The Miscellaneous PC & vidya Games Thread

[Josquius]

I agree with what Jacob said. Same would go if this was a nazi making nonsense far right points.
If they spell out from the start "this is a nasty bit of woke propeganda invented by the jew to deceive our kids!" then I get where the 1/10 is coming from and all is good.
It's if they pretend the game is just  awful and don't mention their view is completely unrelated to the game itself that there's a problem.

[crazy canuck]

Give it a N/A and a long post about the ills of transphobia and Rawlings long history. I think review bombing as a reviewer is professionally unethical, basically an extension of your point number one above. It's not personally unethical, just professionally. While often the same, those two things can be different. Every three years I have to take a course as part of my designation that reminds me if that fact

... but game reviewing is not a profession and does not have a designation. There is no established code to adhere to. There are no professional or agreed upon standards. There is no governing body. It does not perform a critical function in society. It is, essentially, sharing your opinion about a game. Attaching a 1/10 or 5/5 or B+ or any other score to that opinion does not change that.

If there are any issues regarding "ethics in game journalism" they are the kind that are inherently unethical - misrepresentation and failing to disclose standards. When reviewers continually give 80%, 90%, 100% scores to games of major publishers to stay on good terms with them and get access, that is potentially unethical. Adopting a pose independence when they are not, suggesting they use a different standard and scale ("what do I think of the game") than they actually do ("what will make the publisher continue their relationship with me") can potentially be seen as unethical in a common way because it's misrepresentation.

If you read the review it is very clear what standard the reviewer is using to judge the game. Just because you don't find that standard useful or interesting does not make it unethical - professionally or otherwise.

I'll note, also, that the Wired review is not part of MetaCritic nor is Wired an established and important go-to source for gamers making purchasing decisions, so calling it "review bombing" is pretty imprecise. There does not appear to be an organized (or even ad-hoc) effort to drive down aggregate scores.

I am not sure I understand your argument, are you suggesting that ethics depend on a code of ethics being established - no code, no problem?

[Barrister]

I don't think the debate is over and I've already won. I dispute that there even is a debate to be had

Just listen to yourself.

I'm comfortable in my position-pretty simply,  chill out and leave trans people alone.
Suggesting there is a problem and a debate to be had where all facts show there is no problem, is the entire position of the reactionaries. I won't cede them the ground they're desperate to secure.

Also worth noting you haven't given any actual points here. What you're saying is basically that theres a valid debate to be had - to which no there isn't is the natural response.

"Chill out and leave trans people alone" is out course good advise.  No one should be going out to bother trans people just for being trans people.

The problem though that can potentially arise is if/when the rights of trans people intersect with other rights.  "The right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins".

I'm going to deliberately pick up some low-hanging fruit here just to show you there are debates to be had.

There's the story of Jessica Yaniv, a Vancouver-based trans activist.  She filed numerous human rights complaints against various businesses for discriminating against her.  In at least one (and I think several) instances she filed human rights complaints against female estheticians for refusing to give her a Brazilian wax on her genitals.  Her genitals, in this case, was a penis.  Her human rights complaints were ultimately thrown out as the estheticians described that not only did they not want to be working with a penis, but doing a Brazilian wax on a penis and testicles requires different training than for a vagina.  It was found by a court that it was allowable for a female esthetician to discriminate against trans women because of their penis.

A story that comes out from time to time is lesbians feeling pressured to accept trans women as romantic partners.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385  Impossible to say how widespread this is, but you can definitely see the sentiment on Twitter if you look for it.  So the conflict here is between the right for transwomen to be women, and for the right of lesbians to select their romantic partners based on their genitals.  But I think most people fall on the side of "people are attracted to who they are attracted to, and it's nobody else's business if someone is not interested romantically in you".

And on an actual case I worked on - a trans woman was filing an application in court claiming her rights were being discriminated against in prison.  I was assigned the case, and worked with prison officials.  They were cognizant of calling this trans woman by her name, and using the right pronouns.  One issue where I agreed with her complaint was that they would not issue her women's prison clothes or underwear, and I believe they promised to do so (this is perhaps not that great a deal as women are basically issued yellow sweat pants and top, while men are issued an orange jumpsuit, but it was important to her).  But where the prison would not settle on was that they would not house her in the women's section.  This was not their first trans woman prisoner, and they always felt that placing a trans woman in the woman's section would be disruptive.  "who gets placed with who" is a huge issue for prisons, having to worry about sex, but also gang affiliations, level of risk, no-contact provisions, and others.  So what they do is place trans women in the medical unit.  In the end we did not get a final judicial decision on the Charter rights challenge, but in the end even the trans woman herself seemed satisfied with being in the medical unit (she also had unrelated mental health issues).

So look, there's more complicated issues out there that I don't necessarily know the answers to: trans women in sports, bathrooms and other women's only spaces, that I don't pretend to have the answers to.

But you can't just say "trans women are women" and say that ends any possible debate.

[Barrister]

Give it a N/A and a long post about the ills of transphobia and Rawlings long history. I think review bombing as a reviewer is professionally unethical, basically an extension of your point number one above. It's not personally unethical, just professionally. While often the same, those two things can be different. Every three years I have to take a course as part of my designation that reminds me if that fact

... but game reviewing is not a profession and does not have a designation. There is no established code to adhere to. There are no professional or agreed upon standards. There is no governing body. It does not perform a critical function in society. It is, essentially, sharing your opinion about a game. Attaching a 1/10 or 5/5 or B+ or any other score to that opinion does not change that.

If there are any issues regarding "ethics in game journalism" they are the kind that are inherently unethical - misrepresentation and failing to disclose standards. When reviewers continually give 80%, 90%, 100% scores to games of major publishers to stay on good terms with them and get access, that is potentially unethical. Adopting a pose independence when they are not, suggesting they use a different standard and scale ("what do I think of the game") than they actually do ("what will make the publisher continue their relationship with me") can potentially be seen as unethical in a common way because it's misrepresentation.

If you read the review it is very clear what standard the reviewer is using to judge the game. Just because you don't find that standard useful or interesting does not make it unethical - professionally or otherwise.

I'll note, also, that the Wired review is not part of MetaCritic nor is Wired an established and important go-to source for gamers making purchasing decisions, so calling it "review bombing" is pretty imprecise. There does not appear to be an organized (or even ad-hoc) effort to drive down aggregate scores.

I think HVC and CC perhaps don't realize (and am pretty sure that you do) is that language of ethics when it comes to gaming journalism has perhaps been forever tainted by the ever-so-stupid "Gamersgate" controversy, which used language of "ethics" to target and harass a bunch of female gamers and games journalists.

I still stand by my comments on the Wired 1/10 review score, but wouldn't couch it in terms of ethics.

[Sheilbh]

If there are any issues regarding "ethics in game journalism" they are the kind that are inherently unethical - misrepresentation and failing to disclose standards. When reviewers continually give 80%, 90%, 100% scores to games of major publishers to stay on good terms with them and get access, that is potentially unethical. Adopting a pose independence when they are not, suggesting they use a different standard and scale ("what do I think of the game") than they actually do ("what will make the publisher continue their relationship with me") can potentially be seen as unethical in a common way because it's misrepresentation.

Also movie, music and publishing reviews

I also think part of it is there was an overcorrection (I used to be on the other side of this argument) from nasty arts snobbery to everything has value to someone. I think the pendulum needs to swing back a little bit

[Jacob]

I am not sure I understand your argument, are you suggesting that ethics depend on a code of ethics being established - no code, no problem?

No. The code part of my argument is response to HVC speaking of game reviewing as a profession and invoking his own experience as a member of a self-governing profession:

It's not personally unethical, just professionally. While often the same, those two things can be different. Every three years I have to take a course as part of my designation that reminds me if that fact.

Game reviewers are not a designated profession, they do not have a professional code of ethics (and if they did, IMO it should have to do with independence from influence of publishing companies). You don't get to invent an imaginary code of professional conduct for a non-profession (or port over the one you're familiar with from your own profession) and then claim that diverging from that code you just invented is unethical.

Of course there are such things as ethical and unethical behaviour separate from professional codes of conduct. Theft, lying, misrepresentation, causing harm and so on are all (usually, barring mitigating circumstances) unethical.

Nothing in this piece gets even close to what I understand as unethical behaviour. A writer using the tools and forms of writing to make a political point is not being unethical. The fact that the writer is being a little bit surprising is not unethical; in fact, writers often view playing with form and expectation as an expression of craft.

[crazy canuck]

Ethics do not apply to only self-governing professions. 

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on ethics in games journalism - do people have thoughts on Atomic Heart?

[Jacob]

I think HVC and CC perhaps don't realize (and am pretty sure that you do) is that language of ethics when it comes to gaming journalism has perhaps been forever tainted by the ever-so-stupid "Gamersgate" controversy, which used language of "ethics" to target and harass a bunch of female gamers and games journalists.

There's that too, yes.

I still stand by my comments on the Wired 1/10 review score, but wouldn't couch it in terms of ethics.

It's totally fine to find the review worthless or annoying or disappointing or any other of perjoratives; but unethical it ain't.

Personally on reading the review I found it more compelling than I had expected. Certainly it gave me a better understanding of the game (which is what I want from a review) than I got from reading the 95% score professional review topping the list of links on MetaCritic - that just seemed like a standard shill-for-hire piece.

[Barrister]

As an aside, game review site rockpapershotgun.com which can often take somewhat progressive views on videogames that I find alternatingly refreshing and annoying, apparently simply stopped talking about Hogwarts Legacy two years ago.

No review, no essay on why they aren't giving a review.  Instead they had a "Magic Week" (that just so happens to coincide with Legacy's release) where they highlight a bunch of indie games involving wizards and magic.

A far more honourable approach.

[HVC]

I am not sure I understand your argument, are you suggesting that ethics depend on a code of ethics being established - no code, no problem?

No. The code part of my argument is response to HVC speaking of game reviewing as a profession and invoking his own experience as a member of a self-governing profession:

I was using that as an aside to highlight that there are differences between "normal" ethics and professional ethics. Badly I suppose lol. I know journalism isn't a designated profession, fox news wouldn't be around if it was. that being said, the lack of a designated professions code of ethics does not preclude there being ethics in a profession, nor does (to BB point) other bad actors actions minimize ones ethics lapses.

That out of the way, we'll have to agree to disagree. The author must place more value on ratings then you because they chose to use a rating. If they value rating and chose to the lowest they could not because of the quality of the game, but because of their personal views of the author (mind you, an author that did not write the game, or have any connection the the creation of said game) then i view that as unethical. if someone had a grudge against Danes, no matter how valid, and rated all your game at 1s regardless of the quality of the game I'd feel that was just as unethical.

[Jacob]

I disagree.  It is unethical to tell an audience that the designers, artists, musicians, writers, etc for this game are crap at their jobs because you don't like the author of the source material.  A review bomb is, at least in theory, harmful to those responsible for the product that you are deceiving the audience about.

I don't think the review does that.

[Jacob]

That out of the way, we'll have to agree to disagree. The author must place more value on ratings then you because they chose to use a rating. If they value rating and chose to the lowest they could not because of the quality of the game, but because of their personal views of the author (mind you, an author that did not write the game, or have any connection the the creation of said game) then i view that as unethical. if someone had a grudge against Danes, no matter how valid, and rated all your game at 1s regardless of the quality of the game I'd feel that was just as unethical.

Yeah agree to disagree on that one

Someone giving all my games 1/10 out of blatant anti-Danish bigotry would be all kinds of things, but not unethical. Unless, of course, you think anti-Danish bigotry is unethical on its own, but alas I don't think anyone thinks that

[Jacob]

Ethics do not apply to only self-governing professions. 

For sure. As I said in the post you're responding to

[grumbler]

By the way, digitaltrends has what I consider the model negative review.  It covers the po0sitives and negatives about the game, and, while it mentions Rowling, only does so in relation to the world she created and how that impacts the game.

Avalanche has clearly tried to distance itself from Rowling's hateful remarks, going as far as to allow players to create a transgender hero. Though in staying true to the franchise's rich mythology, the narrative is ultimately still at the mercy of the author's worldview. The Goblin story never gains ground as a guiding conflict because it never really makes sense. The universe's uneven power structures beg for some scrutiny, but the books dictate that we don't really question the inner politics of the Wizarding World. Wizards are largely good. Goblins are unredeemable monsters, unless they're running a bank.

Hogwarts Legacy softens Rowling's writing as much as it can, but that's only half a solution. You can't get rid of a worldview without offering one of your own.

That's what the ethical approach looks like.