it may have been 2 different reviewers but the score shouldn't vary that much, when I was younger I wanted to do game reviews and was told by a guy in the publishing industry that although you have your preferences in games you have to be impartial and see the good and the bad of every game.

Censorship?

Seriously, remember Jack Thompson? Hell, remember the 90's? That was a time of potential censorship and that was a man "legally" championing its cause.

I'll break this down for you. There are, as I see it, 2 ways one could "censor" a game.

1. Legally. By going up through the courts and having Congress (which has been great at 'not' doing things) to pass a law.

Huge problem with that. Video game are protected speech. the Supreme Court ruled as such when the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (a state is usually backed up by more legal muscle than some random blogger.) tried to restrict violent video games. California lost. the SC didn't just pass on the issue, they ruled on it. This was not the case when Jack Thompson was around or when Congress was looking in to the matter.

2. Pressure the developer to censor their own stuff.

But here's the problem with that, the ONLY people with any real power to change anything are the Developer and their customers.

Did "Sexbox" kill Mass Effect? No, it had the entirely opposite effect. In fact this is almost always the case. Someone makes an edgy game that causes controversy and the sales roll in.

People give WAY too much power to random people with opinions.

Those calling for censorship for fear of censorship need to have their head examined. There are a vast amount of gamers out there that would be all too easily labelled an "SJW" for their opinions, but would NEVER call for censorship.

The Witcher "sex cards" were juvenile and sexist, but I still loved that game and I admittedly I got a kick out the cards. I'm not ashamed of that, nor should anyone else. However, CDPR didn't go back and remove them when folks brought it up, they took that "criticism" and in Witcher 2, decided to take a more mature approach to the sexual content in the game. The game was all the better for it.

This is ultimately the point. I will steadfastly stand against any form of censorship, that includes people with different opinions. If those opinions inspire a developer to try something new, we all win. If a developer decides to reject those opinions, great, that is their right, just like those who have critical opinions.

Creativity dies without critique. Remember that the next time you call for differing opinions to be silenced.

@aliengmr man basically i agree with you reread my comment and you ill see

Bingo. Bub for u

I love how you ask "Did u read the article" when I make observations about the article that are not within the headline or blurb. Did (yo)u read the comment? ;)

Who cares?
Guess what, you can read the review and see WHY he gave a game the marks he did, and you're free to agree or disagree.

You're free to disregard anything that writer says ever again.

Think about what happened here.
-A guy reviewed a game
-You read it
-You understood the writer's reasons for the final verdict.
-You made your choice to agree or disagree.

Sounds like an open and shut case to me.

We're discerning human beings here. If he's full of crap in your book, then ignore him. But people have the right to express their opinions. You understood his stance and you vehemently disagree. Great. You've both done well.

It's one thing to feel like someone is LYING about a game because they are being paid off. It's another to simply disagree with an honest opinion. Personal bias is always...ALWAYS going to be a part of reviews. #Gamersgate originally was an attempt to protect those opinions from corporate fingerpoking, not mold and manipulate them until all gamers everywhere agreed with them.

Before delving deeper, let's get one thing clear: arguing numerical scores is silly. So much of your foundation seems to be in these numbers, and numbers are arbitrary, to be honest.

Re: "Consistency and transparency. As mentioned in the article, he scores it a '3' because it doesn't fit his socio-political bias.

Keep in mind that with the performance issues fixed you have to wonder WHY a game would score lower than the original review?"

Completely irrelevant, since the original review wasn't his. Siskel and Ebert didn't even agree with each other all the time. Two different people might work for the same website, but they ain't always gonna agree, mate.

Re: "Concentrated efforts by reviewers to "hit" a game with low review scores can ultimately shape how some games will be viewed by the public."

Did you ever think that a lot of people might feel a certain way? You're basically saying "Oh no, if enough people feel a certain way, and they say it, then other people might consider what they say, and then feel that way too!" That sounds like society to me. That sounds like free discussion. That sounds like democracy.

Re: "The Metacritic average drops, the devs don't get bonuses, the brand may go away. "

Now THIS is more what Gamergate is about. Reviewers should never, ever, EVER be in the pockets of developers. No. Just no.

A reviewer should never have to scale back his opinion or censor himself because of Metacritic and a developers hypothetical bonus checks. THAT right there is a huge problem.

Re: "Is that what you want? The industry's game direction dictated by people with a specific socio-political agenda?"

I want a world where people can say what they want, and other people are smart enough to think for themselves. Your argument in this article boils down to readers being too stupid to think for themselves and being swayed too easily by a game reviewer. Even if that were the case, then oh well. But I don't think it is. I give people more credit than that.

I'm smart enough to think for myself, you're smart enough to think for yourself. We have to give Johnny Consumer the chance to think for himself too.

"Is that what you want? The industry's game direction dictated by people with a specific socio-political agenda?"

So you want others to conform to your world view?

All I see is getting rid of one agenda and replacing it for another.

If gamers have proven anything, its that they are more than willing to go against a bad review. And certainly more than willing to voice their opposition.

Dead Rising 3 is currently 7th in Steam's top seller list, which after about 10 days is a really respectable position to be in (especially considering the sales going on).

Well...no, I certainly didn't see anything about you hoping Nick *something* will lose his job like knifefight mentioned above; however, considering some of the language and your reference to #Gamergate makes it feel like you're acting drastic too.

"As mentioned in the article, he scores it a '3' because it doesn't fit his socio-political bias. The problem is that he's docked off '7' points out of '10' based on that bias."

It's funny how you bring up transparency and consistency when you're falsely reporting just how much his political bias affected the score. He listed two other key cons with it that seemed to disappoint him.

"If multiple websites start shuttling scores for gamers based on these viewpoints, what happens? The Metacritic average drops, the devs don't get bonuses, the brand may go away."

I have to ask: in what way would that be game jurnalism's fault should such viewpoints begin "poisoning" their reviews and lowering metacritic scores? The outrageous amount of emphasis put on metacritic by gamers and the suits behind the scene should be at fault for that.

"Concentrated efforts by reviewers to "hit" a game with low review scores can ultimately shape how some games will be viewed by the public. A game with a bunch of '3's because it's deemed sexist might lose its potential audience, even if it is a good game. Are you starting to see the bigger picture?"

I get what you're trying to frame, but it depends on a lot of fantasy on your part for this to happen. This kind of hypothetical dilemma seems to be consistent with loud "keep your politics out of the game" crowd too: relying on the most radical of possibilities to puff up the ideal that just b/c critics may notice something is -ist must now mean we're on our way to some form of censorship in gaming altogether, despite the fact that several games with "questionable" material (according to some people) have been some of best selling games on the market in recent years.

In the end, the article seems to do as much "content-shaming" as the review in question, which is to say it's just another piece of criticism.

DR4 should have not been made anyways. DR3 closed everything nicely.

They're a solid channel. I always click on their vids, unless it's a series/game I simply have no interest in.

haha yes it may....good one.