Well, it does help there that review has a couple meanings, which we hadn't really touched on - in addition to media reviews, there's also meanings like doing an overview of major points on a topic, or an in-depth criticism of an institution. But I think it was pretty clear that on the last page we meant "review" in the sense of reviewing a single media work. Were you confused on that point? Do you honestly think that the action of critiquing a single aspect of a media work is tantamount to a review of that work?
EDIT: The point I'm trying to arrive at (in my typical roundabout way) is that this argument started when you claimed that what Anita Sarkeesian does are game reviews. Do you still think that?
I think describing what she does as review is confusing in the context that "game review" (and "film review" and "book review") almost always mean what Luke has been describing, i.e. describing and analyzing a single work with the intent of telling people if they should experience the work and why. That meaning has been what Luke's meant every time he's asked whether what Sarkeesian does is game reviews, and what all the Gamergators likely mean when they talk about reviews. I simply don't think it's an appropriate descriptor for her. Unless you think that Sarkeesian's videos constitute "game reviews" in that sense. Do you?
Remember: it's not even about videogames. It's literally just:
1. They don't like women (except to have sex with) 2. They don't like criticism of their preferred media from any perspective other than their own 3. They don't like people with social lives reviewing/making their preferred media 4. They feel excluded from the games industry by #3, framing it as oppression 5. They feel like "popular kids" and "feminists" playing games are ruining their "inner sanctum" or "safe space" 6. They enjoy being absolute pieces of shit to people online
I do see the distinction you are making. The focus of what she does is the trope and not the game. Her review of any individual game is limited in scope to the trope she is discussing.
Watching you guys go around in circles about "review" vs. "criticism" is making me get headache-y. As someone whose major is film and who has taken a course on film criticism specifically, I can pretty much tell you that you're all coming at this from the wrong angle. You're shouldn't be looking at these like they're separate concepts and you're trying to find the dividing line. By the same token, one of those words definitely does entail the other, but not in the order muppet and Steve have got it -- it's reviews that necessitate criticism, not the other way around.
Because that's my understanding of things: in film at least, "criticism" is just the umbrella term that covers everything from popular reviews to hardcore academic analyses. In our studies, we looked at blurbs, newspaper/online reviews, magazine articles, journalistic essays, academic essays, and yes, video reviews and video essays -- all under the banner of criticism.
Wikipedia at least seems to agree with me. This is from the article on film criticism (emphasis mine):
Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films and the film medium. In general, it can be divided into journalistic criticism such as appears regularly in newspapers and other popular, mass-media outlets and academic criticism by film scholars that is informed by film theory and published in academic journals.
So in that sense, the connection between straight-up video game reviews and Anita Sarkeesian's content is that both offer commentary on games in some way. Reviews offer evaluation and Anita offers analysis, but both can be counted as forms of criticism. Doesn't make Anita's stuff journalistic, and it shouldn't be counted as such, but that's where the connection lies if you want to make one.
THAT SAID. I think the connection GG makes between the two is a lot simpler than that. Putting aside for the moment that what Rym says is true and it's all pretty much a smokescreen when you take it back to the people at the heart of all this, the thought process in a lot of these people's minds is just fuzzy logic at best. "JURNALISTS TALK 'BOUT VIDJAGAMES. SHE TALK 'BOUT VIDJAGAMES. .....ETHTICS!!!!" Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the important take away from this thread (which kinda went without saying) is that GamerGate is a bunch of bullshit from beginning to end. It's misogyny and frothy nerd rage draped in red herrings and trendy buzzwords perverted and distorted into their service.
It's hysterical to GGers who think journalists have all this massive power to influence change within the industry instead of...actually talking to the developers or studios who make the games.
You hate Day 1 DLC? Want better writing? Tired of half-baked games only for them to fixed within months of release with a necessary patch download? Do you hate early server shutdowns and microtransactions? Do something to the studio rather than expect to have the journalists do something. The consumers have more sway in the long run.
The discussion about review vs. criticism made my head spin a bit. I tend to use them interchangeably, but it depends on the overall tone and structure of the piece as whom the author is aiming towards. The debate of objectivity in reviews reminds me of this.
Assuming your analysis is sound, who the fuck exactly is "GamerGate" is it the population of a particular forum? Is it people who identify as "GamerGate"? Is it anybody who says anything negative about Sarkeesian? Not being snarky, I honestly don't know.
Yes and no. There's places where they gather - for example, the KotakuinAction subreddit, and 8chan - but generally gamergaters are people who identify as supporting the Gamergate movement, or otherwise speak in support of the movement, rather than just people who gather in a particular place.
I'm gonna answer Luke's question in a different way that might make things more clear (I really tried to read everything but 98 messages is a lot of reading and I'm tired, so forgive me if this has been said).
The connection GG intends to correlate between feminist critiques and journalism is that they belief that their is legitimately a conspiracy by these feminists to get journalists to write articles and positive coverage of feminist indie "non-games" (Depression Quest, most other Twine games, etc.) and negative coverage of other games (AKA Talking about feminism at any point in a review and/or critique of a game). They think that there is literally a cabal of women and other minorities who are abusing the system to force journalists to write a certain way, and that those journalists then badmouth anyone who disagrees with "their political agenda" rather than making the journalism about games. They think that these people have literally invaded the gaming journalism websites to force their product onto readers in order to make profits.
This is, of course, beyond even being considered a conspiracy theory. Large portions of GG-identifying individuals on 8chan (their main site of congregation) believe such things as: 1. Zoe Quinn's boyfriend is a ultra-rich Jewish trust fund baby who allows her to live in luxury 2. For a time, they believe Quinn's boyfriend (Alex Lifschitz) was a fake identity for Phil Fish (another indie game designer) 3. They also believed that a member of the indie scene (Maya/Felix Kramer) was a fake account that was actually backed by Quinn And those are just off the top of my head, really. There's plenty more, and lots not about Quinn.
I hope that is more clear. Luke, you are 100% right in being confounded at the possible link between these two things, but it is literally a wide-eyed conspiracy theory with literally no actual evidence. We're talking about a group that believes that a few names being on a DARPA paper somewhere means that members of this "Feminist cabal" are using DARPA to do something. This is still discussed.
I couldn't make up a more stupid basis for a movement if I thought really, really hard.
I found a new, a great example for what I'm talking about when I say that GamerGate looks at games as appliances, not media, and therefore hate reviews based on a real world context and what the text of the game actually says. Read this fantastic review of the game Battlefield Hardline. The game basically applies the concepts of the modern military shooter to police work in an urban setting and it gets rightfully raked over the coals for its poor implementation and horrible message it sends. Then read the comments section in which petulant hardcore gamers accuse the author of bias and complain that review views the game in the context of our greater society, demanding that a game is a-political and should therefore be viewed as such.
Watching you guys go around in circles about "review" vs. "criticism" is making me get headache-y. As someone whose major is film and who has taken a course on film criticism specifically, I can pretty much tell you that you're all coming at this from the wrong angle. You're shouldn't be looking at these like they're separate concepts and you're trying to find the dividing line. By the same token, one of those words definitely does entail the other, but not in the order muppet and Steve have got it -- it's reviews that necessitate criticism, not the other way around.
Because that's my understanding of things: in film at least, "criticism" is just the umbrella term that covers everything from popular reviews to hardcore academic analyses. In our studies, we looked at blurbs, newspaper/online reviews, magazine articles, journalistic essays, academic essays, and yes, video reviews and video essays -- all under the banner of criticism.......
I am in 100% agreement with Eryn here. Any and all commentary on a work falls under the umbrella of criticism. Now, the quality (in the meaning of characteristics, not value) of the commentary is also entirely debatable, but it's important to remember that the commentary itself is also up for commentary. Nothing is sacred.
Okay, despite word choice mistakes, what I meant was this:
There are game reviews that aim to influence how the reader will spend their time and money in regards to a specific game. There are other kinds of criticism which doesn't aim to influence how the reader spends their time and money in regards to a specific game, despite the topic being that specific game. The first kind I understand how there could be "ethics in video game journalism" issues. Other kinds of criticism? I don't see it.
Well, I do see it now, thanks to examples and explanations in this thread. Or at least I see why gamergaters see it.
I found a new, a great example for what I'm talking about when I say that GamerGate looks at games as appliances, not media, and therefore hate reviews based on a real world context and what the text of the game actually says. Read this fantastic review of the game Battlefield Hardline. The game basically applies the concepts of the modern military shooter to police work in an urban setting and it gets rightfully raked over the coals for its poor implementation and horrible message it sends. Then read the comments section in which petulant hardcore gamers accuse the author of bias and complain that review views the game in the context of our greater society, demanding that a game is a-political and should therefore be viewed as such.
That is probably the best critical review of a videogame I have ever read. And the comments are just hilarious.
Well ninja's implying that the people posting BS comments on that review are necessarily aligned ideologically with GamerGate, or that's how I interpret his comment. Ascribing "wants" to "them" seems too broad and not really fair (not that they aren't stupid fucking comments.)
It is irrelevant whether the people posting the comments consider themselves as aligned with GamerGate or not, because the actual content of the comments themselves is ideologically aligned with GamerGate. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize that ideology on the basis of its stated goals.
Now, an ideology isn't the same thing as a concrete "they", and individual people will align with that ideology in a non-binary way, to different degrees. There are indeed shades of grey with regards to GamerGate. However, just because there are shades of grey doesn't mean that some are not darker than others, or that none of them are black (or close enough that it makes little difference).
It may not be the whole of the GamerGate movement, or even most of it, but there is a non-empty group of people who are directly associated with the ideological core of that movement, and it's entirely reasonable to ascribe "wants" to that particular "them" on the basis of that ideology.
Aside from that, how likely do you think it is that those particular commenters on that particular review do not identify with GamerGate? At what odds would you be willing to take a bet on it?
Comments
Analysis - detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.
Criticism - the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.
Review. Now this is funny, reading through the various definitions of review I found both criticism and analysis listed as synonyms.
But I think it was pretty clear that on the last page we meant "review" in the sense of reviewing a single media work. Were you confused on that point?
Do you honestly think that the action of critiquing a single aspect of a media work is tantamount to a review of that work?
EDIT: The point I'm trying to arrive at (in my typical roundabout way) is that this argument started when you claimed that what Anita Sarkeesian does are game reviews. Do you still think that?
Unless you think that Sarkeesian's videos constitute "game reviews" in that sense. Do you?
1. They don't like women (except to have sex with)
2. They don't like criticism of their preferred media from any perspective other than their own
3. They don't like people with social lives reviewing/making their preferred media
4. They feel excluded from the games industry by #3, framing it as oppression
5. They feel like "popular kids" and "feminists" playing games are ruining their "inner sanctum" or "safe space"
6. They enjoy being absolute pieces of shit to people online
I do see the distinction you are making. The focus of what she does is the trope and not the game. Her review of any individual game is limited in scope to the trope she is discussing.
Because that's my understanding of things: in film at least, "criticism" is just the umbrella term that covers everything from popular reviews to hardcore academic analyses. In our studies, we looked at blurbs, newspaper/online reviews, magazine articles, journalistic essays, academic essays, and yes, video reviews and video essays -- all under the banner of criticism.
Wikipedia at least seems to agree with me. This is from the article on film criticism (emphasis mine): So in that sense, the connection between straight-up video game reviews and Anita Sarkeesian's content is that both offer commentary on games in some way. Reviews offer evaluation and Anita offers analysis, but both can be counted as forms of criticism. Doesn't make Anita's stuff journalistic, and it shouldn't be counted as such, but that's where the connection lies if you want to make one.
THAT SAID. I think the connection GG makes between the two is a lot simpler than that. Putting aside for the moment that what Rym says is true and it's all pretty much a smokescreen when you take it back to the people at the heart of all this, the thought process in a lot of these people's minds is just fuzzy logic at best. "JURNALISTS TALK 'BOUT VIDJAGAMES. SHE TALK 'BOUT VIDJAGAMES. .....ETHTICS!!!!" Nothing more, nothing less.
You hate Day 1 DLC? Want better writing? Tired of half-baked games only for them to fixed within months of release with a necessary patch download? Do you hate early server shutdowns and microtransactions? Do something to the studio rather than expect to have the journalists do something. The consumers have more sway in the long run.
The discussion about review vs. criticism made my head spin a bit. I tend to use them interchangeably, but it depends on the overall tone and structure of the piece as whom the author is aiming towards. The debate of objectivity in reviews reminds me of this.
The connection GG intends to correlate between feminist critiques and journalism is that they belief that their is legitimately a conspiracy by these feminists to get journalists to write articles and positive coverage of feminist indie "non-games" (Depression Quest, most other Twine games, etc.) and negative coverage of other games (AKA Talking about feminism at any point in a review and/or critique of a game). They think that there is literally a cabal of women and other minorities who are abusing the system to force journalists to write a certain way, and that those journalists then badmouth anyone who disagrees with "their political agenda" rather than making the journalism about games. They think that these people have literally invaded the gaming journalism websites to force their product onto readers in order to make profits.
This is, of course, beyond even being considered a conspiracy theory. Large portions of GG-identifying individuals on 8chan (their main site of congregation) believe such things as:
1. Zoe Quinn's boyfriend is a ultra-rich Jewish trust fund baby who allows her to live in luxury
2. For a time, they believe Quinn's boyfriend (Alex Lifschitz) was a fake identity for Phil Fish (another indie game designer)
3. They also believed that a member of the indie scene (Maya/Felix Kramer) was a fake account that was actually backed by Quinn
And those are just off the top of my head, really. There's plenty more, and lots not about Quinn.
I hope that is more clear. Luke, you are 100% right in being confounded at the possible link between these two things, but it is literally a wide-eyed conspiracy theory with literally no actual evidence. We're talking about a group that believes that a few names being on a DARPA paper somewhere means that members of this "Feminist cabal" are using DARPA to do something. This is still discussed.
I couldn't make up a more stupid basis for a movement if I thought really, really hard.
There are game reviews that aim to influence how the reader will spend their time and money in regards to a specific game. There are other kinds of criticism which doesn't aim to influence how the reader spends their time and money in regards to a specific game, despite the topic being that specific game. The first kind I understand how there could be "ethics in video game journalism" issues. Other kinds of criticism? I don't see it.
Well, I do see it now, thanks to examples and explanations in this thread. Or at least I see why gamergaters see it.
Remember, we are using English. A language where the phrase, "officer relieved after incident," could mean fired or stress relief.
Then again, it's kinda like reading YouTube comments. I mean, why would you?
I guessed at what the comments would be so didn't read them due to avoiding brain hurt.
Now, an ideology isn't the same thing as a concrete "they", and individual people will align with that ideology in a non-binary way, to different degrees. There are indeed shades of grey with regards to GamerGate. However, just because there are shades of grey doesn't mean that some are not darker than others, or that none of them are black (or close enough that it makes little difference).
It may not be the whole of the GamerGate movement, or even most of it, but there is a non-empty group of people who are directly associated with the ideological core of that movement, and it's entirely reasonable to ascribe "wants" to that particular "them" on the basis of that ideology.
Aside from that, how likely do you think it is that those particular commenters on that particular review do not identify with GamerGate? At what odds would you be willing to take a bet on it?