1741

No. But even if so, that wouldn’t make the review “not an opinion”. Reviews are opinions. BY DEFINITION.

1742

THINK AGAIN.

out of interest: How many sites/mags runs multiple reviews of a game if different editors have different ideas? I’ve seen RPS do multiple "wot I think"s about a single game. Any more?

1743

I count 6 opinions in that article, which proves my point. Even someone trying to eliminate opinion for the sake of a gag can’t do it.

1744

How do they go from an objective list of the features of the game to a score? That’s hilarious!

There’s room in the industry for objective reviews, just like the role Consumer Reports plays. If people want that, that’s cool. But to suggest that’s just how all reviews should be is silly.

1745

I don’t see how you’re making the logical leap from “a magazine or site only publishes one review of a game” to “therefore reviews, which by definition are opinions, are not opinions.”

I mean, the OED definition of review (in the sense we’re talking about here is):

“A critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in a newspaper or magazine: ‘she released her debut solo album to rave reviews’”

(emphasis added)

1746

Note that in addition to “ethics”, “bias”, “corruption”, and “nepotism”, GamerGate does not even know what “journalism” means. Reviewers aren’t really within the normal definition of journalist!

They don’t have sources, they don’t break stories, they don’t report the news. They are pundits, critics, it’s pure viewpoint. Do we regularly refer to movie critics as “film journalists”? Of course not. It’s Roger Ebert giving a thumbs up, not “THE CHICAGO SUN TIMES REPORTS MOVIE GOOD”.

P.S. I still don’t even understand how this “pretend not to understand the concept of the byline” game connects to anything. Even if we were say that reviews are straight news reporting and bear the imprint of the magazine… so what? What does that entail in the context of this? Polygon, collectively, panned Bayonetta 2 by publishing a 7.5 review. Is that a problem?

1747

I hear all neckbeards everywhere had their lives threatened recently.

Oh wait, that never happened. They were just told something they didn’t like/agree with. Totally the same thing though.

Calling your house at 2 am saying I’m going to kill you is the same thing as saying Obama is the worst president ever. See how those two things are exactly the same?

1748

LOL I think I know where he might be going here, he wants editors to censor critics from giving their honest opinion because bad reviews are bad for video game companies. ETHICS.

1749

I also like the sort of camouflage-by-silent-assent that goes on here (with the help of both sides). “People who say and do crappy things” somehow gets promoted to “all lonely cis nerd males”. When really, the GamerGate leaders aren’t the latter. They’re just the former.

We shouldn’t be focusing on whether the GamerGate people are crappy males, or crappy nerds, or crappy cis people, or crappy misogynists. There are women, and non-nerds, and probably even trans people in GamerGate. The only unifying principle they have is that they’re crappy people, or (in the best case) people supporting and enabling other people’s crappy behavior.

1750

You realize that misogynistic behavior does not require you to actually be a man right? GG is being judged large because of behavior and whom the mob is targeting, not who they are. There are speculations as to whose these anonymous cowards are, of course, but let’s not overlook the fact that only reason people are talking about this outside of gaming is because of the juvenile, aggressive largely misogynists behaviors that have become the mainstream talking points of this mess. You don’t get to control the narrative when you have a mob mentality horrifying the general public.

1751

I never said that what the writer wrote and the editor approved was a “review”. It’s whatever it is. “Gamers are dead” was not a review. Was it an editorial? I dunno. But I know the editor said “Ok, we’ll print that.” So ultimately, they’re who I’d want to talk to about not liking it.

1752

As a rough rule of thumb, if an article entitled “Gamers are dead” refers to gamers who actually died, then it’s reporting. Otherwise, you can safely assume that it’s an opinion piece.

Opinion pieces reflect the opinions of the columnist. The publisher may or may not agree with the piece, but surely considers it worthy of publication and a useful contribution to a wider discussion.

So, you can complain to either the writer or the publisher as you please. It will have the same effect as complaining to Fox News that you don’t like Sean Hannity’s opinion pieces. Namely, no effect at all.

The principled response to hearing an opinion you don’t like is not to shut it down. Instead, you let it stand, and then counter it with your own opinion. Gamergate hasn’t managed to understand this, and that’s why they will lose their battle against the gaming press.

1753

Are you seriously saying that you can’t recognize a piece that expresses an opinion as an opinion piece? Because that’s ridiculous.

1754

You even quoted the part where I said “Please don’t take that as an actual argument” and proceeded to take it as an actual argument.

I can’t even…

1755

Following up on this again because, really, it’s so unreasonable it beggars belief.

I’m now in the camp with the others. You’re clearly JAQing off. You’re not actually interested in the topic you purport to be discussing; you’re just stirring the pot for the lulz. It turns out that “Is this thing which expresses an opinion an opinion piece? WHO CAN SAY?” is the station where I get off the train and stop paying attention to you, because you’re not deserving of being taken seriously. You had a good run. I’d be impressed, if I wasn’t so annoyed.

1756

Reads like a Cleve Blakemore joke account.

1757

Uh, you do realize that Objective Game Reviews is a joke site, right?

1758

Nah, it’s just something that I’m thinking about. If I were running a website, I’d have to think pretty hard about letting something like that run. I file it under “editorially irresponsible”. Which is why I wonder if that’s even the role of an editor anymore, or do they just say “write whatever you want, knock yourself out.”

Not really a question, so much as my editorial opinion, there. More “I am pondering this, what do you think?” than “Please google for me the truth.”

Oh, you misunderstand me there. I’m not saying “Drag her off the stage” I’m saying that her being a focal point of attention on their team isn’t good for the real objectives that they want to accomplish. They should perhaps discuss with her that it’s not really helping. If Wu wasn’t in the spotlight, then it would be “people who want games to be better written and more considerate” than, well, what it is. She should just take a little break, cooler heads will accomplish a lot more once there’s a little calm in the storm.

1759

I commend the amount of effort they put into it. 99 reviews and counting.

1760

If you were running a website, that writer would have to think pretty hard about working for you.

Fortunately, most publishers are less willing to engage in censorship than you.