Jump to content

Are computer game reviews becoming more political?


brucoe

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

I’d say the marketing for the game and store description tends to be a reasonable litmus test most of the time.  At least for making it a primary focus of a review.

 

If someone wants write a bunch about what Uncharted says about imperialism, that would work best as an editorial article. 

I agree that it's fair other then that I think that assumes a "default" cultural perspective. Uncharted (I don't mean to pick on it, it's just an easy, recent example) IS marketed as a rollicking, treasure hunting adventure and it IS that. But what is assumes both implies and overtly says things, and I think that is fair to comment on both in reviews and in editorials.

 

I'd agree too that there's a scale... if we assume there's a hypothetical torture porn simulator game that gets the same level of care as Uncharted does for the sake of this discussion, I think we would likely agree that commenting on what it's asking players to do and how it is rewarding them for doing that would be fair within the context of a review. Uncharted ISN'T that but I don't know where I'd draw a hypothetical line for where I felt that it became "excessive." I used torture because for me personally, when I'm asked to do that in a game, it just really sets me off. I don't know why I rarely have an issue shooting someone in the face, or using a Lancer chainsaw on someone in Gears, but I DO have an issue when Kratos carves up Hermes, or Trevor has to interrogate someone. And I could absolutely see someone get equivalently irked when Drake is using their country as set dressing for destruction (while someone else might think it's rad their background is being represented at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

You know what I meant.  

 

Reviews are most interested in answering the question of whether something is worth playing.

 

In depth policital discussions of a popcorn action game would be better served in a different kind of article not concerned with that, IMO.  And which is free to get into spoiler territory.

 

Game lore in reviews might be a good analogy.  Like, it could be cool and all, and the reviewer might have something neat to say about it.  But there’s only so much of it that makes sense put in a review itself.

Not all reviews are specifically pointed at determining if something is worth playing. They're a critique of the game and the author's experience of it. Discussions about the social or political context of the game may well impact that experience and seem perfectly in line with the goal of informing the reader as to that experience.

 

That's especially true for games that might not get a lot of coverage. When RDR2 came out, every game publication had dozens of articles on it, so it makes sense that a separate article could be set aside for whatever discussions the game may bring up. If it's a smaller game, the review might be the only real chance an author or a publication has to write about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to ebb and flow based on who's writing. 

 

In July there was the firing of those 2 Arena net devs, and Nathan something-or-other from Kotaku's first pass at an article a week later really came across like somebody white knighting hard as though Jessica Price was viciously attacked on twitter and then fired for it. 

 

I do not know if his first slant on the issue had anything to do with his political leanings, but he seemed to be on the side she was being single out because she was a woman that dared being one in a boys club of a gaming industry. 

 

He has since corrected the tone of the article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mikechorney said:

I haven't.  I've been reading reviews since ZZap!64  The vast majority of reviews are not political.

 

Of course I'm willing to see you show my assertion is demonstrably false.

But they are. They're not EXCLUSIVELY political, but they now almost will always touch on themes or what have you that the game is presenting. They'll mention if something seems troublesome to them. They'll point out flaws that are not just mechanical or a problem with graphics or sound, but the message a game is trying to convey, or the way they portray a certain character, who might happen to be a minority or what have you. Part of this is because games have become much more political, even AAA games. 

 

I mean, just in this thread some people have accidentally come up with examples. Reviews probably had no issues, and actually probably celebrated Lara Croft's body and exploits in the past. The dev now explicitly makes a big part of the game about her interactions with native peoples, and that is very much political thing, and reviewers in turn often (and frankly, should) discuss this in their reviews. That's a big leap from big boobed lady shoots some crows and maybe there's a nude code. 

 

I actually re-read the IGN GTA 3 review and compared it to their 5 review in reaction to this thread. The 3 review literally has a paragraph, well shit, I'll just post it: 

Quote

It's rated M, for mature, which means if you monitor the kind of content in games that your kids play (if you're a parent), you definitely want to check this out before buying it. But the point is that this is a videogame, it's a form of entertainment. Like movies, or comic books, or TV. It's aimed at a mature audience and it's got mature themes. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive have sold millions of copies of Grand Theft Auto all across the world, and they have convincing monetary evidence that people love the series, and that they want more. I'm one of those folks. I think the game is insanely good. The videogame market is growing, it's filled with wildly different kinds of games, and there is a big broad vein that includes titles with mature content. Grand Theft Auto III is one of them, and it's worth picking up.

Contrast that to their 5 review, which is admittedly pretty tame as well, but they discuss the torture scene and how it made him uncomfortable and that there were other parts that he found problematic. And this is IGN, the most sterile gaming review site we have. But that 3 review is ACTIVELY getting away from anything political. It's like hey man, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I suspect a large portion of our country yearns for the days of that GTA 3 review lol. 

 

Anyway, as far as further evidence, it's a-plenty. It's also just a numbers game. The number of outlets reviewing games in 2018 is astronomical compared to 1997, and when you combine that with games being generally more politically aware and our current societal state, it's just impossible to come to the conclusion that the review landscape is no more political than it was back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Moa said:

Can we retire the phrase "SJW." 

 

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

Only if cuck and incel are taken down with it. 

 

42 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I am considering making it a "sanctionable" phrase on D1P.

 

42 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I would be fine with that as well.

 

Please also consider leftist/left wing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

But they are. They're not EXCLUSIVELY political, but they now almost will always touch on themes or what have you that the game is presenting. They'll mention if something seems troublesome to them. They'll point out flaws that are not just mechanical or a problem with graphics or sound, but the message a game is trying to convey, or the way they portray a certain character, who might happen to be a minority or what have you. Part of this is because games have become much more political, even AAA games. 

 

I mean, just in this thread some people have accidentally come up with examples. Reviews probably had no issues, and actually probably celebrated Lara Croft's body and exploits in the past. The dev now explicitly makes a big part of the game about her interactions with native peoples, and that is very much political thing, and reviewers in turn often (and frankly, should) discuss this in their reviews. That's a big leap from big boobed lady shoots some crows and maybe there's a nude code. 

 

I actually re-read the IGN GTA 3 review and compared it to their 5 review in reaction to this thread. The 3 review literally has a paragraph, well shit, I'll just post it: 

Contrast that to their 5 review, which is admittedly pretty tame as well, but they discuss the torture scene and how it made him uncomfortable and that there were other parts that he found problematic. And this is IGN, the most sterile gaming review site we have. But that 3 review is ACTIVELY getting away from anything political. It's like hey man, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I suspect a large portion of our country yearns for the days of that GTA 3 review lol. 

 

Anyway, as far as further evidence, it's a-plenty. It's also just a numbers game. The number of outlets reviewing games in 2018 is astronomical compared to 1997, and when you combine that with games being generally more politically aware and our current societal state, it's just impossible to come to the conclusion that the review landscape is no more political than it was back then. 

I don't understand how that is "political".  

1)  Most games don't deal  with anything political

2)  Most reviews that are "borderline political" aren't dealt with in the reviews

3)  I don't understand how a controversy over the nature of what Lara Croft is doing to native people is "political".  Which side are the Democrats or Republicans on of this issue?

4)  How is the GTA5 review political?

 

Again, you're making an assertion with no backup/facts and just referring to anecdotes that don't prove your point.  Feel free to demonstrate that my assertion was demonstrably false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, number305 said:

I hadn't heard about anyone killing Far Cry.  Is this documented anywhere?

 

I read him to mean that the political message was killed, not necessarily the entire game.  Far Cry 5 very much feels like a game that was supposed to have a message, only to have it all bleached out at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jason said:

 

By this logic it was dumb for people to start pushing back against blackface since, hey, it had been a thing for a long time already.

So is the solution to NEVER make a Tomb Raider game again staring Lara Croft because she's white? Should we make a new Tomb Raider starring Juanita Knowles an Afro-latina from East Los Angeles who embarks on quests to uncover Mayan artifacts and retrieve it before an evil white man who is hell bent on selling them to some Austrian fascist that thinks it'll give him the power rule the world?

 

Also, you equating blatant racism is so fucked up because it actually takes away from the seriousness of what Blackface stood for and current racism in this country. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

I don't understand how that is "political".  

1)  Most games don't deal  with anything political

2)  Most reviews that are "borderline political" aren't dealt with in the reviews

3)  I don't understand how a controversy over the nature of what Lara Croft is doing to native people is "political".  Which side are the Democrats or Republicans on of this issue?

4)  How is the GTA5 review political?

 

Again, you're making an assertion with no backup/facts and just referring to anecdotes that don't prove your point.  Feel free to demonstrate that my assertion was demonstrably false.

As I suspected, the confusion comes with your myopic definition of “political.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

What is your definition of political? 

It’s a nebulous term for sure, but defining it as “what the democrats think vs what the republicans think,” is not what anyone here is talking about.

 

I like this definition: 

 

Political means relating to the way power is achieved and used in a country or society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwinIon said:

Not all reviews are specifically pointed at determining if something is worth playing. They're a critique of the game and the author's experience of it. Discussions about the social or political context of the game may well impact that experience and seem perfectly in line with the goal of informing the reader as to that experience.

 

That's especially true for games that might not get a lot of coverage. When RDR2 came out, every game publication had dozens of articles on it, so it makes sense that a separate article could be set aside for whatever discussions the game may bring up. If it's a smaller game, the review might be the only real chance an author or a publication has to write about it.

 

At the end of the day, reviews are limited by the inability of the writter to speak without a spoiler muzzle.  They have to assume their audience hasn’t played them.  Which is a good thing, IMO, since that reflects their purpose.

 

If an indie game isn’t worth writing about again after a typical review, maybe it’s not saying (or doing) anything important enough to.

 

Today we have series like FNaF that Youtubers keep theorycrafting about well after the reviews.  It’s not up to traditional media anymore to decide who gets to stay popular and get post thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

It’s a nebulous term for sure, but defining it as “what the democrats think vs what the republicans think,” is not what anyone here is talking about.

 

I like this definition: 

 

Political means relating to the way power is achieved and used in a country or society.

So, I assume you are specifically referring to governmental power.  "Democrats vs. Rebublicans" is a specific American example -- as they are the only two parties that even have a modicum of influence in the U.S. political system.

 

How are reviews of video games discussing "the way power is achieved and used in a country or society?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

So, I assume you are specifically referring to governmental power.  "Democrats vs. Rebublicans" is a specific American example -- as they are the only two parties that even have a modicum of influence in the U.S. political system.

 

How are reviews of video games discussing "the way power is achieved and used in a country or society?" 

Any review that discusses marginalized groups, torture, imperialism, bio terrorism, race, etc is doing just that. 

 

Several examples have already been posted. Another off the top of my head is mention of appropriation of Native American culture in Horizon. If you really want me to find more examples, I can, but I think you’re gettin close to being a little obtuse about the whole thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

So, I assume you are specifically referring to governmental power.  "Democrats vs. Rebublicans" is a specific American example -- as they are the only two parties that even have a modicum of influence in the U.S. political system.

 

How are reviews of video games discussing "the way power is achieved and used in a country or society?" 

"Power" encompasses vastly more than the notion of overt "governmental power".

 

"Power" -- and by extension "politics" -- encompasses practically every aspect of the organization of society and the relationships between members of that society.  In essence, it is the practical application of the morals, ethics, and norms that define that society and the ability to influence those things towards a desired direction.

 

Simply put, politics is everything and everything is politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HGLatinBoy said:

So is the solution to NEVER do make a Tomb Raider game again staring Lara Croft because she's white? Should we make a new Tomb Raider starring Juanita Knowles an Afro-latina from East Los Angeles who embarks on quests to uncover Mayan artifacts and retrieve it before an evil white man who is hell bent on selling them to some Austrian fascist that thinks it'll give him the power rule the world?

Either of those would be totally fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

"Power" encompasses vastly more than the notion of overt "governmental power".

  

"Power" -- and by extension "politics" -- encompasses practically every aspect of the organization of society and the relationships between members of that society.  In essence, it is the practical application of the morals, ethics, and norms that define that society and the ability to influence those things towards a desired direction.

 

Simply put, politics is everything and everything is politics.

Politics specifically relates to power in an institution -- whether it be government, business or university.

But you are absolutely right, the word "power" has a much broader usage and can absolutely be used in every aspect in society.  The practical application of morals, ethics and norms can absolutely be part of any discussion on politics.  But that doesn't mean ANY discussion of morals, ethics and norms is political -- in fact most, IMHO, are not.

 

But, IMHO, it is a false equivalence to argue that because "power" has a much broader definition, so does the word "politics".

:)

 

But this is a side tangent 

12 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Any review that discusses marginalized groups, torture, imperialism, bio terrorism, race, etc is doing just that. 

 

Several examples have already been posted. Another off the top of my head is mention of appropriation of Native American culture in Horizon. If you really want me to find more examples, I can, but I think you’re gettin close to being a little obtuse about the whole thing. 

I haven't seen any review that contains a serious discussion on any of those topics -- referencing "marginalized groups" or "bio-terrorism" does not, in itself, become a commentary on politics unless it ties into institutional power.

 

The alleged appropriation of "Native American" culture in H:ZD wasn't discussed in reviews (but in an essay post-release).  In fact that very essay even raised the point that none of the reviews made any mention of what that author felt was a serious issue.  It began:

"Dear Games Journalism,

I’m really bummed out and we need to talk about why.

In the past week leading up to the launch of Guerrilla Game’s Horizon: Zero Dawn, I’ve read several thousand words about it. And now on the eve of its launch, I’ve read several thousand more.

Most of those words repeat, but none so glaringly as these:

Tribal.

Primitive.

Braves.

Savage.

But in all those thousands of words, those dozens of instances of that particular list, no one calls them into question. Not a single review makes mention of the historical usage of those words, or the tropes reflected in Horizon that caused the writers to use them without hesitancy."

 

Games reviews are the "white bread" of media criticism -- largely because of the nature of games.   Games, outside of a few notable examples, work hard not to create any controversy, so largely have almost nothing to say about the human condition, let alone politics.  They are the equivalent of a popcorn movie, or summer blockbuster.

 

And the reviews of them are similarly banal -- occasionally making reference to lack of diversity, objectification/over-sexualization of women or overly gratuitous violence -- and are largely written by recently graduated English minors with no life experience, and nothing much to say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into further semantics arguments about the definition of the word “politics” and even probably the word “review,” I’ll just say that I disagree with you on a fundamental level of what politics means and that is probably the biggest culprit of our disagreement. 

 

But even using your definition it’s easily demonstrated that reviews are more political. Nobody is stating they’re leftist manifestos with the main point of the review to discuss politics. But they most certainly bring up topics that, as the GTA 3 review quote I provided shows, reviews in the past ACTIVELY avoided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually have to admit that ever since I started posting here regularly, and on NeoGAF prior, I've basically stopped reading reviews unless I want I'm retroactively curious. I extremely rarely buy games Day 1 as it stands so I usually just tend to chat with you lovely folks about a game I'm interested in at this point. 

 

I'll peak at scores for sure but overall for the many aspects stated here, they don't really interest me when I could have an actual exchange with people whose tastes I can gauge on here. Maybe that's a totally different topic in the first place but it somewhat ties into the "change" in reviews and my disinterest in that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Without getting into further semantics arguments about the definition of the word “politics” and even probably the word “review,” I’ll just say that I disagree with you on a fundamental level of what politics means and that is probably the biggest culprit of our disagreement. 

 

But even using your definition it’s easily demonstrated that reviews are more political. Nobody is stating they’re leftist manifestos with the main point of the review to discuss politics. But they most certainly bring up topics that, as the GTA 3 review quote I provided shows, reviews in the past ACTIVELY avoided. 

Based on your POV  that the phrase:

"There's one particular scene, a torture scene in which you have no choice but to actively participate, that I found so troubling that I had difficulty playing it; even couched in obvious criticism of the US government's recourse to torture post 9/11 it's a shocking moment that will attract justified controversy."

demonstrates that reviews are more political.

 

I'll agree with your assertion that we disagree on a fundamental level of what politics means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikechorney said:

Based on your POV  that the phrase:

"There's one particular scene, a torture scene in which you have no choice but to actively participate, that I found so troubling that I had difficulty playing it; even couched in obvious criticism of the US government's recourse to torture post 9/11 it's a shocking moment that will attract justified controversy."

demonstrates that reviews are more political.

When contrasted with the GTA 3 review, absolutely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

At the end of the day, reviews are limited by the inability of the writter to speak without a spoiler muzzle.  They have to assume their audience hasn’t played them.  Which is a good thing, IMO, since that reflects their purpose.

 

If an indie game isn’t worth writing about again after a typical review, maybe it’s not saying (or doing) anything important enough to.

 

Today we have series like FNaF that Youtubers keep theorycrafting about well after the reviews.  It’s not up to traditional media anymore to decide who gets to stay popular and get post thoughts.

What do spoilers have to do with anything? It's entirely possible to reflect on issues without getting into specifics, to spoil minor things, or to have a spoiler section in a review. All are very common.

 

 

Bringing up random youtubers in this context is a bit of a non sequitur. If a given author has thoughts on a given game, the fact that other people have platforms better suited to that discussion is completely irrelevant. That doesn't mean they're dictating the conversation, just adding their piece.

 

If I'm reviewing Tomb Raider and feel like the treatment of indigenous peoples is problematic, it's entirely reasonable to address that without spoiling the game or needing to write another article that an editor may or may not want. Leaving it out simply because someone on YouTube might talk about it later is just silly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve never liked spoiler sections in reviews. It defeats the point.

 

Often the specifics that would be spoiled are important to a discussion about larger issues.  I would expect them to be if they couldn’t just be dismissed at face value in a sentence or two.

 

If there’s enough to write more than a paragraph on, then yes, I’d rather see that expanded in a different article.  

 

My beef is when I read a review and the criticism doesn’t go far enough to address the other parts of the game.  I shouldn’t be left wondering what the reviewer thinks of the play mechanics but highly informed about their social political concern for its setting choices.

 

Exception would be games that are extremely overt in their shit, like Hatred, Super Seducer, etc.  Those probably shouldn’t be getting professional reviews to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...