By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

DonFerrari on 21 February 2018
sundin13 said:
Well, that sounds pretty.....fair?

I've complained about similar things before, but it was largely in the context of two things: One is a tone which too broadly attacks the game for some subjective elements, and two is score. This review doesn't really do either.

It made sure that its comments on race were well contextualized and makes it clear that they aren't accusing the game of racism. They make sure to highlight that these elements largely lie in the absence of representation, not a racist representation itself.

Then, the comments on the "love" mechanics are valuable information for a review. Reviews are consumer-centric, not "art" centric. What that means is that they serve as a buyer's guide, not some deep critique of a game's themes and mechanics. As such, it is entirely within the scope of a review to speak about elements which may turn off some buyers. Personally, I like romance elements in games when they are done well, but this mechanic doesn't really sound like it is up my alley. I'm glad the reviewer included such information to allow me, as the consumer, to make a more educated decision.

And at the end of the review, there is no score. Score has always been the problem with this form of "it may bother some people" criticism. Without it, it is only information. It is up to the reader to make determinations of what that information means to them.

If you choose that it doesn't matter to you, well, that is fine, but it doesn't mean that this information should not have been included in the review.

You contradict yourself on the review that should be to inform customer but also go there to make political agenda. And the criticism to the lack ofrepresentation is bullock when the case made is that perhaps there could have been a black person because of reasons.

JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

not out of context, the context of the OP is the same from the review.

And even the full quote makes nothing... it just say that there were some places and events in europe that had participation of black people and that "perhaps in that specific area there may have been one that stayed overnight". The justification is total bullocks.

 

Yes, it is taken out of context. Because, the first part of the historian's quote explains why specifically in that area there may have been different ethnic groups.  The first half explains that because the town was located on a popular trade route, it is reasonable that there may have been people from other cultures and locales staying there.  

You may still find that not very compelling, and that's fine.  To be honest, I don't think it was an especially great argument.  But, the way it was presented was deliberately misleading.  It goes straight from " a historian I spoke to, who specialises (sic) in the area, disagrees" into the second half of the historian's quote.This gives the impression that this is the entirety of what the historian said, and it simply was not.   The part that was omitted was entirely relevant to the point and it wasn't especially long to the point where it needed to be cut for length.  Moreover, of the paragraphs quoted, the others were cut and pasted in their entirety.  This paragraph, which is probably the most relevant to the argument the review was making, was the only one to be chopped up like that.  There is literally no reason, other than to intentionally mislead, to cut the article like that.   

And have you gone to the reviewer and also asked for the full source of the historician right? Because at least op gave the link to the original article, while the reviewer almost certainlyedited his text to just portray the points from asingle person that could sustain his flimsy point. 



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
sundin13 on 21 February 2018
DonFerrari said:
sundin13 said:
Well, that sounds pretty.....fair?

I've complained about similar things before, but it was largely in the context of two things: One is a tone which too broadly attacks the game for some subjective elements, and two is score. This review doesn't really do either.

It made sure that its comments on race were well contextualized and makes it clear that they aren't accusing the game of racism. They make sure to highlight that these elements largely lie in the absence of representation, not a racist representation itself.

Then, the comments on the "love" mechanics are valuable information for a review. Reviews are consumer-centric, not "art" centric. What that means is that they serve as a buyer's guide, not some deep critique of a game's themes and mechanics. As such, it is entirely within the scope of a review to speak about elements which may turn off some buyers. Personally, I like romance elements in games when they are done well, but this mechanic doesn't really sound like it is up my alley. I'm glad the reviewer included such information to allow me, as the consumer, to make a more educated decision.

And at the end of the review, there is no score. Score has always been the problem with this form of "it may bother some people" criticism. Without it, it is only information. It is up to the reader to make determinations of what that information means to them.

If you choose that it doesn't matter to you, well, that is fine, but it doesn't mean that this information should not have been included in the review.

You contradict yourself on the review that should be to inform customer but also go there to make political agenda. And the criticism to the lack of representation is bullock when the case made is that perhaps there could have been a black person because of reasons.

Do you not think there are people who would be bothered by the fact that very little diversity exists in the game? I mean, to make that assertion, you would have to assume that the reviewer did not exist, which would be a strange argument, to say the least. As such, it can be assumed that his purpose is not to push a political agenda, it is to demonstrate facets of the game that bothered him, as a player of the game and make such facets known to other potential consumers who would likewise be bothered by these aspects. 



JWeinCom on 21 February 2018
DonFerrari said:

 

JWeinCom said:

 

Yes, it is taken out of context. Because, the first part of the historian's quote explains why specifically in that area there may have been different ethnic groups.  The first half explains that because the town was located on a popular trade route, it is reasonable that there may have been people from other cultures and locales staying there.  

You may still find that not very compelling, and that's fine.  To be honest, I don't think it was an especially great argument.  But, the way it was presented was deliberately misleading.  It goes straight from " a historian I spoke to, who specialises (sic) in the area, disagrees" into the second half of the historian's quote.This gives the impression that this is the entirety of what the historian said, and it simply was not.   The part that was omitted was entirely relevant to the point and it wasn't especially long to the point where it needed to be cut for length.  Moreover, of the paragraphs quoted, the others were cut and pasted in their entirety.  This paragraph, which is probably the most relevant to the argument the review was making, was the only one to be chopped up like that.  There is literally no reason, other than to intentionally mislead, to cut the article like that.   

And have you gone to the reviewer and also asked for the full source of the historician right? Because at least op gave the link to the original article, while the reviewer almost certainlyedited his text to just portray the points from asingle person that could sustain his flimsy point. 

All you've done is suggested the reviewer was dishonest too, which, even if true, would do nothing to justify the OPs dishonest presentation of information.  



monocle_layton on 21 February 2018

Almost like their influence is over exaggerated and only an issue because we keep mentioning them...

How much longer are we actually gonna live in the SJW world? Fucks sake people grow a pair of balls and realize they’re not some superior beings. They’re idiots like any of the other idiots. Just stop giving them the attention they fucking want and maybe we won’t have to keep complaining about these whiny people



DarthMetalliCube on 21 February 2018
DonFerrari said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

Ugh, I hate shit like this so much you have no idea. One website that calls themselves "progressive gaming" that is partnered with a site I write for wrote an angry rant disguised as an "editorial" basically saying the game is a "white man fantasy" and that there should be "people of color," despite taking place in Medieval Eastern Europe.. The fact that they can call themselves progressive after a write-up like that is laughable to me. Like, just what exactly is "progressive" about racism?

I don't necessarily think politics should stay out of games, as games can be a form of art, and art has always been a commentary of society. I do however believe that IDENTITY politics should stay the hell out of games, and basically - don't throw your racist hang ups and your divisive racial view of society on others, particularly artists who, the last thing they want is censorship..

they are as progressive as they are liberal... just they changing the meaning of the words...

And sure political choices and narrative can be part of a game, and even if they want they can make a game that pushes diversity and equality themes, but that is it, if they want. But when SJW make pointless attacks because someone doesn't adhere to their crazy notions it's better, because given enough time they dig their own grave.

Oh for sure, I definitely support diversity in games, hell Overwatch is one of my favorite games lately heh. But yeah at the same time - forcing it upon a game; especially one which all evidence indicate does not call for it, is a slippery slope to Authoritarianism. Much like in other aspects of society, it should be organic, not forced upon.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network
brendude13 on 21 February 2018

I stopped visiting Eurogamer a few years ago for this reason. Entire articles like that became more and more frequent. This was the nail in the coffin: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-18-editors-blog-i-am-sexist



Aeolus451 on 21 February 2018
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

I provided a link with the full review. I can't copy the whole review so anyone could be accused of "selective editing" if they try use an article in their thread. I chose the most relevant parts of the review to my thread. Even with everything the one historian he could find that agrees with him, brought up, his theory banked entirely on "if one got sick, stayed at inn, knocked up girl/got pregnant" . That's just alot of wishful.

Nobody has asked you to post the full review, but when you make a thread about a certain portion of a review or an article, you are supposed to put all of the relevant text into the original post. The explanation of the historian why there could have been people of color was only one paragraph long, but you chose to butcher it anyway.

Injecting political topics into video games or video game reviews is something that I don't like, but the same goes for selective quoting and therefore misrepresentation of a subject. The final portion of that game review was awkward, but so is your presentation of the topic you wanted to discuss.

 I put what was relevant to me and to my point. The part I left out was absurd in my opinion and it wouldn't have changed what the one historian was trying to say or work against the point I was making. The premise of his counter argument was on very slim possibilities (like winning the lottery) and not on any kind of proof.  Where's the proof of the bunches of interracial couples/offspring or "people of color" in that area and time period to say that it wasn't historically accurate to say that there weren't multiple races of color walking around? There's not any. 

I wrote everything with idea that people would read the review and decide for themselves if my assertion that the review was a sjw review (which no one actually challenged) or not.  Even without reading the review, what I left out wouldn't make or break my claim that it was a sjw review.



potato_hamster on 21 February 2018

How to tell if the complaint is bullshit.

Imagine the game is set in sub-saharan Africa instead. Imagine there are no white people besides one group of people who are represented accurately but not cast in a positive light. There was historical precedence that there were indeed white explorers and other white groups that may have passed through the area at that one point in time but no definitive proof that they did. Do you think the author from Eurogamer would be making a similar complaint about the lack of diversity?

Because I don't.

If not, then they shouldn't be making the comment they did.



JWeinCom on 22 February 2018
Aeolus451 said:
RolStoppable said:

Nobody has asked you to post the full review, but when you make a thread about a certain portion of a review or an article, you are supposed to put all of the relevant text into the original post. The explanation of the historian why there could have been people of color was only one paragraph long, but you chose to butcher it anyway.

Injecting political topics into video games or video game reviews is something that I don't like, but the same goes for selective quoting and therefore misrepresentation of a subject. The final portion of that game review was awkward, but so is your presentation of the topic you wanted to discuss.

 I put what was relevant to me and to my point. The part I left out was absurd in my opinion and it wouldn't have changed what the one historian was trying to say or work against the point I was making. The premise of his counter argument was on very slim possibilities (like winning the lottery) and not on any kind of proof.  Where's the proof of the bunches of interracial couples/offspring or "people of color" in that area and time period to say that it wasn't historically accurate to say that there weren't multiple races of color walking around? There's not any. 

I wrote everything with idea that people would read the review and decide for themselves if my assertion that the review was a sjw review (which no one actually challenged) or not.  Even without reading the review, what I left out wouldn't make or break my claim that it was a sjw review.

The part you left out was absurd in your opinion... so you left it out... when your whole point was that the review was absurd... Something's not adding up.



Aeolus451 on 22 February 2018
JWeinCom said:
Aeolus451 said:

 I put what was relevant to me and to my point. The part I left out was absurd in my opinion and it wouldn't have changed what the one historian was trying to say or work against the point I was making. The premise of his counter argument was on very slim possibilities (like winning the lottery) and not on any kind of proof.  Where's the proof of the bunches of interracial couples/offspring or "people of color" in that area and time period to say that it wasn't historically accurate to say that there weren't multiple races of color walking around? There's not any. 

I wrote everything with idea that people would read the review and decide for themselves if my assertion that the review was a sjw review (which no one actually challenged) or not.  Even without reading the review, what I left out wouldn't make or break my claim that it was a sjw review.

The part you left out was absurd in your opinion... so you left it out... when your whole point was that the review was absurd... Something's not adding up.

 I said that the review was a sjw review. It's in the title. You're not that good at playing detective. The part I left out is something that I considered absurd.  How you're conflating sjw and absurd is the only thing not adding up.  Hmm I'll take that back. I guess I can see how you would confuse those words considering that sjws say alot of absurd crap.