Thread: I have a question about Gamergate
View Single Post
Old 10-28-2014, 08:43 AM   #210
road doggy dogg
wekasauce
 
road doggy dogg's Avatar
 
Posts: 106,735
road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)road doggy dogg makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewAllenHanso View Post
I still love that these fags think game journalism is...journalism. It's fags reviewing games. It's opinions at its core.

Loser fag video gamers trying to justify their actions and pretend they have anything worth living for.
This is why I'm having a difficult time seeing the "message" here.

I'm probably in the small minority with this, but the way I view reviews is that they are entirely subjective. A review, be it of a movie, book, album, or game, is by definition subjective. You are giving YOUR OPINION on how good a piece of work is. Sure, you have the context of its contemporaries to compare it to, but really what a review is is one person's voice on why they did or didn't like the game.

The whole argument against the Bayonetta 2 review, for example, is "why are you putting your personal thoughts about sexism into the review?" My counter to that is, why WOULDN'T you? I had this discussion with a friend the other day. I could see the issue if said reviewer was inconsistent in their review process. If, say, someone was very close-to-the-vest with their reviews normally and only commented on objective benchmarks as often as possible, then suddenly went up on their soapbox to decry how the game is sexist and lowered the score because of that, I could see people being annoyed at bad "journalism" (opinion piece, remember) because of the inconsistency in the review process.



Now, I also understand that most people are fucking morons and treat reviews as gospel, and if a site like IGN gives a game a 7/10 as opposed to a 9.5/10 that can have a real, legitimate effect on the number of sales that game makes. That's unavoidable so long as moronic consumers are willing to let someone else tell them what games to play. The problem lies in that people need to take reviews less seriously and focus less on some stupid arbitrary number and read the content of the review to understand why the reviewer came to that conclusion, then decide at that point if they agree and then if they choose to buy the game as a result.


Anyway whatever, tangential post.
road doggy dogg is offline   Reply With Quote