Critical analysis and opinion

[haruvister]

There is a difference between critical analysis and opinion. There is a difference between critical analysis and opinion. There, I said it twice. It is not black and white - there is a considerable grey area in-between - but, essentially, analysis is the careful examination of structure of something, whilst opinion is a judgement NOT based on proof.

The reason I feel it's necessary to emphasise this distinction is because many people seem to believe it does not exist. I keep finding the following argument coming in various 'posts' sections underneath games reviews (usually when the reviewer dares to give MGS4 "only" 8 out of 10):

Person 1: "OMG, what's this dude on about? FFS!"
Person 2: "At the end of the day, it's just one person's opinion, make up your own mind."

On the surface 2 would appear to be a diplomatic and logical response. However...

Assuming the journalist has performing his or her job properly then the review will have been a structured breakdown of all the game's elements - gameplay, narrative, and aesthetics - examining each factor in an objective manner, before coming to a conclusion in the closing paragraph/s, based on the evidence he or she has presented. I cannot stress enough: this process is NOT the same as blandly offering an opinion, because opinion is NOT based on carefully considered proof. True journalism of quality should help us, the consumer, make the right choice; it is the prose of professionals performing scientifically-principled assessments based on evidence.

It is true that the opinion of journalists is no more valid than mine or yours, but if that journalist is doing their job properly then they will be impartial, and by the end of the review we are capable of making a judgement for ourselves as to whether to part with our cash. Now, I for one am not prepared to make that decision based on a numerical score. I would love to banish all numerical review scores (or star ratings, or letter grades), but seeing as we're stuck with them we should consider what actually goes into those scores. Lest we forget, the journalist is considering the product from myriad points of view. The journalist must be selfless and appreciate how the product will appeal to different audiences - from 'casual' to 'hardcore'. On top of that the journalist must take on broader considerations: does this game take the medium to a new level? If so, how? Technologically? Narratively? How does the game affect the cultural 'Zeitgeist'?

It is the critic's duty to provide reasoned analysis of more than merely what occurs when the pad is in his or her hands. This is not to say that you or I should not take an interest in game sales or shifting audience demographics, rather that it not our duty to take those factors on board when forming our opinions - indeed, as soon as we do, we become 'fanboys'. So while I might hurl a '8/10' in the direction of Viking: Battle For Asgard, for no better reason that I had so much fun with it, I must accept that, realistically, if you break down the individual elements of the game, taking into account its relative insignicance in the wider scheme of the medium (thanks to its unapologetic lack of ambition), it should be scored vastly lower. In this case, my biased opinion does not stand up in the face of evidence.

I realise the problem is the line between critical analysis and opinion has become blurred of late, thanks to the relative ease with which the layman - by which I mean someone (like me) who is not journalistically trained, who does not make a living through objective criticism - can establish his or her own blog, or even a fully-fledged review site. But this does not mean the central distinction does not exist; and as intelligent people (which this site seems to cater for), who keep our opinions to the discourse of forums, I believe it's important that we
continue to recognise it. It's our duty.

Anyone have any thoughts/violently disagree?

 

[shatnershaman]

At the end of they day most people don't even read the review. Most just look at the score.

 

[Graustein]

Perfect example right here:
I've played a bit of GTA4, and concede that in almost every way it is excellent.

I still hate it, because I hate the premise. I've never been a fan of the GTA series, but I had to give this one a try after learning that it's somehow been named the greatest game ever. I played it, conceded that if you liked that kind of thing, it would indeed appear to have descended from the heavens.

I still hate it and think it's an appalling concept.

 

[Eyclonus]

I would point out that if want an objective, impartial analysis you would not use any words what so ever, just a single number. Even more objectively, you ask 20 people to review the game just using a number and no reason for it, and then average the results.
The moment the reviewer starts to write, they are speaking to the audience with an opinion. The langauge used will very subtly bias readers for or against it.

True journalism of quality should help us, the consumer, make the right choice; it is the prose of professionals performing scientifically-principled assessments based on evidence.

The purpose of a journalist is not to provide objectivity, but to inform the audience of what they percieve of a situation from where they are geographically/politically standing. Many will say that they are Objective in their reporting, but those people are usually pretentious old farts who often fall from their lofty heights the moment they loss touch with their audience. This is status is also claimed by corporately mandated news services that don't even bother to hide their contempt of the average viewer, Fox being probably the best example of this.

(I did do a journalistic degree but dropped out after the first year wrapped up.)

 

[zari]

There's always an aspect of opinion, especially with reviews of games. Some people find some controls intuitive and easy to use, some people don't. Some people find certain types of artwork aesthetically pleasing, and again, some don't. Humour? Definitely. Immersiveness? That too.

Really unless all a person writes is the bare analytical facts (X happened when I did Y, Z is an RPG, cutscenes are rendered using the game engine) there's always going to be some prejudice toward games the reviewer likes (or, for the cynic, is paid to like). I think the best we can do is find a few game journalists who share our tastes.

My take on the number rating is twofold. Firstly, we like to quantify things, it makes us happy, whether this is a number, or purely a binary decision as to whether something is good or bad. Secondly, we are lazy. Sometimes we just want to look at a score rather than read a lengthy diatribe about graphics, sound and gameplay. Also numbers make sites like Metacritic seemingly useful (I say seemingly because what's the point in averaging scores which are based on unrelated critera? [ie different people's opinions]).

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Graphics, music and complexity etc are all cases for objectivity, yes, and a good argument for or against a game has to be backed up by examples, but I think you underestimate the power of pure emotional response when playing a game. This is why scores out of ten and whatnot are becoming redundant, because this creates a façade of objectivity. It's for reasons like this that Yahtzee's reviews appeal more to me - they are honestly and blatantly opinion, but opinion backed up by fact and examples.

So ultimately, whilst you mention the shades of grey you seem to dismiss it too soon.

 

[Arghhh]

I doubt a critical analysis can be objective (unless it only involves silly measurable metrics like: "The more polygons the game shows on an average frame the better the graphics are.") and therefor it is still an opinion. It is just a more articulated and for an audience more helpful opinion than the opinion "GTA4 sucks" (unless someone just knocks: "Yes, I agree" and moves on ).

A review typically involves a game, a critic and an audience reading the review (which might be different depending on where the review is published). The job of a reviewer, might then be seen as providing an opinion of the game that is the most helpful/interesting for the largest share of the reading audience.

If the reading audience is mainly a bunch of graphic whores who are interested if every shadow effect is more photorealistic than Crysis, than the critic should examine that in detail. If the reading audience consists of (wannabe) game designers, it might be more helpful to compare the game with previous games showing any new innovative gameplay mechanisms.

 

[BoilingLeadBath]

Then the ideal game review would not generate a number, but instead a series of variables to be fed into a formula unique to the individual gamer?

Ie:

Reviewer rates the game:
Graphics (absolute): 9
Graphics (thematic): 7
Sound: 8
Plot: 3
Weapon design: 5
Level Design: 7
Consistency of design: 8

And when the reader views the webpage, these scores are processed by a formula unique to that individual (say, determined via a questionnaire) to come up with a score.

This system accomplishes a few goals:
1) It means that a reader doesn't have to find a reviewer who agrees with him... he can simply ignore/partly ignore/give increasing importance to the aspects of gaming he sees as important.
2) It allows multiple reviews to be averaged in a more-or-less objective manner.
3) It provides a numerical score. Because people are lazy and like numbers.

 

[DemonBuster]

I totally disagree. A reviewer neither has an obligation to "objectively" rate a piece of media, nor should he. The result of all this objective reviewing is reading the same bland refuse over and over again. Instead of simply telling the audience what he/she has thought of the game/movie/whatever, he goes of to far away lands, talks about production values (like anyone in their right mind gives a damn), tries to define some sort of selling point, tries to caress the filmmakers a bit, and does everything to press some sort of value out of the most horrid pieces of trash.

But the again it's not all bad. The way I can easily see if a game/movie/book is a hyped up piece of mediocrity, is to simply go to Metacritic and look at the scores. Anything above 90 is generally bland and not worth a second look, because such media tries to cater to every single person alive, and in the process makes it bland all across the board.

I like reviewers from blogs, because they subjectively say if they liked a piece of media and why. That's it. I don't need people judging if the effects are not up to par, I don't need people elaborating about how someone, who has these or those interests, might like the movie, even though (at least this is the way I interpret these sentences) they thought it was a flaming pile of dung. That's just idiotic, how is a reviewer supposed to say if someone with a specific taste, which the reviewer doesn't even share a bit, might like this or that? That just doesn't work, because the tastes are just incompatible. And that's fine.

Let's not fool ourselves: When it comes to games/movies/books the tastes range from New York to the far edge of the Milky Way. If you want to see if a review is accurate or not, you should skim the past reviews of the reviewer, and look if your tastes coincide with his. That's the only way you won't waste money and time on things you could possibly get some sort of pleasure from, if you had another mindset, and were deaf, blind, and not breathing.

In short: Just say whatever the hell you want.