<![CDATA[Kotaku: discussions]]> http://tags.kotaku.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/kotaku.com.png <![CDATA[Kotaku: discussions]]> http://kotaku.com/tag/discussions http://kotaku.com/tag/discussions <![CDATA[Game Reviewers' "Seven Deadly Sins"]]> You guys are so mean to game reviewers. In sincerity, though, as games themselves seem to be creatures of far more depth than they once were, the role of the game reviewer has come under increasing scrutiny. I like to think that we're all trying to do the best, most ethical and most useful work we can, and so there's been a lot of talking amongst ourselves in the games press about what the ideal way of doing our jobs is.

Gus Mastrapa posits in his column at GameDaily that writing really well is the game reviewer's highest calling, and he goes on to point out what he feels are the reviewer's seven deadly sins - Measure, Dullness, Doubt, Diplomacy, Forgiveness, Purposelessness and Obsession.

For example, the sin of "Measure" indicates when a reviewer has to apply a score or rating, and factors in the aggregate as he or she does so:

It's tempting to aim for the middle and grant a score that'll best conform to popular opinion, but to do so is tantamount to handing your guns over to a corrupt sheriff. It's better to score like you mean it and use the numbers, letters or stars to make a point.

I often feel like I'd prefer to do away with scores altogether, as we've done here at Kotaku, but I can also see the merit in needing a quick-hit evaluatory number, after we're so habituated to it.

Another one of Gus' points that jumps out at me is the sin of Diplomacy - worrying about the reaction, the reviewer is often tempted to try to please everyone:

In a post about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots Tycho from Penny Arcade pointed out a bit of game review weaseling that I myself have been guilty of. "Most reviews I have read," he said, "can be simmered down to 'If you like Metal Gear, you'll like it.'" This kind of wishy-washy language is, itself, unforgivable. It's a way of avoiding the fight that should be at the core of your review. If you don't like Metal Gear you should be illustrating the series' weaknesses and the way they materialize Metal Gear Solid 4. Reviews are no place for peacemaking. Make your arguments and back them up.

A fight at the core of a review, huh? Often, it seems reviews cause fights even when you try to be as genteel as possible.

So, Kotaku readers, what do you think are the worst things reviewers do - and how can we do better?

Media Coverage: The Seven Deadly Sins of Video Game Reviewing [GameDaily via GameSetWatch]

]]>
http://kotaku.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5018120&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA["theGAYERGamer" Gets Xbox Live Ban, Microsoft Explains]]> The Consumerist printed a letter from a reader, Grant, who claims his Xbox Live gamertag, "theGAYERgamer," was banned from Xbox Live. When he called Microsoft customer support, a rep reportedly told him that while she wasn't offended by his gamertag, "the greater Xbox community" had found his it offensive, thereby warranting a ban.

Hit the jump for Grant's full letter to The Consumerist and for comment from Microsoft reps.

Consumerist,

I have had a bad morning. Last night when i tried to sign into my xbox live account "thegayergamer" I was told that it had to be changed. I figured that it was just from people reporting it as an offensive name being that the greater Xbox live community isn't exactly welcome to gay people, i spend a lot of time muting people on Halo3. I assumed that once i called Microsoft they would straighten things out.

I talked to a supervisor there, Roxy, who told me that she didn't personally find the fact that my gamer tag had gay in the name offensive, but that the greater Xbox community did, so i would have to change it. I hope I'm not the only person who finds this don't ask, don't tell policy disgusting... eek

From Grant, thegayergamer

Microsoft, when contacted, referred us to Xbox Live team member Stephen Toulouse's personal site which explains the Live terms of use in detail. Toulouse writes that the gamertag is in violation of implied "sexual innuendo", one of the many forms of disallowed "content of a sexual nature." Toulouse expands:

We recieved a complaint on the Gamertag and determined that it did indeed contain sexual innuendo. Now granted, there could be an argument that the text is not pejorative to homosexuality and should therefore be allowed. But there is no context to explain that. Gamertags are visible to everyone and it would be hard for me to defend to a parent of a young child who saw it that the name did not contain content of a sexual nature.

Toulouse clarifies that "yes 'TheStraighterGamer' or 'TheHeterosexualgamer' would have gotten the same treatment and would have been found to be in violation and forced to be changed," adding that gamertags along those lines have been banned in the past. The entire post is definitely worth a full read.

What do Kotaku readers think? Is this an extension of what many people discuss as a culture of intolerance on Xbox Live? Should users be able to express themselves on Live in any way they see fit? Or does sexuality simply not belong in gamertags, regardless of orientation?

"Gay" Player Name Banned From Xbox Live [The Consumerist]
Xbox Live policies and Gamertags [StepTo.com]

]]>
http://kotaku.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=390593&view=rss&microfeed=true