Vainamoinen: Your opinion of said video games is strangleheld (totally a word) by a different ideology. And I think you totally have the right to critique those games in your way although 'ideology' clearly is behind every opinion. And opinion is all in art and art critique. What I'm seeing at work in a lot of gamergate scriptures is the idea that an evaluation of a work of art could be 'objective'. That's not working out, plain and simple. There's nothing about video games to report that's objective AND worthwhile.
Being professional is not an ideology, it's a requirement of the job. I expect a doctor to treat all patients regardless of their race, sexual preference, or any other factors because a doctor is supposed to do that. I expect a cop to do their job, protect and serve, without demanding more on the side from the people that they are protecting, I expect them to do it without abusing the power of their position. I expect a reporter to report on what they are covering without interjecting themselves into the story. I expect teachers to instruct and engage their students on the material instead of teaching the tests they'll take
I expect professionals to act professional, and if they cannot do that, they are welcome to find another job. If it is too much of a problem of ideology then I have to question the ideology that they hold. Professionalism is based off of a code of ethics, and by claiming to be in a profession you are bound by their ethics.
As far as objectivity in game reviews, I'll say this. It's fine to have an opinion of a game, it's fine to say that you enjoyed something, that you thought the game had charm that brought it up beyond clunky controls or a story that was too linear. But injecting yourself too much in a review is a bad thing. The following quote is an example:
Tropico 5 succeeded in making me feel powerful, and it enabled me to create a world in my image. But the game so entirely lacks compassion that it made me feel like a bully. There's an undeniable tension between the player, in the role of The Dictator, and the citizens. Tropico 5 fails to reconcile that conflict in a mature way, missing its shot at changing the series from a thoughtless getaway to a memorable, meaningful trip.
Now, I'm a Tropico player, and I gotta be honest, I've never felt like a bully, I've built up cities, I've growled at the people that would rather stay in shacks instead of the apartments I've built for them, I've never locked down elections and I tried to do well by them to a degree that I would want someone doing the same to me. I didn't feel like I was built up, I didn't feel like the easy way was forced on me, I simply acknowledged that it wasn't the path I was on or who I was, no matter how tempting it is.
My next quote is from a noted critic, and this will pretty much be me wrapping it up afterwards because I am wordy as hell.
Advise the readers well. This does not involve informing them, "You'll love this!" If I approached some guy in a restaurant and told him what he would love, I might get a breadbasket in the face. No, we must tell the readers what we ourselves love or hate. If we work for employers who think we should "like more movies like ordinary people like," we should make a donation in his name to the Anti-Cruelty Society.
Provide a sense of the experience. No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film. In other words, if it is a Pauly Shore comedy, there are people who like them, and they should be able to discover in your review if the new one is down to their usual standard.
I'm not stupid, I accept that there will always be a degree of subjectivity in them, but the goal should be to keep to the experience of the game. To go back to the Tropico review, you shouldn't be talking about how the game made you feel like a bully, because I can guarentee that the player ACTED like a bully, then got scared of the mirror the game held in front of them.
As far as objectivity in the normal articles? What about talking to developers about the challenges of games? I'd love to hear from someone who works on an RPG talking about how hard it is to make the story fit the space you have. Wasteland 2 came out a month ago, that would have been wonderful to hear talked about, what are the challenges of doing such a project on kickstarter, what's the challenges associated with having your budget suddenly balloon far beyond what you wanted? There's lots of articles, lots of things to talk about, but they only look at one side. If you want to talk about why there aren't as many female developers in gaming, you also need to look at a lot more then just 'people don't want to hire them'. How many are available? How many have the right skill set? How many women are going through college programs that are more technologically inclined (I mentioned this in another post...I think, about that when I went into a computer school there was only 4 women in my whole class).
And I just want to tough on critiquing. Critiquing is a form of analysis, and while you can point out the negatives until you're blue in the face, good analysis actually has to touch on the positive as well. And there's the whole argument of what makes a good critique, because it can be different depending on the medium. A Philisophical Critique isn't going to be the same as a critique of a business, or about the future of platforming games.
Seriously, I could write for a while on this shit, and I don't have the time. I'll try to pick up my train of thought later.