Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD
Rogerer was right that I posted that old review as something of a gag, but I did wanna point out that reviews absent of political slants are possible. It's the entirety of classic EGM's reviews, for instance.
When you say games are growing up and thus new kinds of criticism are required, I kinda call bullshit on that. Games have been criticized well enough for years and has they evolved toward realism or alternative goals, so to did commentary change with them.
Now I'm not saying you can't make a review that expresses your political rhetoric, but you have to remember these games aren't made to promote any political or social commentary. Judging them as such makes a monkey out of you.
If you wanted to review a Tom Clancy game through the lens of political rhetoric that makes perfect sense. Even the Metal Gear games for all their military fantasy. I can see that. But it's unfair viewing a game through political lens when the creators didn't venture out for that kind of thing. It's a major missing the point as well as painting a developer/publisher in a corner they never prepared for. And I don't think they should start preparing for them.
In my review I highlighted Ada as sexy and secretive, tropes of the Femme Fatale archetype. It is exactly the words you use to describe that kind of character. A women would write the same thing if she wanted to highlight her and the trope. The developers were very aware of the character type as well. It makes sense to mention that. I won't call Leon sexy not because I'm not gay - but because his character traits weren't made with that in mind. He was young and in over his head when he debuted in the series. That's not sexy at all. That's not any archetypes that include 'sexy'.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
|
It doesn't matter if games are not made with the express purpose of making political or rhetorical statements if there are themes there-in that people still find problematic. I appreciate that Mark Kermode, the film reviewer I refer to, points out that Sex and the City has revolting capitalist/consumerist overtones with crudely-drawn, subservient, noble savage foreign characters and that Michael Bay films have vulgar, unnecessary objectification of women. I want to know these things because I know these things will annoy me, even if the only intention of the film maker was to rope in a certain demographic.
Similarly, if a reviewer or critic wants to highlight problematic issues in story-telling or imagery in games, that is fair game. That is what critique is about. The artist's intent is utterly irrelevant, to be honest, and, indeed, this is where games designers need to realise that part of having a wider audience is acknowledging that people will have problems with the things you do.
It's not really for you to say how a reviewer or critic interprets these things. You can either argue with them or ignore it. The point is that society informs art and art informs society. If games want to be seen as something enjoyed by people other than teenage boys in their dark bedrooms then with that comes different priorities in story-telling and imagery for different audiences. Furthermore, this encourages innovation in story-telling, which is important as games attempt to be more about an encompassing experience.
Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them. There is, again, nothing wrong with pointing this out. As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.