather than looking at the issues as a whole unbiased.
In context, The lady reviewer had a problem with DCrown. That's perfectly fine. I give a shit less about a score as well, But she's set a barline in her reviews that must remain consistant going forward if she further reviews games that carry similar themes...
If she reviews another game that suffers the same faults but doesn't reflect it in her review and grading, I think its fair to call the DCrown thing back into question.
You hold a standard to all, or you hold it to none. But you shouldn't be able to pick and choose. That does a disservice to your cause.
You must have missed kotaku complaining about the statue of David being in a game.
If anything, it proves Sterling's point.
A lot of the posts in this thread are basically: "Jim's a biased journalist. Of course he would say we shouldn't criticize critics." or "Critics can dish it, but can't take it?" / "Gamers have a right to criticize bad reviews, they deserve criticism". And then there is all the comments talking about how awful Polygon is, and how their reviews can't be trusted.
Seems like a lot of people missed the point of this video.
MisterSamMan
Member
That's totally valid in a review since it's an opinion and the reviewer is writing about their experience. Sure, it's a terrible reason, but I can't get upset over a review. If one review said, "Dark Souls is way too hard and I couldn't get into it." I would just feel really sorry for that reviewer because Dark Souls is an incredible game and it's a shame they couldn't get into it. In the case of Dragon's Crown, it's a shame Danielle was unable to enjoy Dragon's Crown like much of the other reviewers, but why should I care?
Didn't NeoGaf agree that Polygon's a joke? Didn't we have this same problem with Diablo 3, SimCity, and the Last of Us. Why are we getting upset over something we already deemed useless?
Support the reviews you care about and ignore the reviews you don't. Polygon's Dragon Crown review is probably raking in a bunch of cash because of NeoGaf and various other sites. The worst part about this is, the reviews we actually care about aren't seeing any of this money.
Karsticles
Member
When do you think it's not silly to be emotionally invested in terms of being angered or saddened that another human being has a different opinion than you? You specify "about a game", so I'm curious where you draw the line. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious why you think that games in particular are something to not be emotionally invested in to such a degree. I don't have a firm line, myself.
It is an opinion, but everything here is. Why do you keep stamping "opinion" on what I say like it means something?
No, I have not played the game, but I have watched every single piece of footage out there, and I can tell that the combat system allows for a lot of fun and freestyling. I still play AvP, Castle Crashers, and Ninja Turtle brawlers, and those actually are repetitive. People only find 2D brawlers repetitive if they don't like 2D brawlers, just like every other genre. That's why it's clear that this reviewer is not a fan of the genre.
No, I am not crazy.
Of course she can be offended - I never said otherwise. It would be crazy to try and disallow people from being offended.
Nonsense. A 6.5 is a garbage score in the modern age of reviewing. Don't pretend it isn't.
It's definitely irritating, but I think this is the bigger problem:
I would love to see a review of Call of Duty that dares to say:
"Call of Duty is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy where war is glorified, and kids get to shoot each other without any real sense of repercussion."
Or:
"Grand Theft Auto is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy where criminals get to beat hookers and shoot cops while stealing cars."
You will never ever see this happen. If it did, the entire internet would be lashing out at the reviewer for saying something so insulting.
Hell, the vast majority of video games out there could be summarized as:
"[GAME] is a [subject]-obsessed teenaged boy's dream" or "[GAME] is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy".
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
I know this question isn't directed towards me but from my perspective it seems anything from renaissance era or other older periods of time have a certain authority to them.
What I mean by that is any works from those old periods are automatically devoid of "perversion" and if someone says otherwise they will usually be mocked while being reminded the work was created by [insert famous artist here].
However this doesn't seem to apply to a good deal of present day art. I think the style of realism used in these old works contribute to that air of authority or authenticity/whatever. Where as stylized styles are seen as illegitimate or more associated with perversion or debauchery if used to depict any kind of nudity.
I'm confused about the reason thing though. I don't understand why someone NEEDS a reason to create anything.
Because don't you know that touching super chiseled muscular barbarian abs and pecs is apparently a male power fantasy? It's what straight men like to do in between all the sexual fantasies they have of touching and objectifying barely naked women.
Ganondorfo
Junior Member
I don't care for reviews, I do care for LTTP threads on GAF, because if a game gets many LTTP threads like for example Vanquish/Nier/Binary domain, you know its worth checking out.
It's a remark leveled at the game that has undertones of judgment about the people who enjoy it.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I just put "video game" because that's what we were talking about, but it could be applied to pretty much any piece of pop culture entertainment. And again, I want to make it clear that I'm not discouraging debating the merits of one's criticism. However, I think there's quite a difference between being interested in challenging someone's criticism in the interest of better understanding each other or better informing other potential consumers of the product, and challenging someone simply because you take issue with opinions that don't coincide with your own. The former I can completely understand. The latter I can not.
I guess, but I feel like just as easily as one could be insulted by it, another could say "adolescent power fantasies are totally my deal."
Plus, it's true! Is anyone denying that's what DC is? It's part of the appeal if anything.
Karsticles
Member
I figured video games weren't the line, but that's why I asked what it was. So: why is "pop culture entertainment" not something to get offended about, but other things are?
And to some degree, you must understand people challenging opinions just to destroy them. That is what politics is all about, for example. NeoGAF moderation is almost entirely about challenging opinions that don't coincide with the ToS and destroying them, right? Note that I'm not trying to criticize GAF for doing this, because I think it's fine to challenge opinions merely because they don't coincide with your own. Taken in that reframing, I'm curious what you have to say about being able to understand this thought process. It seems clear to me that GAF allows moderation because there are certain kinds of opinions/perspectives that aren't wanted here (which, again, makes good sense). Why would that not make sense in other contexts?
That earns him respect in my book. The Musou/DW games are a 3D evolution of the sidescrolling beat-'em-up, and I'm a big fan of both.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
One of the problems we have here is that we're assigning numbers (which is something that's easily measurable) to something that's inherently subjective (an individual's opinion).
This could be fixed somewhat by having detailed rubrics attached to each review score. For example, for the Dragon's Crown review in question, it could be something like...
5: Base for a game that feels professional with decent competency overall and no major bugs.
+1: High quality 2D art.
+1: Fun boss encounters
+1: Variety of classes, each of which plays noticeably different than the rest
+0.5: Addictive loot & skill system
-1: Not enough level/enemy content. Repetitive.
-1: Offensive portrayal of women.
Total Score: 6.5.
This could be fixed somewhat by having detailed rubrics attached to each review score. For example, for the Dragon's Crown review in question, it could be something like...
5: Base for a game that feels professional with decent competency overall and no major bugs.
+1: High quality 2D art.
+1: Fun boss encounters
+1: Variety of classes, each of which plays noticeably different than the rest
+0.5: Addictive loot & skill system
-1: Not enough level/enemy content. Repetitive.
-1: Offensive portrayal of women.
Total Score: 6.5.
Gintoki313
Banned
I watched the video and I got the whole, everyone has an opinion, it's just an artstyle, and we shouldn't focus on the negative.
What I did understand in this video is that this dude's vocabulary is all over the place. I had to rewind like several times just to understand the words he was using. Those were some huge words I can't understand right there.
Enough about my bad vocabulary, the dude had a point. The Polygon review shouldn't be focused on as hard as it is and we should take a look at the positive reviews instead of the negative.
For my personal thoughts on Dragons Crown, I have no problem with it. Though I may just be clouded by the awesome gameplay of the game, and watching the Wizard shower fireballs from the sky and the Amazon destroying everything on screen to pay attention
What I did understand in this video is that this dude's vocabulary is all over the place. I had to rewind like several times just to understand the words he was using. Those were some huge words I can't understand right there.
Enough about my bad vocabulary, the dude had a point. The Polygon review shouldn't be focused on as hard as it is and we should take a look at the positive reviews instead of the negative.
For my personal thoughts on Dragons Crown, I have no problem with it. Though I may just be clouded by the awesome gameplay of the game, and watching the Wizard shower fireballs from the sky and the Amazon destroying everything on screen to pay attention
Mr. Poolman
Member
GAF hates scores... but also GAF loves scores...
GAF confuses me deeply... but what do I know?, I'm just a monkey on Superman costume.
Definitely. Just that the term 'adolescent power fantasy' is generally used as a derogatory term and people dislike being labeled derogatory stuff (and it depends on the person too).
It's okay. I'm actually Superman, and I don't get it at all either.
Giolon
Member
You must've missed it...there's even interviews with the lead artist (possibly character designer?), who's female, defending the game against accusations of sexism.
I'd still put any offense taken on the part of the person reading the review than the reviewer themselves, but that's just me. I get where people are coming from, though.
Dragon's Crown was just unlucky? (Or lucky, considering all the free publicity the game got)
I mean, it's not people are purposefully picking and choosing what games to focus on. Some just become the focus of a conversation while others don't. I'm sure if you asked some of DC's detractors, they'd take issue with SG too. Or maybe they wouldn't. You'd have to ask them.
That said, I do know people have been turned off from SG based on designs and such.
NoirVisage
Banned
THANK YOU.
Polygon is the worse. anything Gies touches is steeped in manufactured edginess, Can we make it a rule to NOT talk about their reviews from now on?
Karsticles
Member
It's all about the right time and the right place. There were criticisms, but Dragon's Crown started getting a lot of reveal videos around the time Anna S. made her women in gaming videos, so...boom. I'm sure that if Skullgirls had Parasoul and Cerebella unveiled at the same time Dragon's Crown's Sorceress had her trailer revealed, we would be talking about that instead.
Also, American writers love to criticize Japanese culture. Criticizing other Americans is scarier for them. "Those weird Japanese perverts" is a favorite western tale.
NoirVisage
Banned
This is true to a heartbreaking degree.
My problem is with morally objecting to content in the game and reviewing it anyway and assigning a score. That's why I think her review would have been better as a blog post instead of a review with an asterisk that hers ended up being.
Someone brought up Call of Duty before, I agreed with that guy.
-1 for offensive portrayal of women? that's like -0.25 at best!
This is basically the argument that's happening now, so while a system like this would be appreciated (and kind of fun) I don't know that it would even solve anything.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Well, you don't always know if you're going to find something objectionable until you actually start playing it.
For example, with Dragon's Crown, someone who has issues with the Amazon & Sorceress visuals but who still wants to play the game might think they'll avoid the problem by just picking a different character, not realizing that the female NPC art is just as bad.
In any case, if somebody plays a game and ends up finding it morally objectable, they should review it and share their experience with others so that like-minded individuals can avoid playing the game (or play it anyway to see if they disagree). And if you don't find the same things morally objectionable as the reviewer than read a different review.
Reviewers have no obligation to the developer or publisher to help inflate their metacritic score. And as long as the review explains their position, they can review it based on whatever criteria they want.
The 'bad' descriptor has been argued since the whole Kotaku thing. In any case, reviewers have the right to critique by whatever criteria they wish to use, and readers of their pieces have the right to take them seriously or not seriously by those same criteria. That said, Jim's piece is basically saying we shouldn't give reviews we disagree with so much attention, and I agree with it.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I've learned the hard way a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago many reviewers can't review a game for shit. Bias, complete ignorance on the genre, wildly differing agendas for goals in-game, a deadweight attitude towards learning about the game, and/or being buffeted by the Echo Chamber send most reviews of games I'm on the fence about into my mind's waste basket.
This has two odd effects: One, I have a wierd eclectic pool of reviews both professional and amateur I rely on for info on games, and Two I don't get mad at craptastic reviews like the one in the video. It's remarkably freeing, lemme tell you, the cynicism.
Hell, it makes it easier to articulate why their wrong after you've played it and rip their review apart making THEM mad.
See? Here's an example of a reviewer whose opinion on games is a known quantity of shittiness.
Jim, imma steal this.
This has two odd effects: One, I have a wierd eclectic pool of reviews both professional and amateur I rely on for info on games, and Two I don't get mad at craptastic reviews like the one in the video. It's remarkably freeing, lemme tell you, the cynicism.
Hell, it makes it easier to articulate why their wrong after you've played it and rip their review apart making THEM mad.
See? Here's an example of a reviewer whose opinion on games is a known quantity of shittiness.
Jim, imma steal this.
meltingparappa
Member
There's a great discussion to be had about the art in Dragon's Crown, but not telling reviews what they should or shouldn't think when they give their suggestive review.
There's also a great discussion to be had about how overblown review culture is. Just interesting that this is directed at a niche title for the first time, over such a divisive topic instead of whatever nonsense the typical big budget game sequel loses a point over.
Jim is absolutely correct in saying these discussions aren't really taking place in a constructive way.
Meanwhile, I'm going to find a bookie in Vegas who will take bets on how soon this thread will devolve into people accusing one another of supporting rape culture and get locked. : \
There's also a great discussion to be had about how overblown review culture is. Just interesting that this is directed at a niche title for the first time, over such a divisive topic instead of whatever nonsense the typical big budget game sequel loses a point over.
Jim is absolutely correct in saying these discussions aren't really taking place in a constructive way.
Meanwhile, I'm going to find a bookie in Vegas who will take bets on how soon this thread will devolve into people accusing one another of supporting rape culture and get locked. : \
I can't believe I know people that like strawberry ice cream. Ugh.
Different strokes dude...
EDIT: Sorry for double post
dragonbane
Member
Absolutely spot on. I do get upset about a bad review. It is a natural reaction, when all you see is positivity at first. However I can contain my emotions and next I try to understand where the reviewer is coming from. And even if I still disagree at the end, at least I manage to express my criticism mostly in a calm way without calling for a ban or insulting the reviewer.
It's unfortunate. We've given "power" to the phony outrage Southern Belles that get a case of the vapors every time they read or encounter something that does not fall lock step into their exact definition of what is "right". It's sad that this site has encouraged this type of behavior through weird banning patterns and continued "MS suxors" type topics. I'm sure this reviewer will have to issue an apology to the super dorks for her 6.5 in order for her to keep her meager employment. We bitch and moan when we get the pr bullshit and canned responses. We bitch and moan when someone offers their own opinion that reflects their true feelings towards something. Are we fucking surprised that every game that comes out now gets an 8 or above? What reviewer wants to deal with this shit and deal with the lowest forms of human life that actually become upset/angry about reviews?
If the gaming community flips out over a 6.5 review they deserve to be trolled for hits.
(I don't think she did but if she did, it's the communities fault.)