The Artistic Disconnect in Game Reviews

I recently ran into an article on The Polygon by Arthur Geis. It's a review of Far Cry 3:

http://www.polygon.com/game/far-cry-...

Ubisoft Montreal seems to want to point at what you’re doing and ask, "Isn’t this f*cked up?" But the story fails to sell Jason’s growing detachment or discomfort over that detachment, and what’s left often felt exploitative and pointless, dotted with misogyny and homophobia that only works for shock value. Is this hamfisted presentation of problematic imagery and, honestly, gross stereotypes, an issue unique to Far Cry 3? Well, no — see Resident Evil 5, for example. It’s not even unique to video games. The portrayal of post-colonial themes and Western encroachment on other cultures is something that storytelling aimed at mass markets has had a lot of trouble with for decades. But that doesn’t make it easier for me to swallow it here.

His final score?

9/10

FAR CRY 3 IS AN OTHERWISE SUPERB GAME MARRED BY SOME MAJOR TONAL ISSUES.
The story's sour notes mar what is, otherwise, one of the best games of the year. If you can look past its thematic problems, Far Cry 3’s story isn’t without genuine invention and surprise — there’s a hallucinatory aspect that allows for surprising, disorienting sections of narrative and character development, as well as gameplay moments that defy the basic reality of the rest of the game. When the story isn’t standing in its way, Far Cry 3 sees enormous success with its wide-open world and all the numerous things there are to do therein. Ubisoft has created a mechanically ambitious, exciting game.

In the comments, I noticed some people defending Arthur's concerns over troubling colonial motifs and I couldn't help but notice a bit of cognitive dissonance:

1) Arthur is troubled by the racism and homophobia, so much so that he feels compelled to single it out in his review.
2) Arthur gives the game a 9/10.

I left a comment under the article about this, but I feel like there is a greater issue at play here:

I don't think you can have a serious reservations about sexisim/racism in a game review and then in good conscience give it such a high score. A high score in such a case implies one of two things:

1) You don't take those reservations seriously
2) You don't view video games as a medium warranting the same critiques as other media. Those graphics sure were great, huh?

I won't speak for Arthur, but I cannot see how we could resolve such conflicts. It seems so strange to me that someone would explicitly discuss the age-old white man saving the native man argument, and how it fundamentally bothers him, and then proceed to give the game a 9/10. What does that say about the reviewer? What does that say about games?

Full disclosure: I'm looking forward to playing Far Cry 3 based purely on the gameplay footage. I haven't seen much about story, but I thought Far Cry 2 was well-handled.

I don't think the score is really relevant to whether there is or isn't a serious critique going on; he's unambiguously calling the game out where he feels it is problematic.
Not to say FC3 is Birth of a Nation, but there's a reason Birth of A Nation, for instance, is still considered seminal in film 101 type classes: in technical and aesthetic ways it is arguably the equivalent of a "9".

It makes me feel like he had to call out an obvious grossness but he ultimately wasn't bothered by it. He may have thought, "Someone is definitely going to be offended by that. I've got to mention it".

I know if I was really offended by something in a game, no matter how good the game is a whole, I wouldn't recommend it. By giving this game a 9/10 he is recommending it.

Just FYI, I haven't played Far Cry 3 and have little no interest in it.

Doesn't it all depend on where you draw your moral lines?

If we want to be honest about it, we usually play a homicidal maniac on a murderous rampage.

Take a dash of - Star Wars' good guys are actually the usurpers to the system
And add a dash of the gaming equivalent of vegan-ism. Let's say you're an alien life preservationist.
It's all a matter of perspective.

The facts are that the gaming industry is always looking for a socially acceptable target for our atrocities to be committed upon. Robots, Aliens, Terrorists.
As long as they're significantly detached from us, or intend harm to us or our way of living. This is something which is so disturbingly baked into our (Western world at least) psyche, that it's frightening. Maybe it's deeper. Maybe it's an evolutionary tribal throwback.

What would happen if someone modded in a bunch of little old ladies with cookies on a plate, to replace the aliens in a given game? Why does that change the fact that you're shooting things in the head?

I guess what I'm getting at is, we have this strange black/white threshold, and all that we have to do get the tiniest bit to the one side for it to become OK in the eyes of the masses. This becomes a problem for anyone who toes the line a little too closely.

I think, before we start getting too hung up on whether or not a game has some politically incorrect undertones (or overt offense) in the plot, we should really examine how much time we spend killing things for fun. Shooting, knifing, choking, drowning..... just mechanics right?

I am not sure, ultimately, if it matters a hell of a lot. Michael Bay, for example, basically put 2 Transformers in black face, and it does not seem to have marred his otherwise sterling reputation for diversity in his movies.

I think looking for an indictment on race or racism in the medium of games from Far Cry or Resident Evil is folly. The consideration never entered into the process. From day 1 it was "how can we sell over a million of these in the first month?"

That is exactly what the Klansman is about (Don't use its PC title to try and hide something), "how can we make a blockbuster?"

So far as I can get from Film, not a hell of a lot has changed as far as race or gender portrayal, we just bolted on a few extra taboos. Most heroes are still white men. Women are usually in trouble, or looking for a man, or both. Our bad guys are the boogie man Dujour. Whether or not they come from the Mid East is irrelevant. Our portrayal of Russians, Japanese, Germans, Vietnamese, Slovakians was not what one might call "sensitive."

I just wonder what the point of feigning anger over the racist motifs in a game is when it obviously doesn't factor into the final grade of said game. And yet, all of the comments on that article, even from people who write professionally, seem to be fawning over Arthur for his brave stance on addressing this "taboo" topic.

Its kinda vague since I assume he (the Author) is trying to avoid spoilers.. its not a Racist game if the concepts of racism are explored.. If the main character is clearly a racist and revels in it then yeah thats bad.. but if there are concepts of racism that are explored but just delivered in a poor or "hamfisted" way then its not really racist.. its just poorly done.

Ghostship wrote:

If we want to be honest about it, we usually play a homicidal maniac on a murderous rampage

Winner.

I've seen pages of people expounding upon how much joy there is to be found in beating pedestrians to death with giant dildos in Saint's Row 3.

The Binding of Issac has a back story featuring child abuse and murder, yet it seems to have been one of the more popular indie games in the last year.

Mainstream reviewers can't afford to rate a game based on something as individual and subjective as morality. If folks want their scores filtered that way I am sure there are niche sites that can help them out. I know there are websites out there catering to female, homosexual, and Christian gamers. I think a site like that would be a better place for "ethically filtered" content than Polygon.

TheGameguru wrote:

Its kinda vague since I assume he (the Author) is trying to avoid spoilers.. its not a Racist game if the concepts of racism are explored.. If the main character is clearly a racist and revels in it then yeah thats bad.. but if there are concepts of racism that are explored but just delivered in a poor or "hamfisted" way then its not really racist.. its just poorly done.

I took his comments in the review and elsewhere to be primarily based on a white male stereotypical savior role, not overt racism. That's more of a culturally typical story type than flat out racism. I don't think that role is necessarily evil in and of itself, the problem is that the opposite type of story might not be explored enough.

We'll see when the game comes out, but I don't think it was overt enough to actually call the game "racist" for what most people see that definition to mean. Maybe "culturally insensitive"? Considering this is a fictitious island and culture anyway?

Grubber788 wrote:

Drama skipped.

Full disclosure: I'm looking forward to playing Far Cry 3 based purely on the gameplay footage. I haven't seen much about story, but I thought Far Cry 2 was well-handled.

The bolded part, IMO, ends the entire argument right there. You call into question the scruples of the reviewer who gives the game a 9/10 despite all the listed misgivings, but yourself, you're willing to pay money for it and play it anyway, ostensibly just on the gameplay merits. How can you ever constructively criticize the reviewer from that position?

The number at the bottom of the review seems like the furthest thing from the point in my mind. Who cares? More interesting to me is whether or not the game explores these issues with any insight or if it just exploits them. I guess we won't know until we play it ourselves.

From Polygon's review policy:

Games are not scored until a review is written and finalized. Once a review is complete, the reviewer meets with a group of senior editors to determine which score on our scale properly reflects the text as written. We do not write with scores in mind.

The score and the author's opinion are not married, just FYI.

I think you make an interesting point. It's something I think about when I listen to hip hop. While not all of what I listen to is guilty, there is a significant chunk of hip hop that has is weighed down with misogyny and homophobia. While I tend to steer clear of things that vault over these lines, there are things I enjoy that come far closer to it then I am comfortable with. An argument can be made, the logical one and possibly the correct one, that I should abandon anything that demonstrates it is outside of my shared values. I don't though. Even though I can't listen to some songs that forcefully portray women in unflattering ways- there are other songs that I do enjoy that are at least a bit outside of my comfort zone.

Again, the logical thing would be for me to eject anything that doesn't conform with how I wish the world to be rhymed about. That's not how it is, though. I find that if there's enough other things in a song to make it work for me, I can acknowledge the faults but still enjoy the track for what it is. I'm fine with this being a personal flaw, and it's something I reflect on a lot. I see this review possibly tackling similar issues.

I have no problem with someone calling out a game for a racist motif (and let's be honest; the concept of colonialism and the white male savior goes hand in hand with overt racism and some of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind) yet giving the game a 9/10.

Gameplay is not affected by such a topic/storyline. If every character in FC3 were replaced with bears, the subject matter would be eliminated but the gameplay would stand. So on the basis of playability and game structure, it can well be a 9 while the subject matter sucks ass.

I actually like that he called it out yet still gave the game a good score. It allows the consumer to decide where purchasing FC3 falls on their moral compass. Geis doesn't make that decision for us but he gives us honest information to make the decision for ourselves depending on what we, as individuals, choose to do with a game with said subject matter.

Those who...interacted...with me in P&C know how I feel about colonialism, racism, and the concept of the white-male savior. That said, it's my opinion that any motivation to NOT purchase FC3 based on whatever racism may exist in the game might be put to better use if it were used for real world anti-racism efforts such as combating redlining, job discrimination, healthcare discrimination, and voter suppression based on race.

Elycion wrote:

The Binding of Issac has a back story featuring child abuse and murder, yet it seems to have been one of the more popular indie games in the last year.

I would argue that the story in TBoI was actually more about coping and overcoming trauma than revelling in it. (I know this is an ancillary point, but I wanted to address it because I think that game is a lot more subtle than people give it credit for.)

As others have said, I think the issue isn't necessarily that a fictitious island with fictitious inhabitants are portrayed in a poor light, it's the colonial viewpoint where the white savior rolls in and saves them from themselves. Oh, and numerical game reviews are BS.

Certis wrote:

The number at the bottom of the review seems like the furthest thing from the point in my mind. Who cares?

I would suggest that lots of people care. That said, I don't. In fact, the site where I read reviews (RPS) doesn't even use scores. So maybe most people here at GWJ don't care, but I bet that most people that make up "the masses" do pay attention to review scores. We've all heard stories about bonuses to developers being based on achieving a certain Metacritic score. If those stories are true, that's proof that lots of people use review scores to make their decision of whether or not to buy a game.

So, if the game's final score is determined by a panel of business minded executives and managers, what was the reviewer's individual score?

That will tell you whether he's a - vegetarian "for health reasons" sitting there sipping alcohol - , or if he's been over ruled by a broken review system.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Drama skipped.

Full disclosure: I'm looking forward to playing Far Cry 3 based purely on the gameplay footage. I haven't seen much about story, but I thought Far Cry 2 was well-handled.

The bolded part, IMO, ends the entire argument right there. You call into question the scruples of the reviewer who gives the game a 9/10 despite all the listed misgivings, but yourself, you're willing to pay money for it and play it anyway, ostensibly just on the gameplay merits. How can you ever constructively criticize the reviewer from that position?

Because I never claimed to have the same reservations about the game as the reviewer? I didn't post a review online in which I spent about a fourth of the text space criticizing the racial and homophobic motifs in the game. That's why I'm calling his review into question. Honestly, his review strikes me as hypocritical, unless I'm truly missing something.

I've never played the game, so there's no way I can assess the game in the same way he has at this point. I also generally find the white man savior theme to be neither interesting nor particularly offensive in the grand scheme of things. I think it's trite, but does it make me uncomfortable? Not really. It's a garbage plot device, not something to be offended by (in my opinion).

Again, re-read my initial post. My problem isn't with the game (one I haven't played mind you)or with Geis' issue with racism. It's the disconnect I see between his criticism and his final verdict.

Certis wrote:

The number at the bottom of the review seems like the furthest thing from the point in my mind. Who cares? More interesting to me is whether or not the game explores these issues with any insight or if it just exploits them. I guess we won't know until we play it ourselves.

From Polygon's review policy:

Games are not scored until a review is written and finalized. Once a review is complete, the reviewer meets with a group of senior editors to determine which score on our scale properly reflects the text as written. We do not write with scores in mind.

The score and the author's opinion are not married, just FYI.

But wouldn't you agree the two are certainly not divorced? A good portion of Geis' review dwells on his concerns with what could be legitimate concerns--albeit ones I do not necessarily agree with.

I also think saying "who cares?" about a review score isn't fair. If the scores didn't matter--if they weren't some reflection of the author's beliefs--they would not be there, would they? It's a problem I have with the games as art argument. We so desperately want to elevate games to a higher standard, but are slaves to judging them on criteria outside of narrative and art direction.

Review scores matter.
I'd like to see some stats on how many games are purchased for gamers by non-gamers. Mom, Dad, Brother, Auntie, Uncle,....
I took a 3d for games course taught by a guy who worked at a studio that made game show games. Popular network staple game shows. He said openly that the company survives (survived) on those purchases. Nobody want's to play the game show video game, but Grandma sees the game show title she likes on TV, sees that it's a video game, and knows sonny likes video games. In her mind it's a perfect gift.

People who don't want a deeper experience from their games buy by review score.
Heck, I'll often consider review score, and I consider myself a trailing edge, frugal, careful, story gamer - type buyer.

Grubber788 wrote:

It's a problem I have with the games as art argument. We so desperately want to elevate games to a higher standard, but are slaves to judging them on criteria outside of narrative and art direction.

I think juv3nal nailed it in the first comment: we don't judge other art based on criteria like "too racist" to begin with. It seems like the criterion you're asking for here is that in order for something to be great art, it must also be uplifting art? progressive art? not-regressive art? I'm struggling for a word here that's not as negative as "propaganda" or "politically correct" because it seems like you're asking for us to downgrade art if it promotes certain wrongheaded values like racism and homophobia. Thing is, I'm not sure we ever asked that of other art forms to begin with--are we downgrading the Rolling Stones' Sticky Fingers for starting the album off with something as patently offensive as "Brown Sugar"?

Hey, maybe we should, but this isn't a matter of games being exempted from criteria that other forms of art are subjected to. It's an argument about critiquing art in general, not just video games.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

It's a problem I have with the games as art argument. We so desperately want to elevate games to a higher standard, but are slaves to judging them on criteria outside of narrative and art direction.

I think juv3nal nailed it in the first comment: we don't judge other art based on criteria like "too racist" to begin with. It seems like the criterion you're asking for here is that in order for something to be great art, it must also be uplifting art? progressive art? not-regressive art?

Nope, my narrative issue with games like FC3--er... actually, let's talk about some form of media I have consumed. Avatar. Avatar is artistically bankrupt because it's a story that has been told repeatedly. I dislike the white man savior story because it's been played out. It's cliche. At least a story like Heart of Darkness has a deeper meaning. Avatar lacks the depth which is a prerequisite of art.

But let's take another example, Game X. Game X has wonderful mechanics, but completely lacks a coherent story. Reviewers give it an 8/10. We've seen Game X a lot. What does that 8/10 mean? Story equals two points? My point is that games, unlike cinema, paintings, sculptures, ect, are composed of an interactive experience (gameplay) and a curated experience (dialog, story, art direction, ect.) Reviews necessarily give more weight to one side or the other. I think Arthur's review is a perfect example of a situation where the artistic failings (in his mind; I feel compelled to remind everyone that I cannot speak to such things until I actually play the game. Everyone, I am not claiming that Far Cry 3 is racist. I am questioning the disconnect in the review.) are not enough to sour his overall impression of the game. Something like that would never happen in other forms of media. It makes me question the value of games as art.

Well, by and large, games are still reviewed more like cars, and less like books or movies. A good/great game, runs smoothly, looks nice, has solid mechanics, has nice sound, and is fun to play with. You could take a review of a Fiat Abarth and easily transpose it into a game review.

PC Gamer's Verdict on Dishonored:

A gorgeous, complex and slick assassination sim, with fascinating systems to play with and huge open levels to explore.
Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

It's a problem I have with the games as art argument. We so desperately want to elevate games to a higher standard, but are slaves to judging them on criteria outside of narrative and art direction.

I think juv3nal nailed it in the first comment: we don't judge other art based on criteria like "too racist" to begin with. It seems like the criterion you're asking for here is that in order for something to be great art, it must also be uplifting art? progressive art? not-regressive art?

Nope, my narrative issue with games like FC3--er... actually, let's talk about some form of media I have consumed. Avatar. Avatar is artistically bankrupt because it's a story that has been told repeatedly. I dislike the white man savior story because it's been played out. It's cliche. At least a story like Heart of Darkness has a deeper meaning. Avatar lacks the depth which is a prerequisite of art.

But let's take another example, Game X. Game X has wonderful mechanics, but completely lacks a coherent story. Reviewers give it an 8/10. We've seen Game X a lot. What does that 8/10 mean. Story equals two points? My point is that games, unlike cinema, paintings, sculptures, ect, are composed of an interactive experience (gameplay) and a curated experience (dialog, story, art direction, ect.) Reviews necessarily give more weight to one side or the other. I think Arthur's review is a perfect example of a situation where the artistic failings (in his mind; I feel compelled to remind everyone that I cannot speak to such things until I actually play the game. Everyone, I am not claiming that Far Cry 3 is racist. I am questioning the disconnect in the review.) are not enough to sour his overall impression of the game. Something like that would never happen in other forms of media. It makes me question the value of games as art.

Well then the issue isn't racism. The issue is lacking depth. Whether it's a racist or non-racist cliche, it's still a cliche. If there's artistic failing, there's an artistic failing whether it's "white man savior" or "the butler did it." So I don't see what role racism plays in all this. To go back to your title, if you're asking would I give your racist video game that lacks depth a high score, I'd say no: but that wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with it being a racist video game, it would be because it lacks depth.

If you're asking another question about whether a game that lacks depth because of a racist cliche should be judged even more harshly than one that lacks depth because of a non-racist cliche, then that's a different question.

In short, I think you're discussing a different question than your title is asking us.

Reviews are opinions, and are not required to live up to one's particular notion of consistency.

If you changed the title to "sexist" instead of "racist", well, there goes the gaming industry.

RE, reviewed like cars: The number of people who don't finish games, points to that fact. They're toys, not games. I've had to differentiate as a parent, in order to keep from being buried by derelict plastic junk. Toys are objects of fancy which lose their usefulness once the novelty has worn off. Games have lasting value. An ongoing ability to engage your mind. Though, I think there's a certain YMMV factor hear from person to person.

The title now more accurately addresses what I'm asking in the OP. Thanks Cheeze

Grubber788 wrote:

I think Arthur's review is a perfect example of a situation where the artistic failings (in his mind) are not enough to sour his overall impression of the game. Something like that would never happen in other forms of media. It makes me question the value of games as art.

I think your example of Avatar clearly overrules your argument here.

Grubber788 wrote:

The title now more accurately addresses what I'm asking in the OP. Thanks Cheeze

'welcome. I think the issue with this example or Avatar is that things like homophobia and racism should trouble us more than a simple plot hole, but does the fact that I'm troubled by something diminish it as a work of art. Should I just judge the whole thing as the sum of its parts? Should I look at the homophobia and racism and say "yeah, but to quote the review, if I can look past its thematic problems, Far Cry 3’s story isn’t without genuine invention and surprise so I'll leave the homophobia and racism out of the equation"? Or should I go to the opposite idea, and say that the homophobia and racism disqualifies whatever quality is left in the rest of the work of art from serious consideration.

In other words, there's a whole discussion about art itself that this touches on that goes way beyond just video games.

MeatMan wrote:
Certis wrote:

The number at the bottom of the review seems like the furthest thing from the point in my mind. Who cares?

I would suggest that lots of people care. That said, I don't. In fact, the site where I read reviews (RPS) doesn't even use scores. So maybe most people here at GWJ don't care, but I bet that most people that make up "the masses" do pay attention to review scores. We've all heard stories about bonuses to developers being based on achieving a certain Metacritic score. If those stories are true, that's proof that lots of people use review scores to make their decision of whether or not to buy a game.

Point well taken, but it was a rhetorical question

Grubber788 wrote:

I also think saying "who cares?" about a review score isn't fair. If the scores didn't matter--if they weren't some reflection of the author's beliefs--they would not be there, would they? It's a problem I have with the games as art argument. We so desperately want to elevate games to a higher standard, but are slaves to judging them on criteria outside of narrative and art direction.

I think there's too much fretting about the final scored judgement of the reviewer and a willful disregard for the words being written. Talking about scores is a smokescreen. It's an assumed objective measure on a subjective opinion which is impossible to prove, so it makes for great arguments but doesn't leave me with anything to take away from the discussion. It keeps us a step removed from what I think is a much a more important question: if a game is misogynist, racist or portraying stereotypes without any integrity, should I be playing it? What does it say about me if I'm gleaning entertainment from these kind of games?

Trying to prove hypocrisy or inconsistency from reviewers is a favorite past time for the gaming community but I think it often takes the place of the more personal, involved questions we could be tackling instead. That's where my "who cares?" statement comes from.

Given your amendments, I think we're actually pretty close to feeling the same way about things. Just coming at it from a different angle.

nel e nel wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I think Arthur's review is a perfect example of a situation where the artistic failings (in his mind) are not enough to sour his overall impression of the game. Something like that would never happen in other forms of media. It makes me question the value of games as art.

I think your example of Avatar clearly overrules your argument here.

Not necessarily. You can't "play" Avatar like you can a game so you when you watch the movie, you are consuming the full experience in a single, curated experience. Games are fundamentally split along the lines of what a player can interact with and what a player cannot. Note I'm not trying to make a distinction between graphics and story; I'm trying to make a distinction between graphics/story and mechanics. Reviews are going to exist in the space between the playable and the observable worlds. I believe there is a fundamental tension there.

Edit: An example of what I'm talking about would be something like:

Generic Movie:
- Horrible Visuals
- Horrible Story
- Horrible Sound Design
- Horrible Acting

Verdict: Irredeemable. 0/10

Generic Game:
- Horrible Visuals
- Horrible Story
- Horrible Sound Design
- Horrible Acting

Verdict: Redeemable.
if gameplay=good
then score=3/10
else
score=0/10

Gameplay exists as a completely separate factor in video games that I cannot envision in any other format.

Another question to ask: Can gameplay be art?

Edit: Someone fix my javascript please. I did like, seven sections in Code Academy.

Grubber: I understand you now. You, personally, do not have the issue with the game's aesthetic or moral aspect -- what you are bringing up the lack of consistency (or sincerety) on the part of the reviewer who on one hand claims to have these issues, and on the other hand goes on to give the game a good score anyway.