I think a simple statement reminding readers that this game is for mature players might be in order, in case you've been living under a rock and did not know that already. To use your example, I would not necessarily expect a review of the second season of Deadwood to remind me of the foul language - it's already pretty much out there as cultural knowledge.
I also think that within the context of a game review, a discussing its morality would not be out of place, but it's also not required. Again, partly because that has been discussed to death already, and partly because the purpose of a review IS to discuss whether it's fun to play, not whether a player should be doing so.
Well phrased. I don't like or enjoy misogyny, and I don't personally like to play games that feature it. I want that discussion in an article about the game, though, not in a gameplay review. I believe the latter isn't the place for an ethical or moral digression.
Well, virtually all triple A games do, particularly controversial ones.
Please don't mistake "the review shouldn't preach about the subject matter" with "the review shouldn't discuss the subject matter." The former is fine. The latter, in my opinion, is inappropriate in most game reviews.
I think you may have screwed up your former and latter references here (or possibly I'm just confused about what you're saying). Trying to untangle some negation a little, I would agree with the statement "a review shouldn't preach about the subject matter, but a review should discuss the subject matter." I take it that you are asserting "a review shouldn't preach about the subject matter, but a review can legitimately (but need not) discuss the subject matter." If so, our disagreement is relatively small.
All that said, I'm confused by your distinction between content for a review and content for an article. I would tend to think that a review should cover more than just gameplay-- it should be the full review of the game, including discussion of, for example, whether the story is good, whether the dialogue is well-written, and so forth. (Note that this was labeled as a review, not as a game-play preview or something like that.) And in fact, the content of this review goes well beyond gameplay, discussing the quality of the soundtrack for example. I would think that discussing the good and bad aspects of the story line would also be appropriate, including issues like gender treatment and degrees of violence. I agree that issues like "the controversy about the game" and whether, in fact, lots of 10 year olds are buying the game (as is sometimes claimed by the media) or almost none are (as is sometimes claimed by game manufacturers) would be misplaced in a review.
Ah, fair enough, though I think you mean the reverse of latter and former? Mostly, I felt there was a lack of information sufficient for me to make a decision about whether or not I wanted to buy the game, except that I knew about its content from previous versions and could assume the content of this game would be similar.
I completely disagree, actually. Most "feature articles" are little more than free advertisements for the game, with crowing interviews with the programmers or designers or whatever and luscious screen shots. I have never seen a critical feature article of a game. (The same goes for movies, btw. It is often hilarious to read the glowing 10 page article about some new blockbuster movie and the cruel 500 word C- review in the same issue of Entertainment Weekly.)
The purpose of a review is to critique all of the reasons a person might or might not want to play the game. That includes gameplay, soundtrack, morality, gross imagery, interface, everything. Why would you exclude a topic that seriously affects potential purchasers from a review?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I also think that within the context of a game review, a discussing its morality would not be out of place, but it's also not required. Again, partly because that has been discussed to death already, and partly because the purpose of a review IS to discuss whether it's fun to play, not whether a player should be doing so.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Please don't mistake "the review shouldn't preach about the subject matter" with "the review shouldn't discuss the subject matter." The former is fine. The latter, in my opinion, is inappropriate in most game reviews.
(no subject)
All that said, I'm confused by your distinction between content for a review and content for an article. I would tend to think that a review should cover more than just gameplay-- it should be the full review of the game, including discussion of, for example, whether the story is good, whether the dialogue is well-written, and so forth. (Note that this was labeled as a review, not as a game-play preview or something like that.) And in fact, the content of this review goes well beyond gameplay, discussing the quality of the soundtrack for example. I would think that discussing the good and bad aspects of the story line would also be appropriate, including issues like gender treatment and degrees of violence. I agree that issues like "the controversy about the game" and whether, in fact, lots of 10 year olds are buying the game (as is sometimes claimed by the media) or almost none are (as is sometimes claimed by game manufacturers) would be misplaced in a review.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The purpose of a review is to critique all of the reasons a person might or might not want to play the game. That includes gameplay, soundtrack, morality, gross imagery, interface, everything. Why would you exclude a topic that seriously affects potential purchasers from a review?