Answers have been cut if they misunderstood question – ie, if the answer to 4 was referring to what they linked in q3, rather than the quote given in q4.
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. When you say “objective game reviews”, what do you mean?
Anon50: “I think that an objective game review needs to be a “just the facts” recounting of the game. Are the controls intuitive or difficult to grasp at first. Is the difficulty level on average too high, too low? What specs did you run it on and did you have to adjust the settings to achieve decent perfomance. Did you finish the game? If not what point did you stop at? How are the graphics, did you have fun?”
Anon51: “My interest in the GamerGate hubbub has been less about strictly objective game reviews (a silly concept) and more about less obviously stilted or political reviews. A review is always going to carry the color of the writer’s persona on it, but there’s a great difference between “I think this game sucks because [gameplay reasons]” and “This game is problematic according to my sociopolitical views and therefore no-one should buy it, 9/10 it’s okay”.”
Anon52: “Focus on the gameplay and technical aspects, not the story and art style. Do not base the bulk of your criticism or praise on that which is largely incidental. Only in story-driven games like RPG’s should the quality of the writing be more than a footnote.”
Anon53: “When I say Objective, I mean that the reviewer is not reviewing this game after any particular special treatment of the developer (ie. fancy meals out, major goodies, contributed to that games crowdfunding or the developers patreon). It’s worth saying, this isn’t super strict. Video games Journalism has a long history of cosy relationships with developers – possibly we were too relaxed about it as readers to let it get this far. I’m not saying Joe Jorno can’t accept some cheap free swag or accept a lunch while visiting publishers & developers. But if they are giving you free computer tablets or have a close relationship that developer, that’s a point at which you should say “hey maybe I can pass this story/review over to a colleague” – if it’s absolutely unavoidable, disclaimers are a must. I think a reviewers preference can have some effect on reviews, but this can actually lend some personality to a review. It should always be mentioned in the review however, so people new to your writing know your particular biases.”
Anon54: “I know a lot of people will have very different ideas about this one. I personally would like the objectivity to stem from no personal interest (interest in the legal sense, that is) in the product being reviewed.”
Anon55: “I’d like a number of things; I’d like reviewers to disclose relationships with devs they’re close to or not do those reviews at all, I’d like sites to stop accepting huge amounts of swag and/or money from major developers, and I’d like reporting on gaming news to overall carry less personal bias.”
Anon56: “Pure objectivity is impossible and I believe the majority of the people (in the world) would agree with me on that. However, when writing a (game) review, when we say objective game review, we mean that the reviewer would take a neutral standpoint and write the article in such a way that he or she does not take a side/stance. It should be as objective as possible, but it doesn’t have to be robot perfect. Ideally, the reviewer him/herself would know and recognize what his/her own position would be and also understands the opposite viewpoint. That way, the reviewer can avoid accidentally taking one side and instead show both sides instead (trying to show as much of the whole picture as possible). The people that are angry with the non-objective game reviews aren’t mad because the reviewer aren’t perfect robots; unable to produce the perfect objective articles, instead the people are angry because the reviewer wrote an article that isn’t objective enough. They are angry because they know that it is within the capability of the reviewer to write a more objective article, but he/she has not done so, intentionally or unintentionally.”
@NorthernDragon: “What I mean by an objective game review is a review that focuses on what can be directly seen within the game without attaching personal bias to it. For example how does the game run, are there any issues with the tech that can be clearly noticed, does the game seem too short, etc.. An objective review is a review that doesn’t need to rely on emotion and personal opinion to describe the product. In short, as some have said, an objective review is basically a buyer’s guide that lists pros and cons that have nothing to do with personal opinion.”
Anon57: “I don’t think there is such thing as a completely objective game review. Every reviewer has certain biases. This isn’t necessarily bad, because gamers themselves also have different tastes. In fact, it’s a good thing to have a wide variety of reviewers that all look at a game from different angles. It’s up to the reader to decide which reviews fit their personal taste in games. Personal relationships with developers are different matter, because there’s no way of knowing that bias exists without it being disclosed. This is what makes it a such a serious breach of ethics. I see op ed as separate from reviews, but no less important. It can cover broader topics like trends in gaming, as opposed to analyzing a single game. But ethics are still every bit as important, because giving certain games a disproportionate amount of press will still have a large effect on sales. One other issue with biases is that it can skew a game’s metacritic score, but that’s more a problem with the nature of metacritic than anything else.”
Anon58: “Games reviewers, ideally, should have no romantic or platonic connections to the investors or creators of the game they are reviewing. At minimum, they should disclose any possibly biasing connections.”
Anon59: “Well the dictionary definition is… “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.” The problem with this is that in a REVIEW this isn’t exactly possibly, at least not completely, Since a Review is giving the critique of the product they’re always going to be personal gripes. AT least for me, An Objective game review is simply a review with minimal push of an agenda of the sake of the reviewer.”
Anon60: “Game reviews which judge games for what they are and not for what they aren’t. This means letting me know if the game is as advertised on the first google search I can find.”
2. Do you think reviewers with very obvious biases against certain genres – ie, like Yahtzee + MMOs – have a role in game reviews?
Anon50: “Yes they do. Roger Ebert hated adam sandler type movies but still managed to decently review them.”
Anon51: “Of course! There’s always a place for reviews from those less invested in a genre; it serves as an outsider perspective, allowing the material to be looked at through a new set of eyes. The enthusiasts and fans can critique their beloved franchises well enough, but it doesn’t hurt to have someone else give it a shot. Still, you don’t want to hand all of your shmups to the reviewer who hates them.”
Anon52: “Yes, so long as they wear those biases on their sleeves, and are not held in higher esteem than those without them. The value of Yahtzee on MMO’s is that if he likes one, it must have something special about it.”
Anon53: “Actually I do! Something I miss in game reivews, some older magazines in the UK used to do a main review and “second opinions” (Mean Machines used to have a portion of their team do summaries of their thoughts on a title). Sometimes the reviewer of a title may be too keen thanks to hype, or history as a player to that series (it happens!), it can be useful to have a more grounded or impartial reviewer go “well I know X likes this game, but I wasn’t as taken by it” – it’s even more important to have a second opinion if the game is something quite unique or a significant departure in terms of gameplay (and the developer is specifically interesting in trying to attract a new audience)”
Anon54: “Yes, very much so. Just like these reviewers with bias towards certain genres, there are gamers that hold the same views. Should they spend a lot of time reviewing games in genres they obviously don’t like? Nope. But I don’t look to Yahtzee’s opinion on MMO’s BECAUSE I know he doesn’t like them (and he’s open about that fact).”
Anon55: “I do think you can review a game well in a genre you don’t like. I think you should try to be objective as you can but that’s not always possible. On the whole, this is of less interest to me.”
Anon56: “Everyone has an opinion of something, but being biased or having an opinion does not really matter when writing a review. A good reviewer is one that is capable to perceive a side that is different from his/her own and produce good articles. It really depends on the skill of the reviewer; unskilled reviewers have no role in game reviews. It is possible to write a biased review, but if the reviewer do, make sure that the article states so. It is really bad to write a biased review and put the readers in an illusion that the article is objective.”
@NorthernDragon: “I absolutely think that people who have obvious biases against or towards certain games have a place in game reviews. It acts as a balance so that a mechanic or typical design style isn’t overused to the point of becoming cliche and boring. At the very least it provides an alternative perspective for developers to potentially build upon rather than being surrounded by internet yespeople.”
Anon57: As above.
Anon58: “I would hope that gaming publications would be professional enough to avoid handing a review to a person who hates the reviewed game’s genre. I’d rather hear from a fan who can offer insight regarding the game than someone who will use the review to attack the genre (“this 4X has too few real time battles”, he said, making a fictitious example).”
Anon59: “Reviews? No. Op-Ed? CERTAINLY. I don’t think reviewers should stop with their political bias, believe what you will. However, I don’t think that when you’re reviewing the game and it’s being published for mass consumption for the sake of views and pagecounts, you really have to watch you’re wording. However, if you have a problem with a Specific Genre? Why are you reviewing it? At least with the case of Yahtzee, his entire point of actually hating mmo’s and bashing them comes from his comedic persona to Accentuate The Negative (YAY TV TROPES). However, if it’s a stern serious review and you have an obvious bias of the subject, and don’t even both to study the nuances of the game based on those biases…Then…why review it?”
Anon60: “I do not keep track of reviewers with obvious biases”
3. Can you give me an example of what you consider to be an “objective game review”?
Anon50: “I’m not sure I trust that any currently exist and am not sure I’m prepared to delve into the internet to find one right now. It has become difficult to decide whether a game reviewer is a trustworthy source in recent years as there seems to be a web of patronage and personal relationship between the journalists and indie developers that makes it difficult to see if someone is downplaying issues with the game based on agreeing with its message or a relationship with the developers.”
Anon51: “Probably the best example I can think of is Erik Kain’s two-part review for Dark Souls 2. He writes from a position of a fan, but takes the game’s highs and lows seriously.”
Anon52: “This was written 14 years ago: http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/assorted-essays/deus-ex/ From issue 87 of PC Gamer, this is the review which people tend to get misty-eyed over.There’s a reason for those misty eyes – this is probably the closest thing I’ve ever seen to thegames journalism that I want to read, and he spells out a key part of why in his first paragraph alone. At the only level that counts, the ancient ASCII based nethack is superior to the slickly vacuous Vampire. Repeat after me: Design. Is. Law. Listen to that reviewer. He is right, and utterly prescient about the dominance of engine licensing that would explode in the decade that followed. That is the review that sold me my favourite game of all time, and I don’t even consider it a perfect review. It’s lacking in technical information, full of prosaic fluff from a skilled writer yearning to be producing more than just game reviews, but… It gives a concise breakdown of the gameplay you can expect and nowhere does it delve into moral arguments. Its comments on the storyline and roleplaying a brief and to to the point. Just count the number of paragraphs pertaining to gameplay, and those to everything else. This is a review of a game. Not a movie, not a novel, not TV show or a political doctrine. A game.”
Anon53: “You mean a real example? or what I expect of an objective review? I do really like Yatzee’s Zero Punctuation as an example I suppose. While he’s part of the “angry reviewer” that’s a little tired online, you know that because he’s quite critical most of the time, when he’s talking about what impressed him – he likely means it as it’s harder for him to admit to the good than the bad. Hardcore Gaming 101 is also pretty interesting, granted they do more features than reviews, but they look at each title in a similar manner to a review. Summing up why one title in a series was classic, and another was not so hot. But generally, I would expect a good objective to basically follow a structure of first declaring any bias or reivewers personal experience with related titles, then talking about the game before going over the good and bad of the title, before finishing with overall opinion summing up if the good outweighed the bad.”
Anon54: No answer given.
Anon55: “The truth is that I think the majority of reviews fall under this category, or close enough that it doesn’t bother me. My problem is that a very large number of them do not, and other reporting carries a heavy bias.”
Anon56: “I cannot remember the names, but I think a game review website did not review a game called Bastion (at least, I think it was Bastion), because the people from the website and the developers of Bastion were friendly to each other. The website chose to avoid writing the review in order to stay as neutral as possible on the subject.”
@NorthernDragon: “I can give you an example of a pair of what I consider objective game reviewers. Tommy Tallarico and Victor Lucas when they used to do Reviews on the Run (known as Judgement Day in the U.S.) together were probably the most objective reviewers I’d ever seen. Tommy had a bias against JRPGs just like Yahtzee, yet he could recognize that a game like Final Fantasy X was so good that he gave it a perfect 10 score. Unfortunately I can’t find the video to show you, but a video I can show you that shows them both trashing an obviously bad game pretty objectively is their review of High Heat Baseball which you can watch here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnvCGfbiO3M As you can see, any frustration shown is based on how poorly done the game is and not on some personal bias.”
Anon57: As above.
Anon58: “Here’s Jim’s review of the Sims 4: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12201-The-Sims-4-Review. While I don’t want every review to be a panning, a negative review is probably the easiest example. Also, the title is funny.”
Anon59: “SomecallmeJohnny. Just a Gamer reviewing his favorite games, yes he has his few personal hatreds, but most of his hatred revolve around THE GAME itself, his personal taste with the game and how he plays them, not with any social or political means. To be specific, I think his Metroid: Other M review is a great example of this.”
Anon60: “Angry Joe’s Rome II review would be a good example of informing what the game is about and what my expectations should be. “
4. Do you think that this is a neutral/objective statement about a piece of media, or an example of bias and opinion? Explain why please. “The most novel thing about [this piece of media] is how lumpy, labored and relentlessly episodic its narrative is.”
[PixieJenni note: this line is an extract from Godfrey Cheshire’s review of The Notebook via www.rogerebert.com. The paragraph it’s taken from in full is:
“The most novel thing about “The Notebook”…is how lumpy, labored and relentlessly episodic its narrative is. If one went into it knowing nothing of its origins, the film’s lack of dramatic structure might suggest a singularly inept screenwriting exercise that somehow made it into production. In fact, it’s close to impossible to imagine this movie being made had it been based on an original screenplay rather than a well-regarded novel, “Le Grand Cahier,” by Agota Kristof, a Hungarian who writes in French.”]
Anon50: “It’s a piece of opinion. It is a negatively weighted statement. Lumpy Labored and relentlessly episodic are negative terms, and to say that those are the most novel aspects of the piece of media comes across as stating your opinion as fact. Simply adding “To Me” to the beginning of the statement makes it more acceptable as a journalistic statement, clearly framing it as the opinion of the author. After all, Dragonball Z had tons of fans and it’s hard to argue that show was anything but relentlessly episodic, yet millions of people found something to enjoy in it. ”
Anon51: Referred to previous question, not given quote.
Anon52: “Funny that you chose narrative in your example here. It’s a lot harder to be objective about a narrative, unless you say little more than ‘It’s well-written’ or ‘It’s poorly-written’. Things like plot-holes, failure to suspend disbelief and pacing are worthwhile points of criticism in the context of a game. None of this statement says anything about the content itself, though, so in the context of an objective game review, it seems acceptable to me.”
Anon53: “Being subjective means you have some kind of emotional bias towards what you are talking about. The quote doesn’t express that – they’ve played the game, and are expressing their findings on that experience (namely that the story narrative is greatly lacking in quality) it’s a pretty dry logical assessment that tries to be to the point. I don’t want a review to be completely free of the reviewers thoughts or feelings however. Part of what makes an experience like seeing a movie, or playing video games, is how they make you feel, do they succeed at this? Part of the reason I got Super Mario Galaxy, day one is because people spoke about how the music was amazing, and the simple story that surrounds it really touched people. I picked up Tomodachi Life because reviewers talked about how much fun it was putting in celebrities and their friends – and seeing what happens. Subjectivity or opinion is fine within reason, and I would actually encourage more of this! Part of the problem these days is that everyone’s so keen to stay in step (certainly for much-anticipated releases) that even for the few that write a decent review – they demean the writing by slapping a high score on top. Go check out the metacritic page for Watch_Dogs for example, many of the professional reviews read like they’d go with a lower score than the 90-80% scores it actually got.”
Anon54: No answer given.
Anon55: “The statement itself may or may not be objective ‘enough’ depending on the motivations behind it. It’s an observation of the reviewer, describes an aspect of the media in question and is viable enough to pass in a vacuum.”
Anon56: “No, because it’s just 1 sentence. The sentence claims a lot of things about the novel, without giving additional information on how it reached those conclusion. Claims like that needs to be backed up with evidence, examples, comparison, etc. Especially using comparison is a very useful tool, since the reader can use the compared example as a benchmark.”
@NorthernDragon: “The quote you provided can be neutral/objective dependent on the circumstances. On its own, I’d say it’s more subjective as some may not consider the narrative to feel lumpy, labored, or relentlessly episodic. One would have to define what “lumpy” feels like, same with “labored” but I don’t think relentlessly episodic requires much of a definition.”
Anon57: As above.
Anon58: “That statement is clearly opinionated- but it is not inherently biased. I doubt that any reviewer could come to the table without any preconceptions about a game, but negative statements can add to a conversation- and if the game is bad, it certainly deserves to be publicly spoken of as that.”
Anon59: Referred to previous question, not above quote.
Anon60: “I barely understand what it is meant. Without context I can’t even tell if episodic is being used in a good way or not. Even without context it does seem like sarcasm, but that might be because of the overuse of that resource in “journalism””
5. What would you like to see covered in a review ie gameplay, mechanics, story, music, fun, narrative, etc.
Anon50: “Gameplay, mechanics, story, music, narrative. Fun is entirely too subjective, I’ve lost hours of my life playing robot unicorn attack to stares of horror from my peers. Is it fun is like asking “Is it spicy” my sister can barely handle the mildest of salsas and my baby brother eats habaneros out of the jar. ”
Anon51: “All of those things, really. But more seriously, my focus is on the game itself, and the elements that compose it; I’d like to see a review do the same.”
Anon52: “Gameplay. Mechanics. Technical performance. Story and music are but footnotes. Kieron Gillen was right. Design. Is. Law. That’s why people are playing Minecraft.”
Anon53: “Story and Gameplay are musts – these are the souls of your game first and foremost, and should be introduced first so people can decide if this is something they are interested in or not. Elements like graphics, music, narrative ect are part of your review. Do they help contribute to the game? or did these elements end up becoming neglected and forgettable in development? Really all elements should be important, that’s what separates the classics from the forgettable entries. Mechanics is a current sticking point to me, and it bothers me that reviewers do not get into this more. Back in the major print media days, it was not unusual to have sub-sections talking about new power-ups, or how the game basically plays. Wonderful 101 REALLY suffered from the lack of this in it’s reviews, it’s quite a complex game that rewards when you figure things out, reviewers should of been the ones to point out the cool things you can do, or at least hint towards it – it took a youtuber instead to show off the neat little elements that make up Wonderful 101’s gameplay styles instead, and that’s a shame.”
Anon54: “Fun first and foremost. However, “fun” doesn’t mean anything on it’s own. I want to know WHAT makes it fun, which is all those other things combined. A discussion of how mechanics dictate the story/vice versa, how the music sets the mood, etc. etc. Again, I stand by the fact that fun should be the most determining factor in a game’s importance”
Anon55: “All of the above are fine. Hell, I think a you could JUST review a game’s music or JUST review it’s story and have a fine review, if not a comprehensive one. I want to see the author’s take on the game. I just want the author to strive to remain objective or at least disclose their bias, and I don’t think that’s being done at this time in many situations”
Anon56: “Gameplay, footage of the game, mechanics, story, sounds and music, narrative, ‘evolution’ of the game, when playing it (like character development).”
@NorthernDragon: “Your question pretty much covered most of what I’d want to see. An analysis of the technology of the game (so resolution, framerate, any bugs or glitches, how the engine performs in displaying the artstyle) would likely be the main aspect that can be objectively stated. Then, the review can split into a more subjective arena where the review describes whether or not they enjoy the music, or if they feel the game looks good artistically. Fun is immensely subjective, which is why I would prefer no scores and simply something like “I had fun with this game, so I recommend picking it up” or “This game is good, but for me it’s not worth the price. Wait for a price drop, borrow it from a friend, or rent it.” That kind of thing. Under no circumstances should social issues be brought up unless the game is clearly trying to address them.”
Anon57: As above.
Anon58: ” It depends on the game, really. For instance, One Finger Death Punch has no story, and a review of that game should focus on its game play and mechanics. On the other hand, Mass Effect’s greatest strength was its story, while the mechanics were rather weaker; I’d expect a review of that series to focus on whether the story had maintained its punch (without spoilers, of course).”
Anon59: “Personally my gripe ISN’T With Review as much as it is with the actual Journalistic side of the spectrum. I.E. They don’t do their job. If Greg Tito is to be believed about the (Name: REDACTED) And the Wizard Chan incident, then he didn’t do ANY follow up or research on the event when (Name: REDACTED) told him her side of the story. Now, I don’t believe in victim blaming, but investigating the story is not victim blaming, it’s investigative Journalism, a NECESSITY when it comes to actually being a journalist. Cite your sources, double check on them and make sure they’re viable and true, and make sure they’re trust worthy. My problem is far from their review and more about the overall way so called ‘Gaming Journalist’ Approach the craft with honest to true laziness and lack of care about corruption in the industry in general. (We shouldn’t have to do the investigation for you, especially if it’s that easy to find things out.)”
Anon60: “Gameplay, mechanics, story, music, fun, narrative. Also how well it ties in with other games from the same company / series regarding story, mechanics and production values. Once again let me say I’m mostly looking for an unbiased someone to tell me how close to reality is the developer’s marketing speech.”
6. What do you think the difference between an op-ed and a review is (if any?)
Anon50: “A review covers what you can expect to encounter in partaking of the media. An op ed is the place for dissecting its wider social implications. ”
Anon51: “I think the key difference, inasmuch as there is one, is that a review shouldn’t be editorializing. Media review and criticism should entail elements of opinion, and that’s fine, but it shouldn’t seek to dictate a tone or set of ideas to the reader. If a review is spending time telling you how you should feel about a game, not how the reviewer did, it’s heading in the wrong direction.”
Anon52: “In the gaming press, that’s can be extremely fine and wavering line. The easiest way to define it would be that a review talks about a single game within months of its release date.”
Anon53: “An op-ed is usually a preview (so it’s looking an incomplete or industry show build of a title) or something like “10 reasons to be hyped for another next gen shooter” – your looking at what the titles promising rather than what it’s actually delivering – discussing your hopes for how that pans out. Op-Ed’s could also be neutral discussion about a game (like hints and tips, or explaining features in the finished product)”
Anon54: “Big big difference. Op-eds are interesting and necessary, however I personally think they deserve articles OF THEIR OWN. For example, one writer reviews the game. Another writer feels this game is a good example of something they’d like to talk about, so they write a separate article of its importance to them.”
Anon55: “One is clearly labeled as opinion of the author, the other is generally considered to be an (attempted) objective take on the media.”
Anon56: “An op-ed, people knows that they will be dealing with the opinions of the named author. A review, people expects the articles being written in a certain way, depending on past experience, theme of the website and the environment. If a reviewer (or website) is known for writing objective article for many years, people will expect that the next review will be objective as well. If every other reviewer writes objective reviews, then the readers will expect the same from this reviewer. The reviewer (or website) has build a bond and trust over those years through the articles he/she/it has published. Despite not having a law or no promises made by the reviewer (or website), people have come to expect certain things. If the reviewer (or website) does completely different that destroy all expectations, then the readers feel like their trust has been violated. A review can be biased or objective, but due to how things has gone and the environment, people expect reviews to be written objectively.”
@NorthernDragon: “The difference between an op-ed and a review, in my opinion, is twofold. First is the style with which either is written. I believe Op-eds, since they are opinion based, are articles which aren’t required to have a tone of total professioanlism (though some should still exist) and can touch on subjects of subjectivity. Reviews need to be more professional and thus can’t have that underlying opinionated tone in my opinion. The second is what information is conveyed. Op-eds should be able to contain how a person feels about the product, reviews should merely contain information on how the game works, convey information that specifically exists to protect consumers, and address if the game contains flaws that would cause people to not enjoy their experience with the game or is a blatant attempt at a cash grab. So for example, on disc downloadable content that should be included with the game, but is being held behind a paywall by the publisher I think is relevant information in a review.”
Anon57: As above.
Anon58: “A review focuses on an individual’s opinion of a game, while an op-ed focuses on an individuals opinion on a current event/ social issue. I’m interested in the first, but don’t want to see the second on gaming websites; for politics, I use CNN, not Kotaku.”
Anon59: “Well the differences are clear aren’t they? Going to use the Wiki Definition. An op-ed (originally short for “opposite the editorial page”, latterly “opinion editorial”) is a piece typically published by newspapers, magazines, and the like which expresses the opinions of a named author usually affiliated with the publication’s editorial board.
While a review is…
A review is an evaluation of a publication, product, service, or company such as a movie (a movie review), video game, musical composition (music review of a composition or recording), book (book review); a piece of hardware like a car, home appliance, or computer; or an event or performance, such as a live music concert, play, musical theater show, or dance show.
One if more of an editorial piece, based on your personal opinion and political leanings of the writer. The writer can write about essentially whatever the hell they want. A review, you must remember that in the end you’re reviewing a game, an interactive medium. In the end your story must still be focused on the game and whether you enjoy it or not, yeah your political opinion might lean into it, but don’t push your agenda. (For fear of alienating the viewership, you can still let your opinion be known WITHOUT pushing said agenda.)”
Anon60: “I couldn’t care less about an op-ed from some e-celeb. I don’t care at all what belittlement I’m to be inflicted by someone I don’t know, regardless of their moral highground. I’m at the sight looking for information on a game I’m interested in. If I know who TotalBiscuit or Angry Joe are it is not because of their characters, but because of their work regarding reviewing video games as video games. An op-ed by definition puts emphasis on the author, someone I don’t care about. “