Grand Theft Objectivity
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I think this is a problem we will have to get out off ourselves. Personal investment in a critic over our personal opinion is ridiculous, and while I believe critics can be challenged, I don't think that a wordy backlash that came out of a Monkey Island game, full of technicisms and statistics is the right thing to do.
I haven't played the game yet, and I don't see how a 9.8 or a 9.0 could make a difference in my personal enjoyment of said game.
I haven't played the game yet, and I don't see how a 9.8 or a 9.0 could make a difference in my personal enjoyment of said game.
I feel that this article was a wee bit redundant.
Yes, what people are doing to critics that don't give GTA V perfect scores is bad.
I was kind of hoping that instead, we'd get to see your insight on the questionable morals and writing of V, but oh well.
Yes, what people are doing to critics that don't give GTA V perfect scores is bad.
I was kind of hoping that instead, we'd get to see your insight on the questionable morals and writing of V, but oh well.
MovieBob said:
I don't think it's a matter of people objectively hating critics. As a Cinephile (I have nothing but contempt for the word intelligentsia, it is an insult by exception) I reserve the right to strongly disagree with a critic, while respecting or not respecting the motivations behind their opinion, keeping in mind it's an opinion and discussion is always good, especially one that goes against your beliefs. Furthermore, said argument can change opinions of critics and allow them to grow. (cough Man of Steel cough) I think that a good bust up and expression of opinions without personal attacks is the key. I reserve the right to say your opinion on said movie is a bit dumb, but I won't call you dumb.
Why is that? It's not like the reviewer is asking you to give them money, they're not even asking you to agree with them. Do you think that because they think that some things in a game are misogynist, that they'll be lying about the rest of the game, skewing it entirely to make it look bad? Because in the example Bob pointed out, that's not what happened. The fact that someone found a game quite sexist but still gave it a 9/10 should be quite telling.theluckyjosh said:
I've always hated numerical reviews, myself, because they lend themselves to this very problem, points being awarded based on merits and different standards for what deserves to be given a point or when one needs to be taken away.
When you say "I'm not going to read an article from someone who has a different opinion than me on some hot-button issue and nothing else", it means you're intentionally closing your mind off to opposing opinions. If you think the game is a 10/10, that's fine, no reviewer is going to tell you you're wrong for thinking that.
Good article.
Honestly, I don't see why a reviewer even needs to pretend to be 'objective'. They should try to highlight an object from several possible angles, yes, but in the end, every critic is a subject, and WILL judge something based on their personal opinion. There's no possible way around it, since there is no objective scale to measure against. There aren't any Internationally Approved Checkboxes of Reviewing that a critic can just check-off one by one.
There are just very vague guidelines, that at times make no sense.
Honestly, I don't see why a reviewer even needs to pretend to be 'objective'. They should try to highlight an object from several possible angles, yes, but in the end, every critic is a subject, and WILL judge something based on their personal opinion. There's no possible way around it, since there is no objective scale to measure against. There aren't any Internationally Approved Checkboxes of Reviewing that a critic can just check-off one by one.
There are just very vague guidelines, that at times make no sense.
Subjectivity, bias, and personal opinion are what make up the great bulk of art criticism and cannot in any way be separated from it. However, I do think it is worthy to criticize the critic when one disagrees with them. (Note: Rape threats are not criticism, I'm sure we are all aware of this.) This includes questioning the importance the reviewer puts on any given part of the work.
So, for example, I found Bob's review of White House Down to put far too much emphasis on what he perceived as the movie being "about something." From the review it seemed clear that it was about something that appealed to his preferred political or social ideologies and that "something" was enough for him to give the film far more credit than it actually deserved. It's not that I feel that Bob's emphasis on that point makes his review invalid, it's simply that I don't value that part of the movie as much as he does and so I am far less willing to give the myriad of other problems it had a pass.
We cannot disassociate ourselves in order to give an "objective" review, but there are ways that a piece of art can be viewed objectively. Our summation of that piece will be partly derived from our assessment of its objective qualities and, rationally, our subjective ideas about what is good or proper or matches our tastes or philosophies. Bob isn't wrong for liking White House Down or giving it a good review. Petit isn't wrong for being put off by GTA's rampant misogyny (even if it is clearly satirical). And you, good reader of my post, are not wrong for thinking they are both over valuing those aspects of the work in question.
It doesn't make them less of a professional for doing it and it doesn't make you a moron for not agreeing with them. So, let's all have our cake, eat it too, and at all times remember that we are special snowflakes with great individual value. Let us treat one-another with the utmost respect even when we disagree vehemently and want to spew obscenities at one-another. The choices are yours and yours alone!
So, for example, I found Bob's review of White House Down to put far too much emphasis on what he perceived as the movie being "about something." From the review it seemed clear that it was about something that appealed to his preferred political or social ideologies and that "something" was enough for him to give the film far more credit than it actually deserved. It's not that I feel that Bob's emphasis on that point makes his review invalid, it's simply that I don't value that part of the movie as much as he does and so I am far less willing to give the myriad of other problems it had a pass.
We cannot disassociate ourselves in order to give an "objective" review, but there are ways that a piece of art can be viewed objectively. Our summation of that piece will be partly derived from our assessment of its objective qualities and, rationally, our subjective ideas about what is good or proper or matches our tastes or philosophies. Bob isn't wrong for liking White House Down or giving it a good review. Petit isn't wrong for being put off by GTA's rampant misogyny (even if it is clearly satirical). And you, good reader of my post, are not wrong for thinking they are both over valuing those aspects of the work in question.
It doesn't make them less of a professional for doing it and it doesn't make you a moron for not agreeing with them. So, let's all have our cake, eat it too, and at all times remember that we are special snowflakes with great individual value. Let us treat one-another with the utmost respect even when we disagree vehemently and want to spew obscenities at one-another. The choices are yours and yours alone!
I avoided simply just scrolling down at the general comments for the GameSpot review, rather selecting the "top comments" that were less personal attacks, more major disagreement. I wouldn't disregard all comments just because of the odd narrow minded user. There were clearly users who had issues with the method of the review.
Personally I find it interesting as the game was reviewed by women on both of the biggest game sites (GameSpot and IGN), one with and without an issue on the subject. Even if you greatly disagree with GameSpot, sexist remarks are no only just plain bad, but also redundant. Women can and are enjoying this game.
My biggest problem with the review, among others for other games with similar criticisms is, as one user points out, is "misogyny" is hatred. I would not be able to enjoy a game that hates women. If violence, politics, racism and social problems are about of the themes and brutality of the game's world, why is sexism alone the problem?
Personally I find it interesting as the game was reviewed by women on both of the biggest game sites (GameSpot and IGN), one with and without an issue on the subject. Even if you greatly disagree with GameSpot, sexist remarks are no only just plain bad, but also redundant. Women can and are enjoying this game.
My biggest problem with the review, among others for other games with similar criticisms is, as one user points out, is "misogyny" is hatred. I would not be able to enjoy a game that hates women. If violence, politics, racism and social problems are about of the themes and brutality of the game's world, why is sexism alone the problem?
This might not be true of many critics but there are definitely political commentators who only seem capable of viewing entertainment media as it relates to their own opinions.
(EVERY potrayal of a black character being violent is necessarily a statement that black people are prone to violence etc. etc.)
Talking about the implications and larger social place of games, films, books is a good thing though I think a good reviewer should state it explicitly (e.g. I felt an undercurrent of sexism in this game which affected my enjoyment of it) because these things might not bother everyone.
There is no such thing as an objective review of any entertainment or art medium. They all specifically relate to how you experience it. An objectively bad game might be a fair description of a game where nothing works properly but the opposite doesn't make a game objectively good.
Nobody will ever give an objective opinion but I hope that people will be able to give self-aware opinions where they understand the things which they take issue with. The best time to criticise a critic is when you think they have interpreted part of a game in one way when another interpretation is possible (and perhaps more reasonable), not when the critic is bothered by something that you don't care about.
(EVERY potrayal of a black character being violent is necessarily a statement that black people are prone to violence etc. etc.)
Talking about the implications and larger social place of games, films, books is a good thing though I think a good reviewer should state it explicitly (e.g. I felt an undercurrent of sexism in this game which affected my enjoyment of it) because these things might not bother everyone.
There is no such thing as an objective review of any entertainment or art medium. They all specifically relate to how you experience it. An objectively bad game might be a fair description of a game where nothing works properly but the opposite doesn't make a game objectively good.
Nobody will ever give an objective opinion but I hope that people will be able to give self-aware opinions where they understand the things which they take issue with. The best time to criticise a critic is when you think they have interpreted part of a game in one way when another interpretation is possible (and perhaps more reasonable), not when the critic is bothered by something that you don't care about.
Thanks for the silver lining, Bob. Every time the next "Best Game Ever Of All Time" comes out, the inevitable Internet lynch mobs make me embarrassed for game culture in general. It's nice to see that the lynch mobs are now kinda sorta using arguments based in actual criticism of the reviewer's work.
Still embarrassing, but you take what you can get, I suppose.
Still embarrassing, but you take what you can get, I suppose.
Well that's the entire point of reviewing right there. Bob enjoyed it, and thus reviewed it favourably. While it's not impossible that he gave it more favourable treatment for being a 'different' summer film, but it's only too praiseworthy in your eyes. Personally I thought Pacific Rim was awesome, and thus Bob's review was right on the money. Reviews are an input of opinion, not a definition of something's value.theluckyjosh said:
Too GTA I only got apathy, and to the people whining about reviewer score I got to say:
a) Because of score inflation, reviewer score doesn't matter.
b) If it was up to me, artistic merit would be half the score.
c) Don't buy GTA 5, play a different sandbox game with at least has a clear appeal.
a) Because of score inflation, reviewer score doesn't matter.
b) If it was up to me, artistic merit would be half the score.
c) Don't buy GTA 5, play a different sandbox game with at least has a clear appeal.
Because even minorly, there's something off-putting about the idea that something is somehow "worse" because it doesn't hold a particular social, political, or ethical value. That someone is showing favoritism to things they deem "appropriate" and sending the signal that you can expect a mark taken off for making something outside a reviewer's value system. That there's not a lot respect for the idea that someone has the right to make something that would offend you. Worst of all however is that it give legitimacy to the same mindset being used for less progressive arguments, like when Fox news chastised The Muppets, or the Lorax or even a bit on Sesame Street as "liberal propaganda".hentropy said:
I mean, I'm against numeric reviews for the same reason, but as long as they're here, a reviewer sometimes has to take a step back and say that personal distaste, while it can be voiced, is not something to dock points for if the creator's intent was to produce that offensive thing. And let's face it, between the hookers, the strippers, and the talk radio, being sexist was a forgone conclusion.
The devil is probably in the details. I should imagine it is that when women (and some men) like to play a fun, violent game, they don't want to be reminded of how often women are objectified/abused etc in real life within that game. Having not played GTA V, I couldn't say.Stabby Joe said:
That's one of the reasons I really like Yahtzee as a reviewer: he's very upfront about what his personal tastes are. So if you're a fan of, say, JRPGs, you know he's not the person to rely on for whether you should get a certain JRPG becasue with only a couple of exceptions he's made clear that he generally hates them.Realitycrash said:
Speaking of Yahtzee, I'm eagerly looking forward to what he has to say on GTAV.
My complaints come when reviewers try to act like their subjectivity is equal to objectivity. One of the worst cases of this was earlier this year with Ninja Theory's sloppy attempt at a Devil May Cry reboot getting free passes on the critical side despite TONS of sloppy design decisions and bad writing that become outright misogynistic almost immediately. I have no grudge with reviewers just admitting favoritism or preference, but trying to pretend they're an objective barometer is where I draw the line. Human beings will never, EVER be objective, it's just not possible. And because of that, I would also like to remind gamers that THEIR opinions are in no way better than most reviewers. Sure, you can make arguments but ultimately time will tell whose argument is considered better.