Some answers may have been merged – ie, where I’ve been given the same link/article/answer multiple times, I will just include link with a note of how many people answered with this in the format: [article](x5)
Some answers may not be included if they misunderstood the question – they may instead have moved to ‘bonus’ as a section. Will highlight if that is the case.
People are anon if they didn’t explictly say “call me x”. Email me again if you want to change that 🙂Anon referencing consistent within this topic, but not with others.
1. What do you count as “pushing an agenda”? Can you give me an example?
Anon91: “see: Anita Sarkeesian”
Anon92: “Like bias, one can define “agenda” broadly enough that anyone has one. The concern is when the agenda trumps ethical behaviour.”
Anon93: “Pushing an agenda means giving a game more or less positive or negative coverage or reviewing a game differently based on whether it supports your personal beliefs. As an example, before the game Dragon’s Crown was released, it received a lot of negative press from mainstream gaming websites for its sexualized portrayal of women, which was seen as sexist. That is a valid opinion, but it is an opinion. Few, if any, of these websites hosted articles with any dissenting opinion.”
Anon94: “Knowingly publishing only one side of the story. (since game journalism is now as much social commentary as about games)
Lowering rating of the game because you personally found it sexist”
2. Do you think there are any “agendas” that are okay to push in game reviews, or not at all?
Anon91: “having an agenda basically means writing that article with a different personal goal, so i don’t feel it will remain objective. I don’t think its okay.”
Anon92: “See above.”
Anon93: “There is no agenda that is okay to push in a video game review.”
3. Do you have an issue with any of these three things, and if so (or if not), why?
- Statement a: “I think this game has poorly designed female body types and it’s somewhat sexist in how it portrays them” -> Game changes body types
- Statement b: “I think this game has poorly designed weaponry and I find it very boring and unintuitive” -> Game changes weapons
- Statement c: “I think this game has made poor choices in promoting actual weapons and linking to arm manufactures in doing so and it’s glorifying war by doing this” -> Game changes weapons
“Alas, no, since all of them begin with ‘I think’.”
“Not in principle.”
“As for the statement about the weapons in a game being boring and unintuitive, that’s fine. The other two are less clear, though. First off, they should be in an op-ed, not a review. If that’s the case, they are fine. However, the game developer changing the design choice is also tricky. If the developer feels that the majority of their customers would share that opinion and so decides to change it, that’s fine. However, if the reason a developer feels that a majority of their player base would share that opinion is because journalists are disallowing dissenting opinions to be expressed, either in other op-eds or in the comments section, then this is not okay.”
“This depends on the type of game. In a “dress up” game, female body would be much more important than how her guns (just to draw them into the example), but I’m assuming that you want to focus on the action-shooter games, and answer will be based on that. First statement is ok to include in a review like that, stated as your opinion. I will not say it fits as well in as second, if the gameplay is more based on shooting, it is more natural to have the thing actually affecting how the game is played in there. Third one I think is not to be in a review, but could/should be included in a editorial if the writer feels like that. If the game dev decides to change anything, it’s up to them.”