Gamergate

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby Atarifever1 » October 15th, 2014, 9:23 pm

[QUOTE=scotland17]

1) I respect you, my friend, but I feel the assertion that to 'not comment or challenge the political meanings in a work is to give them your tacit endorsement' is ... untenable and unsound.  People can and do go and reinterpret all sorts of things with different filters to see how it looks.  Every time a video game character eats a power up is not some political statement about childhood obesity, but it could be spun that way.  Everytime we watch the Flintstones, do we have to comment that Fred is eating a Brontosaurus burger...in the car with Dino...then going to work on a Brontosaurus the next day? 

To assert that we have a convene a conversation about and against every conceivable slight or slant or omission or cliché or trope or oversight on every bit of media we discuss or we are tacitly agreeing to it is ludicrous.   We limit our discussion either to where a point is deliberately being made, or we understand that culture shifts and that things that were not deliberately making political points might seem to be doing so in later times.   No people of color in Bedrock for instance...do we have to mention that every time we discuss the Flintstones.  No.  No we don't.  

[/QUOTE]
I somehow missed this post the first go round.  Very well argued.  I could not have said it better myself.  This idea has bugged me more and more the more rampant it has become in various forms of liberalism.  

A couple weeks ago I saw someone on Twitter I respect retweet a quote that said something like "Silence is voting for the status quo."  That made my blood boil.  Because silence can also be thinking (and often is).    Or it can be deciding that the option on offer besides the status quo is no better than the status quo, even if both are horrid.  This idea that it is noble to live by "if you aren't for us, you're against us" terrifies me.  To make snap decisions the only alternative to de facto support of one side argues for less thinking, and more division.  Less consideration, and more anger.   

Similarly, the argument that to not discuss every issue possible is somehow support of one side or the other is worrisome.  Right now we are all using electricity, plastic, and future electronic waste to have this conversation.  Should we break out into an environmental argument in order to continue this discussion?  If not, are we arguing, simply by being here, that we don't believe in plastic micro-particles finding their way into sea food and are we denying global warming?  A silly example I know, but not that much of a stretch.  

And if I have to discuss why there isn't a female lead character in "A Christmas Carol" or be considered a sexist, I will never be able to get to discussing the real arguments in the story against wealth for its own sake and treating other people as less than oneself.  

Vexer1
Posts: 883
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby Vexer1 » October 16th, 2014, 12:08 am

How exactly are game journalists not critics?  That doesn't make any sense.

Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby Atarifever1 » October 16th, 2014, 3:01 pm

[QUOTE=Vexer]How exactly are game journalists not critics?  That doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

They aren't critics at the major sites and magazines, because they are also part of the hype machine portion of the business, they are often too friendly with the developers and publisher, and many of them get jobs with publishers or developers once they decide to leave journalism.

As I said, Roger Ebert wasn't also the host of Entertainment Tonight.  He didn't quit being a critic when he was offered a job doing PR for Paramount or something. 

A game "critic" at the major sites is part of building up excitement for the final product.  They do this so they can be useful to publishers and developers (and then be granted access to content), and so they can get reader page views or subscriptions.  It is very hard to be a real good critic of a game when you spent the last 18 months writing articles and doing videos with the express purpose of making people want the game. 

I am not saying they don't do lots of good work, or that they are incapable of being critical or raising criticsm.  However, it is not a good setup to do great work as a critic. 

This is just like a Sports reporter or blogger.  I listen to something called "Bluejays Talk" hosted by Mike Wilner.  He covers the BlueJays for Sportsnet Radio.  He calls the games, does the pre and post game call in show, interviews players, blogs, and I think writes for Sportsnet Magazine.  I have heard him make excellent criticsms of the team.  However, he also talks to the players every day, tries to draw in listeners by making every game and series seem really important, tries to drive people to all the content Sportsnet has up from interviews to pregame analysis, and draws a paycheque from Rogers Sportsnet (Rogers owns all of the rights to broadcast Jays games on TV and radio, owns the stadium the team plays in, and owns the team).  I would not expect a truely impartial view from him.  I would expect good information, but for a great critique, I'd go to a fansite like Bluebird Banter.

Similarly, until games media outlets start to seperate their Entertainment Tonight type writers from their critics, if I want great game criticsm, I'll go to places like videogamecritic.com

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby ptdebate1 » October 16th, 2014, 4:48 pm

I see where you're taking this, Atarifever. I agree for the most part if it's IGN or Gamespot we're talking about, but those types of sites are the exception these days rather than the rule. Kotaku, Polygon, USGamer, Edge, and Eurogamer, just to name a few, frequently and unapologetically buck the trend of hype/fallout that's characterized more questionable media outlets. Kotaku, as a matter of fact, just adopted a new policy where the majority of game coverage takes place post- rather than pre-release. You can read the policy update here: http://kotaku.com/the-future-of-kotakus-video-game-coverage-is-the-prese-1644297778

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby ptdebate1 » October 16th, 2014, 5:04 pm

I should also remark that the VGC's site doesn't really fall under the rubric of "criticism," traditionally understood. I see in his reviews no substantial dialogue with other media (whether film, literature, or music) or understanding of the broader cultural context of games. They are viewed in isolation as entertainment objects. I don't mean to deprecate the quality of VGC's reviews, but they're categorically different from the writing of a Leigh Alexander or a Jane McGonigal.

Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby Atarifever1 » October 16th, 2014, 8:39 pm

[QUOTE=ptdebate]I see where you're taking this, Atarifever. I agree for the most part if it's IGN or Gamespot we're talking about, but those types of sites are the exception these days rather than the rule. Kotaku, Polygon, USGamer, Edge, and Eurogamer, just to name a few, frequently and unapologetically buck the trend of hype/fallout that's characterized more questionable media outlets. Kotaku, as a matter of fact, just adopted a new policy where the majority of game coverage takes place post- rather than pre-release. You can read the policy update here: http://kotaku.com/the-future-of-kotakus-video-game-coverage-is-the-prese-1644297778[/QUOTE]

Very interesting development.  A move in the right direction for sure, and one I was totally unaware of.  And just to be clear, I love IGN.  However, I love it like I love Rogers Sportsnet or TSN for sports.  They're fans and cheerleaders more than critics.

As for this site, I see how VGC isn't a traditional critic sure, but he is kind of the solution to the "I want quick information that actually conveys something" which makes his criticism useful in other ways.  I know you're aware of this, I'm just saying that to do "proper criticsm" would undo the thing that makes his own brand of evaluation so useful.  

If you really like geek reviewers who have the ability to bring all kinds of outside influences into discussion of something from pop culture by the way, you should be watching moviebob's stuff at The Escapist.  His movie reviews are great, but his "The Big Picture" features are really something special.   

Segatarious1
Posts: 1110
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby Segatarious1 » October 16th, 2014, 10:36 pm

[QUOTE=ptdebate]I should also remark that the VGC's site doesn't really fall under the rubric of "criticism," traditionally understood. I see in his reviews no substantial dialogue with other media (whether film, literature, or music) or understanding of the broader cultural context of games. They are viewed in isolation as entertainment objects. I don't mean to deprecate the quality of VGC's reviews, but they're categorically different from the writing of a Leigh Alexander or a Jane McGonigal.[/QUOTE]

The Critic reviews games appropriately, then.

Game culture is Mt Dew, Doritos, false social justice, and then 'death threats' from idiots on antisocial media.

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby ptdebate1 » October 16th, 2014, 10:44 pm

Agreed, Atarifever. I too like the pulpy, over-enthusiastic vibe I get from popular sites. They have their place, as does the concise and useful VGC. I also appreciate the "nerdy" precociousness of gaming's decidedly liberal critical apparatus, which has perhaps done more to advance the medium than any other single group.

Gaming is coming into its own as a cultural institution. Twenty or thirty years from now, interactive, computer-mediated experiences will form merely one segment of a broad spectrum of viewer-centric entertainments and artistic works. This is my humble prediction.

ptdebate1
Posts: 909
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby ptdebate1 » October 16th, 2014, 10:49 pm

[QUOTE=Segatarious][QUOTE=ptdebate]I should also remark that the VGC's site doesn't really fall under the rubric of "criticism," traditionally understood. I see in his reviews no substantial dialogue with other media (whether film, literature, or music) or understanding of the broader cultural context of games. They are viewed in isolation as entertainment objects. I don't mean to deprecate the quality of VGC's reviews, but they're categorically different from the writing of a Leigh Alexander or a Jane McGonigal.[/QUOTE]

The Critic reviews games appropriately, then.

Game culture is Mt Dew, Doritos, false social justice, and then 'death threats' from idiots on antisocial media.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect (a decidedly small quantity), that is untrue.

This is gaming culture: 

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU8bXbSQjE[/video]

BanjoPickles1
Posts: 1321
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Gamergate

Postby BanjoPickles1 » October 16th, 2014, 11:35 pm

I honestly don't know why you still play games, since you seem to have such a personal disdain for all things gaming. I don't know, maybe I'm too busy with real world issues to tear apart an entire gaming culture because I disagree with them. I guess I'm nutty.

If people take games as art, deriving some sort of meaning from them, what do people care? Honestly, people need to stop being so pompous and simply spend that energy enjoying what they like. I don't care for Assassin's Creed (I'll spell out the name because I'm not childish), but I see it as something that doesn't offend me on any level therefore it's unimportant.....to me. What offends me are ripoffs. Sony charging me $600 for a PS3 offends me; Microsoft selling me a faulty 360 offends me; Nintendo being so greedy that they won't offer cross buy offends me. The rest doesn't matter.


Return to “Modern Gaming”