STOP CENSORING REVIEWERS, GUYS.

I mean damn, let people create what they want.
Stop pushing your damn AGENDA on them.

You can tell the people who just advocate their positions without thought very easily...
All they do is argue without addressing any of the real concerns. Then attempt to twist the story around.

So, are you saying it is okay for Arthur Gies to intentionally cherry-pick out scenes of the Witcher 3, take them out of context and make cries that the game is misogynistic? So you support lying for a cause?

Ironic the claim that people should be able to create what they want, when you have reviewers making shit up to build a following to get developers to overhaul their games... Hypocritical? Much!

Asking for fair representation of a video game is not censorship.

The irony is that people are accusing reviewers of the exact same thing you're accusing them of.

OMG lol XD

Some valid points raised hea : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsE-Zwb_j4

But you keep saying stuff like
"If content like this offends certain people's delicate sensibilities they they should just play something else - no-one's FORCING them to play it"
Which is fair enough

But then they're not allowed not to BUY said game because that's a boycott and therefore censorship, because reasons

And a site isn't allowed to cater to their sensibilities and warn them of content in otherwise great games that they might find offensive because that's inciting a boycott and therefore censorship, because reasons

But a site like Reaxxion is allowed to exist for people with equally extreme but opposite sensibilities because you happen to share those sensibilities and because reasons

So, in your world these people must blindly stumble around in a marketplace of games that they might find offensive with nothing to guide them, pay $30-40 for a game it turns out they find abhorrent and simply not play it and not complain - because THAT'S fair!

Straw man 1: who said the offended can't refuse to buy? (and please avoid double negatives...)
Straw man 2: who said the offended can't be catered to by media?
Straw man 3: who said the offended should have no guidance?

It's appropriate you're not directly replying to anyone, cos I have no idea who you are addressing...

1. This goes back to previous discussions where reviews such as that one of Cards Against Humanity that was accused of 'inciting a boycott' by viewing its content in a dim light, therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate that anyone who reads the review and then refrains from buying Cards Against Humanity because of it is therefore participating in that boycott. If the situation with the CAH review is different to the situation with the Witcher 3 review, please explain how

2 and 3. Not sure why you're splitting these in 2 because I thought I was talking about being catered for BY being given guidance. You are saying that this review, that highlights and puts particular emphasis on the parts of the game that might case offence should not exist or not it its current form - I don't see where you think the fallacy lies...

Furthermore I don't see why Warehall thinks that 'Being Genuine' and 'Being SJW click-bait' are mutually exclusive properties in the first place - lets go back to our old friend Cain Clayton and his piece on MGSV I analysed the other week:
http://www.reaxxion.com/8743/feminists-throw-conniption-fits-over-sexymetal-gear-v-character

I believe that article to be blatant hardcore GG supporter / MRA click bait BUT I also have no reason to suspect that Mr. Clayton isn't just a big a douchebag as his bio blurb describes and that the views expressed aren't genuine, depressingly...

:) I think it's hard for some in GG to believe the other side is being honest, but it seems to me it's much harder for antiGG to believe GG is being honest. Your post is actually a nice example... read on.

1 - Even the folks in GG that think the offended should not be offended (note, should isn't can't) will easily admit the offended have every right to buy or not whatever they want. Hence your strawman which makes GG into what it isn't, when actually the other side are the ones defending boycotts despite a clear right of GG and the regular Joe and Jane Public to buy, produce and consume whatever offends the offended. Thanks for reminding of the CAH example, the GTAV one kind of also fits the bill - the Witcher 3 does not I think.

2 - 3 Well, I guess that does it. If you didn't see, or care to notice, the difference between can't and should then indeed a lot of the GG points will be nonsensical TO YOU. I'll try to explain and bow out. I do see another confusion where you think we are pointing fallacies, ergo logical errors, when from the start GG has said loud and clear it's about ethics. Lacks of ethics are not fallacies, obviously. And this is great example of how you are exemplifying my point about not actually engaging with the arguments being delivered by the other side.

2 - 3 GG says the unethical journalists are unethical, and shouldn't. They are free to continue to write what they are writing. They SHOULD stop pretending to be journalists. Or, they can remain journalists and point problems in products as long as that's done objectively. Others have indicated where the misrepresentations are. It's the misrepresentations, not the focus, that's the ethical problem. You guys are the ones that suspect GG intent, and therefore keep trying to divert the discussion into one of focus and priorities rather than professional methodologies. Most of the ethic lapses (other than nepotism and cronyism) GG sees are due to pseudo-jounalists that instead of inform go into sensationalism or ideological crusades: they are not objective, they even reject objectivity. They should just admit what they are: puritans, advocates, politicians, demagogues, idealogues, preachers... take your pick really... that's not to say there are zero GG folks calling for shutting down dissenting voices, but I'd still like to know who your target was in this thread when you said "you" in the post I initially replied, because most of the proGG folks that continue to post here are pretty reasonable.

well... you could argue that objectivity does not exist, and that everyone is inherently subjective. The only difference then is being open about it or not. Claiming "objectivity" can be said to be nothing but a rhetorical device.

Interesting thing I heard on radio, you would expect a DNA analysis to be objective, but a study found that giving the same DNA evidence to different forensic experts, even within in the same company, often leads to different conclusions.

Even 'hard science' is 'tainted' by subjectivity, not to mention something so 'soft' as reviews and journalism. So why not just drop the pretense?

What pretense Amok? Are you actually saying DNA evidence proves nothing? Or are you saying it's imperfect? Looks like the second to me, but then what's to be dropped? The certainty? Or the basic concept of evidence?

Something being imperfect, like objectivity in practice, because yes, everyone is subjective (duh) is different than rejecting it outright. Which is exactly the problem with journalists rejecting objectivity, because it's sooo hard... ridiculous if you ask me. When a journalist rejects objectivity, he basically stops being a journalist. It's almost black and white if you ask me.

So no, it's not a rhetorical device just because you disagree with it as an ethical principle. We do, and the fact you guys have constantly dismissed it as a dishonest camouflage for whatever reason was a huge contributing factor to the escalation of Gamergate.

Objective becomes a rhetorical device, because it is used as a shield to hide behind. If all journalism is subjective (as you actually say...), then invoking objectivity as a yardstick to claim some are better than others, is the pretence. You have good and bad journalism, ethical and non-ethical, but you can not have subjective or objective journalism, as subjectivity is inherent in a human being. Pretending this is not the case is the pretence, leading to objectivity becoming a rhetorical device.

In reviewing computer games I believe that you can only be 'objective' about metrics that are scientifically measurable - max Resolution, polycount, frame rate etc. etc.
But when it comes to how a reviewer FEELS about a game - well, of COURSE that is subjective, what the heck are the SI units of fun or playability, immersion, tension, humour, offensiveness, the 'objectivity' argument is a fallacy and is your straw man, my friend!

You just can't get your head around other people's views, opinions and experiences in reaction to a computer game being different to your own so anyone who doesn't tow the party line and say the same thing as everyone else is being aberrant, agendified and unethical - in that world what is even the point of having more than one source of game reviews if you can only think a certain way and if you think different you are being 'unethical'?

What exactly do you think I'm hiding then? :) It's not like I make any pretence to like the ideology that I think is behind the rejection of objectivity...

Subjectivity and objectivity overlap. They are not mutually exclusive. Subjectivity is inherent in humanity. Journalism is a human activity. Journalism will always be subjective.

Then objectivity should be inherent in journalism (and science, and other stuff I could list), at least if you consider journalism to be related to informing, to truth, to fairness and neutrality. Do you?

The more objective jurnalism is, the better. But that is not its only quality, obviously.