Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47206472]King of Pol and Internet Aristocrat both got laughed at for trying to push their crazy right wing shit, with IA leaving because he couldn't hijack everything, and King of Pol getting thrown out for being both crazy and falsifying evidence. Milo isn't looked highly upon, but he's honest in his reporting of related events so no one has a problem with him.[/QUOTE]
I know why they got hurled out, but I don't get why the opposition still uses them as the big three examples of GG even though they haven't been a part of it in any capacity for a while now
Went on Ghazi for about ten minutes earlier today.
Holy fuck they really are batshit insane.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;47206510]I know why they got hurled out, but I don't get why the opposition still uses them as the big three examples of GG even though they haven't been a part of it in any capacity for a while now[/QUOTE]
Because otherwise their "GG is full of right-wing loonies" argument holds no merit.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47205657]If you can make a very good OP you could try making a thread in Mass Debate, but then you will have to pull a Kamiya to prevent people from Kafka-trapping.[/QUOTE]
MD is kill.
no
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;47205710]I'll use [url=http://www.huniepop.com/post/108464572403/sjw-reviews-hp-spoiler-he-doesnt-like-it]Huniepop[/url] as an example. Some reviewers and journalists have allowed political beliefs get in the way of offering an unbiased review or report.
While it's not as prevalent as taking gifts in exchange for good scores, it's become increasingly visible when you see writers for these sites attacking their audience (or more accurately, setting up straw-men to attack) over things even remotely related to social justice or political leanings.[/QUOTE]
See, I don't see things like this as a issue. There is no such thing as an unbiased review of something like video games. Even if a game tries to avoid an issue by remaining silent about it its is still political, by not questioning the status quo. For example COD my avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong. (A counter example is a game like Spec Ops: the Line) There's a really good video about this.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_tdztHiyiE[/url]
A reviewer factoring his beliefs into a review is not unethical. I'd say that it was the opposite and that any decent reviewer should include their full opinion, though it may not be the most popular.
As for writers "attacking their audience" this is ignoring the audience that DOES agree with their gripes with the "Gamer" community. I think it would be more unethical if reviewers would keep silent about there strong opinions toward some of their audience, just because it could result in less money/popularity. I think its refreshing that Ben Kuchera is moving from things like "Why using the PS4 controller is like touching boob for the first time" to actually taking a stand for something he feels strongly about.
You don't have to like it, your fine saying you disagree and not supporting those authors, but don't go calling those game reviews and articles unethical.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]See, I don't see things like this as a issue. There is no such thing as an unbiased review of something like video games. Even if a game tries to avoid an issue by remaining silent about it its is still political, by not questioning the status quo. For example COD my avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong. (A counter example is a game like Spec Ops: the Line) There's a really good video about this.
You don't have to like it, your fine saying you disagree and not supporting those authors, but don't go calling those game reviews and articles unethical.[/QUOTE]
If your reviewing a game based on it's political merits over it's creative and playable efforts your a terrible, terrible reviewer, and the fact of the matter is it is unethical - because you are reviewing for a company that is supposed to be neutral and supposed to be giving as unbaised as possible report of what is going on with a game. You can't claim your unbaised and doing reviews fairly while being utterly biased in your reviews ; that's unethical, and your manipulating people into thinking that games are bad because of things they shouldn't even be considered. See anything owned by Gawker, Gamestura, etc. They tell real world media that games are bad and need to be changed and give them a skewed perspective that only popularizes and conforms their stigmas about videogames and it's surrounding culture - and that my friend, is unethical.
[editline]a[/editline]
Ethics are a concept of right or wrong; we believe what they are doing is wrong and helping kill gaming journalism, and opening up a vast sea of unreliability when they should be helping protect against that. They don't deserve to be considered a reliable news source by mainstream media and they clearly do not represent us - they NEED to be called out.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]See, I don't see things like this as a issue. There is no such thing as an unbiased review of something like video games. Even if a game tries to avoid an issue by remaining silent about it its is still political, by not questioning the status quo. For example COD my avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong. (A counter example is a game like Spec Ops: the Line) There's a really good video about this.[/QUOTE]That's not how it works. That is forcing a stance on someone when there is no evidence for it. You're just assuming what you want to confirm whatever disposition you have without actual support for said assumption.
[QUOTE]A reviewer factoring his beliefs into a review is not unethical. I'd say that it was the opposite and that any decent reviewer should include their full opinion, though it may not be the most popular.[/QUOTE]Reviewers and reporters need to approached every subject they cover with an objective approach because their opinions and biases are not universal truths. So when your job is to inform, you should be trying to inform without letting your personal politics sway the information. Your personal politics do not need to be pushed on others.
[QUOTE]As for writers "attacking their audience" this is ignoring the audience that DOES agree with their gripes with the "Gamer" community. I think it would be more unethical if reviewers would keep silent about there strong opinions toward some of their audience, just because it could result in less money/popularity. I think its refreshing that Ben Kuchera is moving from things like "Why using the PS4 controller is like touching boob for the first time" to actually taking a stand for something he feels strongly about.[/QUOTE]Its got nothing to do with them just taking a stand. Their response to be criticized and questioned was to lash out violently at their critics without what would basically amount to shitposting. Saying that "Using a PS4 controller is like touching a boob" or whatever is just childish writing and that is one problem itself. But making hilarious exaggerations and egregiously false claims to deflect criticism while trying to back and protect your friends, that is a far more grave issues.
[QUOTE]You don't have to like it, your fine saying you disagree and not supporting those authors, but don't go calling those game reviews and articles unethical.[/QUOTE]They are unethical. Especially when you realize that they are being written by people with connections to the subject of their writings.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]See, I don't see things like this as a issue. There is no such thing as an unbiased review of something like video games. Even if a game tries to avoid an issue by remaining silent about it its is still political, by not questioning the status quo. For example COD my avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong. (A counter example is a game like Spec Ops: the Line) There's a really good video about this.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_tdztHiyiE[/url]
A reviewer factoring his beliefs into a review is not unethical. I'd say that it was the opposite and that any decent reviewer should include their full opinion, though it may not be the most popular.
As for writers "attacking their audience" this is ignoring the audience that DOES agree with their gripes with the "Gamer" community. I think it would be more unethical if reviewers would keep silent about there strong opinions toward some of their audience, just because it could result in less money/popularity. I think its refreshing that Ben Kuchera is moving from things like "Why using the PS4 controller is like touching boob for the first time" to actually taking a stand for something he feels strongly about.
You don't have to like it, your fine saying you disagree and not supporting those authors, but don't go calling those game reviews and articles unethical.[/QUOTE]
So in your mind every piece of media has some kind of responsibility because it might inadvertently broadcast a bad message? Do you realize that whatever message you associate with pieces of media is nothing but your interpretation of it? People shouldn't try and justify whatever happens in their fictions because that's precisely what they are: Fiction. By bringing politics into everything you're making a big deal of something that's simply supposed to be entertainment. What's the political message in Doom or Quake? And even in games where the plot plays a bigger part, does it necessarily imply a political message? If you start judging games on the morality depicted in their plot you might as well forbid any artistic expression entirely.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]
You don't have to like it, your fine saying you disagree and not supporting those authors, but don't go calling those game reviews and articles unethical.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is blatantly unethical when developers and journalists are exchanging money and not disclosing it.
Pretending your unrelated to a person when really you LIVE with them and giving them press coverage is pretty much as biased as you can get. That's something you tell somebody, if you met them once or are great friends (great friends is a bit of a "maybe") it's not a big deal at all.
Pretending your somebody else, or somebody who is an expert, or somebody who is completely unbiased is basically the definition of unethical
[editline]a[/editline]
Also, I really really love the contrast between these two :
[quote]Videogames can have an adverse affect on people unknowingly.[/quote]
[quote]Journalists can't have an adverse affect on you,[B] it's your choice on what you want to read![/B][/quote]
Which one is it then??
There is a very good reason you define an EDITORIAL or OPINION article from a FACTUAL (To the best your ability) article.
OFC reviews are opinions - but if you don't [I]try [/I]to review it from a strangers point of view then your not reviewing games properly - your just telling people what to think.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]For example COD may avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong.[/QUOTE]
What the shit man. It's just a fucking videogame. When I play Calladoody or Battlefeels, whether the American Fucking Army is being ethical is literally the last thing on my mind.
That is some seriously disturbing tumblrina tier blogger bullshit.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47206866]Even if a game tries to avoid an issue by remaining silent about it its is still political, by not questioning the status quo. For example COD my avoid looking critically at the American Military, but by being silent about that they start to say (inadvertently perhaps) the military can do no wrong. (A counter example is a game like Spec Ops: the Line) There's a really good video about this.
[/QUOTE]
Do you know the difference between video games and reality?
I know this is kinda unavoidable since most people in this thread are pro gg, but please don't try to avalanche with responses. Just saying.
[QUOTE=uber.;47207087]I know this is kinda unavoidable since most people in this thread are pro gg, but please don't try to avalanche with responses. Just saying.[/QUOTE]Anyone who has something to say has a right to say it short of just shitposting or flaming.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47207077]Do you know the difference between video games and reality?[/QUOTE]
Are you saying to me bloody visuals and regeneration are not real things US soldiers have?
Snake7, you need to keep your arguments self consistent.
honestly, if a reviewer wants to talk about political points or such things in a review, it should be a separate part, like that one Christian game site that reviews the game on one hand and reviews the content on another. best of both worlds, imo
[QUOTE=uber.;47207087]I know this is kinda unavoidable since most people in this thread are pro gg, but please don't try to avalanche with responses. Just saying.[/QUOTE]
That would require people coordinate to make sure they don't post responses to arguments. And why shouldn't they if they have different takes on why someone is wrong?
You don't HAVE to analyze every video game like (I use to play quite a lot of COD in my console days, and I enjoyed GTA 5 generally) that but that's not to say there is nothing deeper there. It can be good sometimes to think about the types of subtle intentional or unintentional messages in whatever medium you consume. This can help you not be affected by any subconscious ideas are attitudes that may be present. Think about it this way: advertisements have been proven to work in affecting people or they would't be worth spending money on. This is when people know the ad is trying to sell then something and they are wary to a certain degree. So it's not much of a stretch to say entertainment itself could help strengthen or lessen viewpoints without a person being aware that it is happening.
As for reviewers owing for an unbiased review, that simply doesn't exist. A truly unbiased review would be simply "This is the game. You can do some things. Here is some information they gave us about the game. Buy it or do not buy it." A reviewer is paid for their personal opinion about a game. If you don't like the views of a reviewer simply don't read their reviews or (if you feel strongly) visit the website they write on.
You could start a petition to the site to remove the reviewer, but how would that be different than people in Austria starting a petition to get GTA off the shelves at Target?
[QUOTE=Snake7;47207207]
As for reviewers owing for an unbiased review, that simply doesn't exist. A truly unbiased review would be simply "This is the game. You can do some things. Here is some information they gave us about the game. Buy it or do not buy it." A reviewer is paid for their personal opinion about a game. If you don't like the views of a reviewer simply don't read their reviews or (if you feel strongly) visit the website they write on.
You could start a petition to the site to remove the reviewer, but how would that be different than people in Austria starting a petition to get GTA off the shelves at Target?[/QUOTE]
Two things :
1. [quote]OFC reviews are opinions - but if you don't try to review it from a strangers point of view then your not reviewing games properly - your just telling people what to think.[/quote]
2. The difference is censorship. When KiA goes for advertisers they are telling Gawker "We don't want this. We think you are evil." - When you petition to outright ban something your just censoring it. Gawker loses money but no removal of advertisements could ever kill it, it's too just too big. (Even if people doing it are thinking they are going to kill it, many of those people are slightly delusional or emotional.) I think it's about sending a message over censoring a product - in my opinion. It entirely depends on your viewpoint.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47207207]You don't HAVE to analyze every video game like (I use to play quite a lot of COD in my console days, and I enjoyed GTA 5 generally) that but that's not to say there is nothing deeper there. It can be good sometimes to think about the types of subtle intentional or unintentional messages in whatever medium you consume. This can help you not be affected by any subconscious ideas are attitudes that may be present. Think about it this way: advertisements have been proven to work in affecting people or they would't be worth spending money on. This is when people know the ad is trying to sell then something and they are wary to a certain degree. So it's not much of a stretch to say entertainment itself could help strengthen or lessen viewpoints without a person being aware that it is happening.[/QUOTE]
Okay, sure, but first off, we already know that games have no correlation to acts of violence. And while it is possible that media can influence you, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that people will consume all the ideas that a piece of media contains, and internalize them nearly instantly and with no resistance. I think it's such a stretch, that it's just flat out a bad argument.
Ads work. Ads sell. And reviews are the counter to this. If ads are so effective, as we are both claiming, then surely the consumer, you and I, need protection in the form of ethical reviews, reviews that are not bought and paid for, not subject to relationships and the issues there within, and are not affected by the HIGHLY subjective moral analysis you've called for already.
[QUOTE]As for reviewers owing for an unbiased review, that simply doesn't exist. A truly unbiased review would be simply "This is the game. You can do some things. Here is some information they gave us about the game. Buy it or do not buy it." A reviewer is paid for their personal opinion about a game. If you don't like the views of a reviewer simply don't read their reviews or (if you feel strongly) visit the website they write on.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they're paid to write their opinions, their experiences, and they're paid to do their best to make the piece as unbiased and as objective as it can be. That cannot be attained, true, but they are ideals that journalism should strive for, or it isn't really journalism, is it? It's just an editorial. A review is not an editorial unless stated to be one. A review is supposed to contain as much of "This is the game, this is what it's like" as possible, and yes, say "Buy or do not buy, your choice, here's my thoughts".
[QUOTE]You could start a petition to the site to remove the reviewer, but how would that be different than people in Austria starting a petition to get GTA off the shelves at Target?[/QUOTE]
Why would we start a petition to do that when we can just exercise our rights to not read it and they'll go out of business because they're not writing anything anyone wants to read.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47207207]
As for reviewers owing for an unbiased review, that simply doesn't exist. A truly unbiased review would be simply "This is the game. You can do some things. Here is some information they gave us about the game. Buy it or do not buy it." A reviewer is paid for their personal opinion about a game. If you don't like the views of a reviewer simply don't read their reviews or (if you feel strongly) visit the website they write on.[/QUOTE]
Just to let you know, you're mistaking bias for objectivity. Objective statements are statements that can be falsified, therefore they are not opinions. Bias is saying "this is a good game" because your friend made it, rather than "This is a good game" and listing how aspects of the game deliver a good experience.
Praise Allah you guys finally started saying things I disagree with, and to think, for a second I was worried this was a echo chamber!
Some video games are mechanics driven, you play them for fun, looking deeper into them for some kind of message is fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of the video game. For a journalist to write about this kind of game the best method would be to review mechanics, replayability, sound, art style and graphics. Other type's of games are more story driven. A healthy understanding of politics, current events and philosophy are integral to a user fully appreciating what the game has to offer. These are your "art games", they aren't really called that of course, video games are a young medium and as far as I am aware we haven't coined a phrase yet. To give you an example, these types of games are like Spec Ops: The Line. In these cases, a journalist has to inject their own personal beliefs into their review.
To really hit this home, lets quickly review COD as a mechanic game, and then as an art game.
COD 2015
Graphics:5/10
sound:5/10
Replayabilty:9/10
A must have for long time COD fans, as they once again have changed very little when it comes to their formula. The graphics are slightly better, the sound is alright, and the multiplayer is what everyone keeps asking for. If you like COD, or if you want a fast paced twitch shooter to play with people online, I recommend this game.
Now for the cod review that injects politics into it,
COD 2015: American imperialism at its finest
COD offers the stereotypical canned-bean eating, bunker dwelling, racist Americans what they want. In this recent addition to the franchise we are now killing (insert minority here) as well as Russians and Chinese. The way this game tries to influence its audience to accept blind nationalism while reinforcing negative cultural stereotypes is deplorable. 0/10 stay away from this horrible game.
Obviously we can tell which one is more useful to people that are wondering if the new COD is worth 60 bucks, they just want to know that it's the same as the last COD, not the racial, political and social implications the game is trying to make!
Now we'll look at Spec Ops mechanics review
Spec Ops: The line
Graphics:3/10
Sound:4/10
Replayablity:0/10
Spec Ops was a painfully mediocre 3rd person shooter set in the same location every modern military shooter is these days. It brings nothing new to the table gameplay-wise and isn't worth your time. Do not recommend.
But Spec Ops isn't just a crappy 3rd person shooter, although it certainly is if you judge it based on mechanics alone. Having some political knowledge and cultural biases makes it become a much better game.
Spec Ops: The Line
As I began playing spec ops I immediately thought about how horrible it's going to be to play through such a boringly average shooter. However once getting into it, I found the game made me look at our countries foreign policy, as well as myself, in a way I never had before. This game is probably one of the best of this year, and I certainly recommend picking it up, if you want a game that takes a closer look at America's foreign policy as well as our behavior as gamers.
Injecting your personal beliefs into a review isn't inherently a bad thing. The review embargo's, gifts and all of that are bad, but sometimes reviewing art means you need to look a bit deeper than surface level.
But this is videogames were talking about here - sure they are art - but many many of them have NO political or feminist or whatever stuff put into them. They aren't even trying to make that a point, reviewers are looking for things that aren't there and shouldn't be there because it was completely and absolutely unintentional and infact a majority of the time avoided.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47207207]You don't HAVE to analyze every video game like (I use to play quite a lot of COD in my console days, and I enjoyed GTA 5 generally) that but that's not to say there is nothing deeper there.[/QUOTE]That isn't to say that there [I]is[/I] anything deeper though. That's the problem, the deeper one goes looking for ideas in a work, the more opinionated and bias it gets. And at a certain point it just becomes seeing what you want to see.
[QUOTE]It can be good sometimes to think about the types of subtle intentional or unintentional messages in whatever medium you consume. This can help you not be affected by any subconscious ideas are attitudes that may be present.[/QUOTE]This is on the person actually consuming the medium to do, not someone else to tell them what they should see in it.
[QUOTE]Think about it this way: advertisements have been proven to work in affecting people or they would't be worth spending money on. This is when people know the ad is trying to sell then something and they are wary to a certain degree.[/QUOTE]Advertisements rely on massively different tricks, and they exist to sell a product, not massively impact the nature of the viewer. In fact, when it comes to advertisements for things that do try to actually sway viewpoints, they tend to have a very limited audience that will actually be receptive to them, and then outside its either no effective or actively repulsive.
[QUOTE]So it's not much of a stretch to say entertainment itself could help strengthen or lessen viewpoints without a person being aware that it is happening.[/QUOTE]Yeah, it kinda is, they're rather disconnected mediums.
[QUOTE]As for reviewers owing for an unbiased review, that simply doesn't exist. A truly unbiased review would be simply "This is the game. You can do some things. Here is some information they gave us about the game. Buy it or do not buy it."[/QUOTE]That is not really true. Approaching a review with an objective mindset is about being able to see it for more than just your biases, being able to look at the work on its own. That you do not allow outside influences to intervene in the review process. To acknowledge that your opinions are not truths and that other perspectives exist beyond your own and contrary to your own. The objective approach is something taught is English 102 classes, so a professional journalist or reviewer should have far more experience and understanding of the concept than even that.
[QUOTE]A reviewer is paid for their personal opinion about a game. If you don't like the views of a reviewer simply don't read their reviews or (if you feel strongly) visit the website they write on.[/QUOTE]A reviewer is paid to provide an informative look at a work by analyzing its merits and demerits. Not to push their political persuasions.
Reviewers are going beyond just "what they think about a game" and trying to tell games "If you don't put x into the game then you are a bad game and we will give you a bad score!" While they have no problem giving games that although conform to their beliefs, are debatable terrible games 10/10's.
See : Bayonetta, Gone Home.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;47207474]Reviewers are going beyond just "what they think about a game" and trying to tell games "If you don't put x into the game then you are a bad game and we will give you a bad score!" While they have no problem giving games that although conform to their beliefs, are debatable terrible games 10/10's.
See : Bayonetta, Gone Home.[/QUOTE]
GG has examples of journalists that are doing things maliciously, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But I think those are a few bad eggs, most of this, I believe, comes from the difference between toys and art. Bayonetta receiving bad reviews is most likely reviewers going into work thinking that this is game is an art and treating it as such. As an art I think Bayonetta is horrible, as a toy, it's fun as hell.
I don't have time to go into this anymore with you, but I am looking forward to this, I'll go through all the replies once I get back home and answer any you guys post. (I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you when I don't answer after this post, I'm just gone and wanted to be courteous and give you a heads up)
[QUOTE=Snake7;47207207]You don't HAVE to analyze every video game like (I use to play quite a lot of COD in my console days, and I enjoyed GTA 5 generally) that but that's not to say there is nothing deeper there. It can be good sometimes to think about the types of subtle intentional or unintentional messages in whatever medium you consume. This can help you not be affected by any subconscious ideas are attitudes that may be present. Think about it this way: advertisements have been proven to work in affecting people or they would't be worth spending money on. This is when people know the ad is trying to sell then something and they are wary to a certain degree. So it's not much of a stretch to say entertainment itself could help strengthen or lessen viewpoints without a person being aware that it is happening.[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, you can try to think about political issues in a rational light instead of rooting for whatever caters the most to your feelings at first glance. If your political beliefs are based on a sturdy argumentation and backed up by facts, they're quite unlikely to be challenged by media that doesn't actively debunk it. If your convictions are flimsy enough that simply absorbing a piece of media that doesn't explicitly challenge them makes you reconsider them, they were probably not rooted in any kind of solid logic in the first place and were thus of little value.
asdasfgadhfhahfafhfha
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("gimmick account, first post in 2 years is spam" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.