I think most gamers by this point are well aware of the sort of agenda pushing that sites like Kotaku and Polygon are known for. Remember that infamous Bayonetta 2 polygon review?
This article is going to focus on Polygon’s 2014 review of Sorcery Saga: Curse of The Great Curry God. Written by Danielle Riendeau, this piece highlights precisely why websites like Polygon and Kotaku are the butt of countless jokes amongst the gaming community.
The Polygon review contains two paragraphs complaining about the so-called “problematic” nature of the game’s dialogue and characters. As written by Danielle herself: “It’s colorful and goofy, though the story and writing contain problematic elements, like older male characters that hit on the teenaged heroine and plenty of tasteless jokes”
I’m not sure what game Danielle played, but to be offended and put off by Sorcery Saga‘s sense of humor is incredibly disheartening. We live in a world in which everyone gets offended and everyone needs to be politically correct all the time, otherwise you’re “insensitive” and an “awful” person.
Where and when exactly this trend/ideology began is beyond me, but I do know that this kind of thought process is going to ruin games in the future and lead to unnecessary censorship in an attempt to appease easily offended types like Danielle. Censorship has already come to infect games such as Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE, Bravely Second: End Layer, and Fire Emblem Fates. Politics, ideologies, and personal agenda have no place in video game reviews. A review should be a critical assessment of a game’s quality. A review should not highlight “problematic” things like supposed “racism” or “tasteless” humor.
What offends someone might not offend someone else. What one person finds tasteless, another person might find funny or remain unbothered. You can say the same thing about reviews in general since everyone has a different opinion. The difference is that a review attempts to separate bias as much as possible(even though it’s impossible) and asses what the game tries to be and how close it comes to reaching that goal. There are ways to review games that are separate from personal feelings.
As Kyle Bosman of Gametrailers and now Easy Allies once said “I think you can love a game and still give it a 6”. Unfortunately, by stating what game content offends you, you’re essentially throwing that out the door and only letting your singular, narrow ideals dictate what kind of content people should find problematic. That’s not the kind of funneling that belongs in a review meant to inform consumers about how good or bad a game is.
Later in the review, Danielle inserts a sidebar so that she can push her ideals onto others and have an entire dedicated space to complain. She writes: “Curse of The Great Curry God’s bizarre writing tries to be cute and sassy, but it’s often gross and off-putting. Pupuru attracts the attention of Gigadis, a much older man who pines for her and makes uncomfortable advances towards her throughout the game. She rebuffs him, but it doesn’t stop his constant marriage proposals and verbal fantasizing about her.
The script is lousy with poorly-thought-out molestation jokes and digs at people with mental illness. The cutscenes should have been a respite from the incessant grinding, but I found myself dreading them even more than my thirtieth crawl through a dungeon”
People like Danielle Riendeau don’t belong in the industry reviewing games. Sure, believe whatever you want to believe, but do NOT air your personal feelings about these kinds of things out into a review. A consumer does not care about how easily offended you are by a work of fiction. A consumer wants to know how good the game is. If you want to write about how offensive a game is, then fine, write your own separate editorial highlighting how probelmatic it is. Do NOT, however, fill your review with this garbage.