Topic: Does a professional reviewer have a mandate to bring personal political biases into a review?

I'm fairly new here so I'm not entirely sure what just happened. It seems the person who started a thread that had developed into a lively discussion, deleted that thread because it made them uncomfortable.

That's not an acceptable attitude on the internet, especially when people are debating things maturely. If you don't like something, and as long as it's not breaking any rules, just don't read it!

If anyone missed that discussion, I was putting across the point of view that I don't think a reviewer should base a review on their personal political biases, but should be free to mention them (e.g if you happen to dislike violence, be wary). This arose around the issue of a gamespot employee deducting points from the GTA5 review based on the poor portrayal of females (which I accept is true).

If anyone else wants to contribute an opinion, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise and I think it's an important subject to discuss.

I think Reviewers should have the freedom to rate a game based off their experience with it. If there was something in the game that they did not like then Reviewers should be free to let that affect their score.

Question: Why are you so convinced that the reviewer deducted a point from the game for that reason only? I rarely see a game get a perfect score. Is it somehow not possible that she really just thought it was a '9' game (which is still a really high score, even possibly too generous) and you (as well as many others) may be jumping the gun by holding to just one aspect of her review? She did mention other issues with the story besides the misogyny.

From what I understand, "professional reviewers" have a mandate to bring his/her opinion into a review. That would include their "personal political bias" as well.

I apologize for deleting the thread. It's just that I just wanted to share something I found interesting and a little funny with the folks at NintendoLife. I wasn't looking to get people to argue and debate over opinions and views. I had a bad feeling the second I posted that, I just knew something would come up starting a huge argument. I'm just not the kind of guy who likes to get involved or be responsible for when an argument breaks out. Your opinion is your own, and I can respect that, as well as anyone else's opinion. But, it's just that... ugh, I don't know, now I feel even worse for deleting it! I'm sorry, I didn't want any of this to happen! I apologize to everyone else out there offended by my deletion. I'm very sorry.

I think people started making a fuss because she put it in the "negatives" column. You know, where they have to summarise the game. When that's one of the only negatives, it suggests it accounted for the deduction of points. I personally think this specific issue is a bad one to focus on, given that it's such a hugely popular game that it makes no difference what 1 reviewer thought. It's more the concept I'm arguing against. Perhaps the Dragon's Crown example is better?

Yeah, deleting the thread was too extreme for such a mild discussion. Requesting a close would've been more appropiate.

That's one of the reasons I don't like the idea of normal users having the ability to fully delete threads.

Don't feel bad, it got off topic so you deleted it. Now we have an area to discuss the new topic that formed from your old one.

No problem, I won't hold against you personally at all. Although you rather worryingly showed the kind of behaviour that actually was motivating my concern! Issues like racism, sexism, homophobia are so emotionally charged that they really do have a kind of taboo that gets created that seems to stifle free speech where everyone gets afraid of saying or doing anything that goes against the liberal majority.

I wasn't even aware any forums had that option!!

@MrWalkieTalkie: Just so you know, if a member of the moderation team is actively participating in a discussion, let us make the call whether or not to delete it. There was nothing wrong with that discussion, garywood (and everyone else) were abiding by our Rules so far as I could see. If it had gone too far, I would've nipped it in the bud, I promise you.

as to the topic in question, if it negatively impacted their playthrough of the game and how they felt about the game overall, I absolutely expect a reviewer to bring it up and for it to color the review overall. Why bring something up and then at the end be all 'oh but don't let that stop you it's a great game' when it clearly wasn't a great game from the standpoint of the reviewer?

This. I really don't see why a reviewer should be limited in what they can talk about so long as it's relevent to their experience with the game. And yes, the score should reflect the general opinion of the reviewer.

Well we seem to be agreeing on some issues but not on others. Maybe I do just have an unrealistic expectation of what game reviewers SHOULD be doing.

Take an example: Mass Effect 3. That ending just completely ruined it for me. It really did guarantee that I'd never play it again. (I have no idea what the extended cut added). So if I were to follow the kind of 'anything-goes' logic you're putting forward, I really would give it like a 4 or something like those nutters on metacritic.
However, I recognise a different aspect to the appreciation of art. I have a sensitivity to the fact that some things are more dependent on my personal disposition than others. And I predicted (I think correctly) that while most people would agree it was a terrible ending, I don't think it would completely ruin it for most people the way it did for me. So if I were a professional reviewer, I'd be trying to write a review for what I assume to be the average gamer and I'd probably give the game an 8-8.5.

So is that a mistake? That's not even a political bias, just one that I recognise to be very subjective.

No. You can review it however you want.

you'd have one opinion among many. it's all six of one/half a dozen of the other anyway — you'd have the people rabidly agreeing with you and those disagreeing with you to the death no matter what you wrote. the important thing is that you'd be able to say what you said unhindered, just like all the 'nutters' you think are crazy for having said this or that about games you've played, so what does it matter as long as you were absolutely, brutally honest? no one could fault you for that.

When you write to please others, that's where you go wrong, because people are still going to disagree no matter what you write. you have to be honest with yourself and with everyone around you — 'as a long-time Mass Effect fan, this game was crap', y'know?

in the end even "professional" reviews are just personal opinions when it comes to stuff like story.

if someone is thinking the violence in a gta game is wrong or too much then i probably wonder if that person ever played a gta game before

If we take that reasoning too far, it'd render game reviews almost useless (worse than they already are). That really does seem to be a fundamental difference of opinion if you'd support ANYTHING connected with the game. I suspect the review sites would disagree if it was too personal and uncommon an issue.

I think being professional is lame.... I think if you're going to work in something you have put your heart into it even if others disagree with your point of view!

Well exactly, and the same for the portrayal of the characters I would've said too! I'd assumed the stereotypes that I'd see before I'd played it. Like someone reviewing a mario game and deducting points for the fact that he's a bit of a silly Italian stereotype.

I just hate it when they take off like 10 points off because its to hard(most of the time its a FPS fan reviewing a JRPG)