Critics That You Simply Can't Listen to Anymore

[JimB]

So while any victory is now like winning the Special Olympics, I already knew I was retarded before I started the race.

It's a feat of genuine athleticism made more heroic by the fact that the athlete had to overcome the crippling disadvantages God placed on him?

No, no, that probably came off wrong, like I was grinning when I said it. Let me try that again. "Savagezion, what you just said is offensive to me because it denigrates people burdened with loads they did not choose for themselves and trivializes their accomplishments despite those accomplishments being things neither you nor I could do, and as far as I can tell, the only reason for you to insult them is so you can call me retarded while also calling yourself that in hopes of using the self-directed insult as a shield. Please do not do that."

Yeah, my second try was better. Let's stick with it.

I never hold anyone to a standard that I myself can't reach.

I think any emotionally healthy adult can reach a standard by which all human emotion is suppressed. I do not think it is good or admirable to do so, either for an individual's personal health or for the profession of reviews.

"This is what make a good review."
"This is what I look for in a review."

The underlined part shows where each statement becomes subjective.

Good is subjective, yes. However, we are having this discussion on the internet, where people will routinely spout subjective opinions as objective facts (and, about as often as not, use subjectivity as a defense against criticism for the thing they just treated as an objective fact). In absence of your willingness to be clear and to own your opinions as opinions before being asked for that clarification, I had no reason to believe your words meant anything other than what they said.

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

Hmm...

I still disagree. If we're talking hypothetical reality here, then let's assume that Activision greeenlighted a game where you

1. Eat Children
2. Rape Women
3. Do Racist and Ugly Things along the lines of lynching to black people
4. Every other disgusting horrifying and awful thought that has ever been created

Assume all of that was in one game. Am I supposed to seriously, in my review of the game, go "The Graphics are beautiful, It controls AMAZINGLY, and Characters each have interesting arcs." Then go back in another video and explain why this game is a disgrace to humanity that should burned down to the ground. No, I'm not.

I know you meant that as rhetorical but... yeah, you are. If the game looks great, controls great, and is well written. The game could be beautifully crafted and you can say so. You can also add in that you find it a shame that such talent was spent on making a game that you personally find offensive. You can say it is a game that has a subject material so terrible that it ruined the game for you. Yet, you still must give credit where credit is due and say that they made a well crafted game on material you disagree with.

I have the DUTY to tell the public that this game's view of people and what it allows you to do is DISGUSTING. It doesn't matter how it looks, it doesn't matter how it plays, and in this hypothetical reality, it doesn't even matter what the point of it all was...

By all likeliness anyone watching that review is going to know about that game and what is in the game before your review. Most people look up reviews when they are thinking about buying something but want to see a review first. Here you are basically saying that you would knowingly withhold information from your audience to help force your views onto them. If they want to see a review of this game, they are probably aware of what is in it and they want to know about how the actual game is. So you'll either be preaching to the choir to half of your audience or having it fall on deaf ears who plan to buy it despite the controversial material. However, since your review contains no actual review but is just an opinion piece where Crispy Tiger goes on a tangent and forgets he is reviewing something, there is no value to be had. Time to keep looking for an actual review for those who want one. If they wanted a rambling on why racism is bad google can provide tons.

It does matter what it looks like and how it plays to other people. Who I assume is who you make reviews for unless you wanting to do reviews is more of a masturbatory labor. Which would make sense considering you will forego a review in favor of pushing your views on others.

Oh, and the point of it matters. What if it is akin to American History X?

I can apply your logic to another situation but in real life. The film Grindhouse made by Quentin Tarantino. I haven't seen the film, but it sounds right up my alley! But I would never know this because in an "objective" review, you would essentially HAVE to dismiss this film for it's awful visuals, bad editing, and crappy acting, even if all of that was that intentional. It works on Comedy and most other genres. I just want to hear an opinion about a film, to have a basis, and this would include your personal taste to see if this somewhat aligns to mine. That's critics jobs, reference points.

Finally, you really need to toss out that objectivity line of thought. That sentence is the first time I have used the word. I ain't talking about objectivity, I am talking about being able to separate your political, religious, and personal views from your actual views on game design. Moviebob can't do that and you admit you can't in this post. Being able to weigh aspects of the film or game independent of your feelings and emotions. Being able to give credit where it is due. Alternatively, in the case of loving something - giving credit where there is none to be had or making flaws out to be dismissive.

I don't like raunch comedies, typical action movies, or romantic comedies. I think all three genres are fantastically stupid in their approach to story telling and I don't like them. However, I have a list a mile long of each I think are good movies: not that I like them, but that they are good movies.

Uh...okay. I don't understand the relevance of this, though.

I can separate my feelings from a review.

The reason why you don't review what the creator wanted to talk about is because that is beside the point. The point of the review is to discuss how well they presented what they wanted to talk about.

You seem to be presenting this as if it's some sort of universal rule of review theory, and I find no evidence to support such a declaration that a review may not or must not ever reference subject matter or personal taste. Do I misunderstand you, or do you have a source for your claim?

I get to be my own source considering you guys are attacking MY views on reviews themselves. I can review a movie or game directly after watching/playing it and it doesn't change because I left my feelings at the moment out of it. If the review is based on your feelings at the moment the entire review is compromised the minute you no longer agree with yourself. If a review uses a film or game as a soapbox then it is subject to change with the wind, thus has no actual worth.

You sir are an awesome individual and it has been a honor to debate with you.

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

I'm going to do another comment to illustrate my point made in the last post I made and address several posts I've noticed after reading the thread.

Objectiveness is bullshit. There I said it. If I was religious I wouldn't like Bioshock Infinite very much.

Any competent reviewer would point it's critique of fundamentalist religion as a central theme. Ergo any non-retarded religious person would very easily be able to decide if they would enjoy their claims about reality being criticized, or parodied, or what have you. Reviewers job accomplished.

It doesn't matter if it looks pretty or if it's wonderfully directed. It would be directly insulting me and my religion.

Not exactly. There's a difference between a critique and an insult. If you were a religious person, your willingness to confront a critique would be a mark of intellectual courage, while your avoidance of baseless insults couldn't be begrudged. Therefore a good reviewer will comment on how competent the critique might be; that way someone prepared to justify their religiousity will relish the challenge (if any), and those who hide behind "muh faith" like others hide behind "muh opinions" can relish in their self-imposed delusions. By noting the prevalence of religious criticism and then commenting on it's effectiveness as a criticism, the reviewer has helped three potential audiences come closer to a purchasing decision: athiests looking for ammunition and ego reinforcement, religious people looking for a challenge, and religious people who want to avoid any challenge and only want ego reinforcement.

If I was conservative I wouldn't like Jon Stewart very much. He constantly insults my political party. It doesn't how well written or how well done the interviews are.

No, see he critiques the political party, by pointing out absurdities. I largely enjoy John Stewart for his commentary even though I disagree considerably with many of his opinions. He doesn't argue the case for the left that much nor does he opine about the rightness of the left as though its case had already been made. He just critiques stupidity in politics; his focus on the right doesn't demean his criticisms, but even so he's got no shortage of criticism for Obama. His competent criticism makes him an important "reviewer", in a sense, even if he can't escape his bias in what he covers, in some cases. But at least his bias is apparent; Bob's left-wing bias came out of left-field at one point, and he's completely incapable of preventing his recommendations or analysis from being colored by his bias, which means I literally close his reviews the instant I recognize that he's doing a movie with any political themes because it's always completely worthless to me. But I am only that forgiving of him after watching numerous videos of his; had I looked into his stuff for the first time and watched a politically-charged review, I would have dismissed him as a crank and never came back.

As an internet-based reviewer you do not want people skipping out on you for being useless to them; it's so easy for a net-based company to determine how much you're worth to them.

And, out of personal taste, I hate puzzle. I like to think of myself as smart, and consistently being shit at something that supposed to test my intelligence doesn't sound fun.

So you don't even need a reviewer to get past his opening remarks before he's already saved you $10-$60, since as soon as he says "puzzle" you know what you're getting into. Job well done.

Hmm... I never thought about any of these things like that. For a critic, I'm really shitty at criticism apparently... Oh the irony...

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

While subjectivity does play a large factor when a game gets reviewed, that does not mean you can blatantly ignore a game's strengths and weaknesses. Not while you're actually getting paid to review at least. As someone else mentioned when quoting my post, if such sites as ign and the escapist were to become a full, proper news source would they still not be accountable if they warped the truth or even gave false information? I know over here there would probably be protests outside of their building if the 6 'o clock news over here started doing that...

This can go really ugly really fast though, I think the vast majority of the time a reviewer doesn't mention "strengths" and "weaknesses" he either didn't consider them as such or didn't consider them as important.

It's really hard to look at a review and just immediately say which bits were clearly left out and which bits the writer just didn't consider relevant.

I wouldn't speak but I so often see this used as an excuse for why a review should be objectively bad, when you very rarely have any evidence to suggest the reviewer just didn't care about that particular feature quite as much as you did, or maybe disagreed completely on it.

For example I saw someone attack a Bioshock infinite review which as far as I could see seemed fine, on the basis that the reviewer didn't "point out" the unsatisfying weapons. At no point did this person pause to consider that the reviewer either didn't find it relevant, or didn't find the weapons unsatisfying.

Mostly people seem to use exactly what you're describing as an excuse to whine and moan because the reviewer cared about something less then they did.

There are very few exceptions to this, Bugs and glitches being obvious ones, if a game is disruptively buggy or glitchy there is very little excuse in ignoring it. But even then it's very possible the reviewer just got lucky in regards to these and didn't experience much disruption.

 

[Savagezion]

So while any victory is now like winning the Special Olympics, I already knew I was retarded before I started the race.

It's a feat of genuine athleticism made more heroic by the fact that the athlete had to overcome the crippling disadvantages God placed on him?

No, no, that probably came off wrong, like I was grinning when I said it. Let me try that again. "Savagezion, what you just said is offensive to me because it denigrates people burdened with loads they did not choose for themselves and trivializes their accomplishments despite those accomplishments being things neither you nor I could do, and as far as I can tell, the only reason for you to insult them is so you can call me retarded while also calling yourself that in hopes of using the self-directed insult as a shield. Please do not do that."

Yeah, my second try was better. Let's stick with it.

You're right, arguing semantics over the internet is worse than being retarded. It's insanity. I should wear my Psych Ward T-shirt in honor of this tomorrow and eat some Jell-O.

I never hold anyone to a standard that I myself can't reach.

I think any emotionally healthy adult can reach a standard by which all human emotion is suppressed. I do not think it is good or admirable to do so, either for an individual's personal health or for the profession of reviews.

Separating your emotions is not the same as suppressing them. In actuality is it understanding them. After you watch The Ringer you find it offensive. Instead of going "That movie was shit because it makes fun of retarded people!" you think:

"I am offended because it makes fun of retarded people"
"Was that the point of the movie?"
"No, the point of the movie was to make people laugh at a ridiculous situation."
"Well, instead of focusing on what I found offensive why don't I set that aside and for now assume the humor was fine so I can review the movie and not the "message I think it sends." (But I may disagree with myself on that later)

That is called controlling your emotions. Suppressing them means you will NEVER allow them to come out. You can say that you find the movie offensive in the review as I said before. But make it 2% of your review, not 98%.

On the contrary doing so will actually make the profession of reviews healthier. As it encourages actual critical thinking.

"This is what make a good review."
"This is what I look for in a review."

The underlined part shows where each statement becomes subjective.

Good is subjective, yes. However, we are having this discussion on the internet, where people will routinely spout subjective opinions as objective facts (and, about as often as not, use subjectivity as a defense against criticism for the thing they just treated as an objective fact).

Which is why you shouldn't rely on them to spell it out for you but be able to recognize it on your own.

In absence of your willingness to be clear and to own your opinions as opinions before being asked for that clarification, I had no reason to believe your words meant anything other than what they said.

Then you yourself don't even listen to yourself. You know people do that often yet you take no precautions against it. You waltz into a thread and just assume everyone is going to do the opposite of what you just said that you are aware they do all the time. How does that make any sense?

This whole thread topic is essentially "State your opinion on specific reviewers". Of course we are talking about subjective opinions. You are funny. You should get a Psych Ward T-shirt and come watch The Ringer and eat some Jell-O with me at my house this weekend.

 

[Savagezion]

You sir are an awesome individual and it has been a honor to debate with you.

I sense sarcasm. (Perhaps it is the other quote war going on that is skewing my perception.)

Since you didn't clarify that is your opinion though I have no other choice than to assume it is factual according to JimB. YES!

snip

Hmm... I never thought about any of these things like that. For a critic, I'm really shitty at criticism apparently... Oh the irony...

An open mind speaks more in your favor then you may be giving it credit for. A critic who will debate and actually listen to criticism is an interesting notion.

 

[Savagezion]

snip

Oh, I also wanted to post something else to you but almost forgot. Going back to when you (or possibly someone else) stated that doing so will make the review profession robotic, it won't. Your personal take on game design is a subjective notion. Some people LOVE grindfest games while others hate it. Some people prefer the design of Civ 5 over Civ 4 and vice versa. Taking out all personal/political/religious views and focusing on just game design or movie production still offers a full spectrum of opinion. It is an art after all.
As I have said feel free to "do your duty" and announce things you feel strongly about in the other area of personal agenda. Just don't focus on it and keep it short and sweet.

 

[DjinnFor]

You speak of an "audience" as if it's a singular entity with clear, strict requirements whose interests never change or deviate.

Do you only play games for which you could be considered the "audience" for? Would that not restrict you form ever leaving your comfort zone?

Woah now. Don't jump to conclusions. Read first, take a minute to comprehend, then reply.

I said, if the reviewer has limited space, then he should identify the key audience so that those reading his review will have a better idea of whether the review will be useful to them. This does not mean that nobody outside of the intended audience should play the game in question, only that a reviewer with limited space should narrow the scope of his review accordingly.

As to the audience, I'm not referring to a fixed demographic; if the tastes of a particular audience member changes, they no longer are part of the audience. The audience you choose to target as a reviewer can be as narrow or as broad as you choose them to be, and are defined in the way you choose. The ability to define and target your audience such that your review is better off for it is a skill that comes partly with experience and partly with talent; too broad of an audience and you can't give useful advice to any individual reader, while too narrow and you don't retain anybody. In fact, defining and targeting an audience is a fundamental part of being a writer in the first place.

How can a game be said to have a definitive audience with consistent and simple desires when the desires of human beings are neither consistent nor simple?

Whether or not the developers and publishers define a specific target market for the game (note: they certainly do if it's a triple-A title), your review must have an intended audience.

An emotional reaction can be examined and explored, far more than an empirical breakdown, I would say. "De grafix wuz gud" is a statement I would more readily associate with the objective examination you mentioned earlier;

"The graphics were good" is a wholly subjective statement because it relies on the authors interpretation of "good" and the wholly imprecise and undefined of "graphics". Conversely, "the framerate is locked at 60 fps, in stark contrast to [insert other title(s) of the same genre here]" is an objective statement. And also an important one if your audience is people who play competitive multiplayer twitch shooters, for example.

A review could logically dissect every factual detail of game with complete objectivity, and yet offer no meaningful information whatsoever. Objective information is not useful for me, at least, because tangible, physical, and easily quantified facts are not what makes a game engaging; I would go so far as to estimate that they are not why the majority of people play video games.

Tangible, physical, facts are the sole contributor to your reaction. Your brain is tangible, the game is tangible. Your reaction is a product of your brain and the game. If you'll excuse my facetiousness, there is no mystical unicorn juice from another dimension at play here, and we are firmly in the realm of reality.

I agree a good reviewer should know a good amount of psychology, if you're saying the human element is important. And I agree that the reviewer is necessarily required to make some qualitative judgments. If a good portion of the game is about forming a personal connection with the main protagonists (The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite, Beyond: Two Souls), then the author can judge the competency of the developers in achieving that task based on their own experience. But simply spewing conclusions is not enough; the author must explain the factual basis for those judgements or they offer the reader absolutely nothing of value. Conclusions are fine when backed by logic and evidence.

It seems to me that being cold and emotionless would make a reviewer ill equipped to make a recommendation based on a reaction of passion.

Actually, the opposite. A recommendation based on a reaction of passion is the worst kind of recommendation, because it blinds the person completely to any relevant context. The best way to understand the basis for an emotional reaction is to look at it logically. Emotions by definition cannot be comprehended in the moment.

Let me give you an example. At the end of The Last of Us I was left with a great sense of uneasiness about the whole affair. I wasn't entirely sure if I would recommend the game to another person. After reflecting a great deal on the source of my uneasiness, I concluded that it was not because the game itself was bad, but because the plot was depressing (and thus a downer) without being a classical tragedy (which usually helps you get over the downer feeling pretty quickly because it's such a familiar trope). The developers used Black and Gray Morality [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality] (so uncommon in video games) to give a decidedly unique experience. Which do you think is more useful to a reader: saying the game made me uneasy and I had a hard time empathizing with the protagonists [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/7638-The-Last-of-Us] (as though my empathy or uneasiness is a bad thing), or pointing out the game pushes Black and Gray morality as a central theme and delivers a relatively unique experience (relative to the rest of the AAA industry) because of it?

These are the very things I want to spend my money on, a reviewer that gives me no information regarding them would not influence my decision to purchase the game.

Maybe I wasn't that clear. I'm saying, your reactions as a reviewer are not important to me as a reader. So if you are explaining "how the game make you feel", whether "you connected to the characters", and whether "the story made you think or explore a theme you found engaging", that is, you are talking about your own experiences in a review, and I'm someone who doesn't know a thing about you, I have nothing with which to draw a conclusion about whether the experience will be enjoyable for me. There are only two components to my reaction: me, and the game in front of me. Your experiences are not a part of that process unless you are there with me while I play.

A reviewer who understands both me and the game in front of me can help me make a purchasing decision. A reviewer who talks about himself can't; telling you my reactions literally cannot possibly give you any information on whether to buy the game unless you know a lot about me beforehand, including what my tastes are. This is why the opinion of a friend or family member works in this case where a faceless stranger does not.

I'm not saying a reviewer can't or shouldn't draw from their own reactions in their analysis. But the reality is, some part of the game was the catalyst to that reaction, and the game is what will be the catalyst of the readers reaction. So talk about the factors in the game that caused that reaction and may do the same for the reader, not your reaction.

All the information you've just described can be discovered without the use of a review; spend some time looking up gameplay videos, maybe try and find a list of features.

The information I've just described? I don't know what you're talking about, I don't believe I was ever that specific. Gameplay videos and feature lists certainly do not tell a reviewer near as much as playing the game does.

I watch reviews precisely because they offer a human perspective. It is, in my opinion, far easier to gleam an understanding of the true essence of a work by taking in the thoughts and reactions of other people than it is to understand a work based solely on superficial facts. This is especially true of video games, which I find to be decidedly intimate experiences, as they require direct interaction.

Critique and analysis goes far beyond the superficial. I am literally flabbergasted that you think you can extrapolate any useful information from the opinions of a faceless unknown on the internet. More specifically, I am amazed that you think you can reach an informed conclusion about something merely by listening to other peoples conclusions.

Simply because an opinion is not my own does not mean I cannot understand or empathize with it.

I'd ask that you avoid using the word "opinion" and be more specific, as outlined in my first comment [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20596562] in this thread. Otherwise I find it difficult to understand exactly what you are talking about. When I read "my opinion", I read "a conclusion I reached which I am refusing to justify or defend by supplying it's premises or logic, because I probably don't even understand it myself, or it just doesn't have any actual reason behind it and therefore you shouldn't give two shits". So when I read your statement, it seems to say "when someone throws a conclusion my way and presents it without any basis whatsoever, I can usually deduce the logic and evidence behind it", to which I agree wholeheartedly; I can usually do that too even if the person talking to me isn't even cognizant of the basis for what they're saying. But I argue it's not your job as a consumer to try to understand the basis for a professional reviewers conclusions. It is their job to supply that basis for you; they are paid to make it easy for you.

And no, you can't have empathy for someone you don't know anything about. Empathy is an understanding and acknowledgement of individual circumstance, but why should a reviewer require you to know anything about him in the first place? He must attract an audience first before he can assume he has one.

snip

Hmm... I never thought about any of these things like that. For a critic, I'm really shitty at criticism apparently... Oh the irony...

An open mind speaks more in your favor then you may be giving it credit for. A critic who will debate and actually listen to criticism is an interesting notion.

Agreed, and glad I could be of some help, Crispy.

 

[JimB]

You're right, arguing semantics over the internet is worse than being retarded. It's insanity. I should wear my Psych Ward T-shirt in honor of this tomorrow and eat some Jell-O.

I really wish you would quit referencing mental diseases and defects in a context of using them to insult me. I have only attacked your behavior and word choice; I think it's fair to ask that you limit yourself similarly.

Separating your emotions is not the same as suppressing them.

How not? Your emotions are not some distinct and removable component, like a green 2x4 brick in a box of Legos. They are hard-coded into your brain, a series of chemical processes with physical, biological causes and effects. What in your mind is the distinction between suppressing and separating them?

That is called controlling your emotions. Suppressing them means you will never allow them to come out.

Ah, that is the distinction. I do not think your definition of the word "suppressing" is accurate. Nothing about it indicates or implies an attempt to live a Vulcan lifestyle, and I don't think I said anything to imply that either.

Which is why you shouldn't rely on them to spell it out for you but be able to recognize it on your own.

I take care to use my words as precisely as possible, as to indicate my meaning with the least chance of misunderstanding. I do this because this is the internet, and the majority of the cues we use in communication--tone of voice and body language--are absent, so that word choice is all that's left and it has to carry one hundred percent of the job of conveying meaning. If you want me to recognize that what you say is not what you mean, and to further intuit from that what you do mean despite what you said, then you are holding me to a standard that is best described as telepathy. That's crap, and I cannot help noting it is the kind of crap that absolves you of any responsibility for your choice of words while putting all the blame onto me, which is suspiciously convenient.

Or is it your argument that because "good" is inherently subjective, I ought to assume you acknowledged that in your original posts? I don't think that holds up. Whether I like it or not, words evolve over time in the society that uses them, such that one of the dictionary definitions of the word "literally" now reads "figuratively: not literally," or how "ultimate" means "best" rather than "final." Likewise, where I live (America) and hang out (the internet), the atmosphere in which judgment calls exist is one in which personal opinion is enshrined as fact, and I still believe your original posts read that way.

 

[optimusjamie]

Kotaku. Their use of blatant clickbait, my increasing dislike of parent company Gawker & eventually the YES/NO score for game reviews just got on my nerves after about a year or two.

EDIT: Not sure if they count as 'critics', but Machinima's treatment of Ross Scott (and others) means I will never touch anything by them again.

 

[glider4]

Today, one of my favorite game critics did something that has basically turned me off from listening to him ever again. Charlie Cade aka The Gaming Brit was a really intelligent guy that has made some very good video game reviews. His review of Metroid: Other M I think stands as one of the most detailed and well thought out deconstruction of why the game didn't work. But, lately it seemed that he was becoming more jaded and unreasonable about things even stating that games that run at 60 fps is unforgivable and that video games are objectively for cunts. The final nail in the coffin was today when he was venting about the latest Jimquestion and said quote "When you become a paid critic you're not allowed to say whatever you want and then hide behind "muh opinion". The idea that "review" = "my opinion and whatever I want to say" is daft and shallow. It's a critique and analysis first and foremost." unquote. Never mind that a critique is nothing more then a detailed opinion based on your own personal teachings and beliefs making his comments hypocritical, but it also highlights a mentality I am getting fucking sick of.

The idea that the whole of mainstream gaming journalism is purely evil and corrupt, that game reviewers are practicably selling their souls for huge sums of money and fame, and that only people that review games without pay and without bias are the TRUE and HONEST "gamers". On the totem pole of things important to the world at large corruption in game journalism is very, VERY low on the list. As for game reviewers taking bribes, I won't deny that it happens, just look at what happened to Jeff Gerstmann. But no one ever seems to put into their heads that these reviews likely have livelihoods to maintain and/or families to support. It's so easy to say that game reviewers are being greedy monsters with absolutely no integrity, but why is it so hard to look a little deeper and see that maybe they are just people like you trying to make their way in the world and having to make compromises to survive. I wonder how many game reviewers hate being game reviewers right now? To have something you love doing be corrupted by people that are constantly telling you that you are a greedy hack, that your review is not a thespian critique like it should be, and that you should go kill yourself.

Bringing this back to The Gaming Brit, he entitled to his opinion that reviews should be "critique and analysis first and foremost" and that "game journalism is shit." Charlie is very intelligent and insightful, but he is also young and likely inexperienced to how the world really works. Hopefully, this cynical and elitist attitude he has right now is just a phase he is going through and will look back at some at the things he has said and say to himself "What the hell was wrong with me." Till that day comes he has lost a fan and I cannot say if I will ever be one again. It's likely that he won't care, but I want to say that I wish him the best and that I may one day enjoy his videos again.

So I guess the final question I want to ask my fellow Escapists is...has something like this ever happened to you? Has someone that you respected and/or trusted as conduit of helping shape your opinion on something done something immature or just plan awful that you can't look past? I want to know that I am not alone in feeling sad about losing trust in someone.

So you say that the manipulation by big publishers is OK because the reviewers who are forced to write positive reviews get money? What!? How is that OK?! But about the topic I have to say moviebob. I think his metroid other M video speaks for itself and he has constantly shown himself to be a complete nintendork so at this point I take anything he says with a pinch of salt

 

[Werewolfkid]

Today, one of my favorite game critics did something that has basically turned me off from listening to him ever again. Charlie Cade aka The Gaming Brit was a really intelligent guy that has made some very good video game reviews. His review of Metroid: Other M I think stands as one of the most detailed and well thought out deconstruction of why the game didn't work. But, lately it seemed that he was becoming more jaded and unreasonable about things even stating that games that run at 60 fps is unforgivable and that video games are objectively for cunts. The final nail in the coffin was today when he was venting about the latest Jimquestion and said quote "When you become a paid critic you're not allowed to say whatever you want and then hide behind "muh opinion". The idea that "review" = "my opinion and whatever I want to say" is daft and shallow. It's a critique and analysis first and foremost." unquote. Never mind that a critique is nothing more then a detailed opinion based on your own personal teachings and beliefs making his comments hypocritical, but it also highlights a mentality I am getting fucking sick of.

The idea that the whole of mainstream gaming journalism is purely evil and corrupt, that game reviewers are practicably selling their souls for huge sums of money and fame, and that only people that review games without pay and without bias are the TRUE and HONEST "gamers". On the totem pole of things important to the world at large corruption in game journalism is very, VERY low on the list. As for game reviewers taking bribes, I won't deny that it happens, just look at what happened to Jeff Gerstmann. But no one ever seems to put into their heads that these reviews likely have livelihoods to maintain and/or families to support. It's so easy to say that game reviewers are being greedy monsters with absolutely no integrity, but why is it so hard to look a little deeper and see that maybe they are just people like you trying to make their way in the world and having to make compromises to survive. I wonder how many game reviewers hate being game reviewers right now? To have something you love doing be corrupted by people that are constantly telling you that you are a greedy hack, that your review is not a thespian critique like it should be, and that you should go kill yourself.

Bringing this back to The Gaming Brit, he entitled to his opinion that reviews should be "critique and analysis first and foremost" and that "game journalism is shit." Charlie is very intelligent and insightful, but he is also young and likely inexperienced to how the world really works. Hopefully, this cynical and elitist attitude he has right now is just a phase he is going through and will look back at some at the things he has said and say to himself "What the hell was wrong with me." Till that day comes he has lost a fan and I cannot say if I will ever be one again. It's likely that he won't care, but I want to say that I wish him the best and that I may one day enjoy his videos again.

So I guess the final question I want to ask my fellow Escapists is...has something like this ever happened to you? Has someone that you respected and/or trusted as conduit of helping shape your opinion on something done something immature or just plan awful that you can't look past? I want to know that I am not alone in feeling sad about losing trust in someone.

So you say that the manipulation by big publishers is OK because the reviewers who are forced to write positive reviews get money? What!? How is that OK?! But about the topic I have to say moviebob. I think his metroid other M video speaks for itself and he has constantly shown himself to be a complete nintendork so at this point I take anything he says with a pinch of salt

I don't think the manipulation of big publishers is an OK thing. What I was saying was that it is far more complicated then we often give it credit for. The reason I decided to stop watching The Gaming Brit wasn't that he wasn't right about game journalism being corrupt, but because he seems unwilling to acknowledge anything good or even try and help and instead act like he is above such things. That's what gets me with a lot of Youtube game critics, they all seem to think they are better then mainstream games journalists and let their egos get so big that they get defensive when someone is critical of their own work. These people could be the boon in which a new era of video game reviews, but instead they isolate themselves from everyone and only consort with "real gamers." The Gaming Brit isn't at that level yet and hopefully he doesn't jump down that slippery slope, but from where I'm standing it looks like he is looking over the edge. I just hope I'm wrong.

 

[Aesir23]

I can't really stand to watch TotalBiscuit anymore. I used to watch him for his WTF videos as well of a couple of other series, but his elitism really started to rub me the wrong way after I found a few videos containing it.

 

[thenoblitt]

Basically every single reviewer besides Eric Kain. The new fun thing to do in the video game reviewing business is just to pander to women and gay rights. While that's perfectly fine, it's crap that games like dragon crown get called sexist cause they have a half naked woman, while a man in a loin cloth is standing right next to her but no one says anything. It's sexist to call one thing sexist but no the other thing sexist because one is female and one is male, and almost all reviewers do it now. Especially reviewers on this site.

 

[WanderingBiscuits]

I used to be a big fan of TheSpoonyOne back in the days when he was initially beginning. He was enthusiastic, he put on cool sketches and his insight was generally funny aside from a few awkward sexist jokes that he would make. These days he is egotistical and not at all enthusiastic. He whines about his fans sending him shitty games and complains that its difficult to make them interesting in review context. This may be true but thats his whole schtick! Hes been doing it five years His videos reek of phoning it in and he is much more up his own arse. Definitely not a fan anymore.

 

[AceRay]

I used to be a big fan of TheSpoonyOne back in the days when he was initially beginning. He was enthusiastic, he put on cool sketches and his insight was generally funny aside from a few awkward sexist jokes that he would make. These days he is egotistical and not at all enthusiastic. He whines about his fans sending him shitty games and complains that its difficult to make them interesting in review context. This may be true but thats his whole schtick! Hes been doing it five years His videos reek of phoning it in and he is much more up his own arse. Definitely not a fan anymore.

Yeah, I have to agree, his pre-2010 reviews are hilarious of FMV games or his Phantasmagoria 2 LP, they're so much fun, now everything is angsty and it sucks, they're no fun to watch and he's just complaining. Also gave up on Nostalgia Critic after his show went more into skits rather than analytical like they used to, not to mention he's way too shouty. Pretty much gave up on all TGWTG, only still watch Film Brain and ToddintheShadows now, I had discovered the far superior Red Letter Media and never looked back.

 

[sumanoskae]

But it isn't really possible to deliver an objective judgement regarding a work of art; the reviewer cannot anticipate your intangible and emotional reaction any more than they can control their own.

I can explain why, say, I thought Bioshock: Infinite was pretty good but not the outstanding masterstroke it is often characterized to be, but that explanation will eventually boil down to affected me personally, which is the essence of great works of art; how does the game make you feel?; did you get connected to the characters?; did the story make you think or explore a theme you found engaging? None of these things can exist without the projection and intimacy afforded by individuality. You cannot relate to a character if you are not capable of bias.

To be objective is to be free of passion and bias, but the inspiration of passion and bias is the essence of a great work of art.

Sure it's possible. Let's take Bioshock Infinite. (I haven't played the first one.)

-The combat wasn't that great. It was pretty generic, and the options for spells you got were just different versions of the same few effects.
-The UI for inventory and such was...pretty bad. Especially for the PC version.
-There is no actual choice in the game, apart from the ending.
-A lot of characters were undeveloped.

That's what I can think of from memory. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the game. I did, for as long as I played it. But enjoying the game isn't the same as recognizing it's faults.

You can't say a game is objectively good or bad because nothing can be factually good or bad. A fact is inarguable; the sun is 5,778 K; about 70% of the planet is covered in water; 1+1 = 2; these are facts.

"The characters of Bioshock: Infinite are underdeveloped" is not a fact; saying they are "Underdeveloped" without some sort of qualifying statement would imply some factually desirable level of "Development", and since desires cannot be objective, no such thing exists.

Asking "Is this game good" is something of a contradictory question. A better question would be "Do you like this game?" or "Might I like this game?"; good is a value judgment, value is not a physical or factually quantifiable thing, it's en entirely mental phenomenon; nothing simply "Is" good, things are only ever "Considered to be" good.

 

[sumanoskae]

Woah now. Don't jump to conclusions. Read first, take a minute to comprehend, then reply.

I said, if the reviewer has limited space, then he should identify the key audience so that those reading his review will have a better idea of whether the review will be useful to them. This does not mean that nobody outside of the intended audience should play the game in question, only that a reviewer with limited space should narrow the scope of his review accordingly.

As to the audience, I'm not referring to a fixed demographic; if the tastes of a particular audience member changes, they no longer are part of the audience. The audience you choose to target as a reviewer can be as narrow or as broad as you choose them to be, and are defined in the way you choose. The ability to define and target your audience such that your review is better off for it is a skill that comes partly with experience and partly with talent; too broad of an audience and you can't give useful advice to any individual reader, while too narrow and you don't retain anybody. In fact, defining and targeting an audience is a fundamental part of being a writer in the first place.

Your model for an audience would imply that everyone who plays a game plays it for exactly the same reason. How else would one set of standards apply to everybody? Simply because I play a lot of RPG's does not mean I play them for the same reason as everybody else.

Whether or not the developers and publishers define a specific target market for the game (note: they certainly do if it's a triple-A title), your review must have an intended audience.

Simply because a reviewer or a developer consider an audience to exist as you've described it does not make that assessment accurate. Are you saying that the audience for a review is different then that of the game it's reviewing? Wouldn't that make the concept of appealing to a specific set of tastes kind of a moot point, since the people who hear you talk about what Audience A wants are not themselves Audience A?

"The graphics were good" is a wholly subjective statement because it relies on the authors interpretation of "good" and the wholly imprecise and undefined of "graphics". Conversely, "the framerate is locked at 60 fps, in stark contrast to [insert other title(s) of the same genre here]" is an objective statement. And also an important one if your audience is people who play competitive multiplayer twitch shooters, for example.

I did not say the statement was wholly objective, I said it was closer to objective than the sort of review I am referring to. What people consider to be graphically pleasing is generally simpler and more consistent than their overall opinion of game. The intent was to illustrate how incidental a fact can be. Thankfully, you've provided me with a much better example; I do not much care if the framerate of the game is locked at 60 or whatever unless it has a significant effect on the gameplay. It might, but the framerate itself is not the issue, and without a qualifying statement ("Thus, I found the gameplay is unresponsive and frustrating" for example) the information is useless; sometimes an inconsistent FPS is only a minor problem. I completely understand that "Good" is a value judgement and is therefore subjective, it's part of the point I'm trying to make.

Tangible, physical, facts are the sole contributor to your reaction. Your brain is tangible, the game is tangible. Your reaction is a product of your brain and the game. If you'll excuse my facetiousness, there is no mystical unicorn juice from another dimension at play here, and we are firmly in the realm of reality.

I agree a good reviewer should know a good amount of psychology, if you're saying the human element is important. And I agree that the reviewer is necessarily required to make some qualitative judgments. If a good portion of the game is about forming a personal connection with the main protagonists (The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite, Beyond: Two Souls), then the author can judge the competency of the developers in achieving that task based on their own experience. But simply spewing conclusions is not enough; the author must explain the factual basis for those judgments or they offer the reader absolutely nothing of value. Conclusions are fine when backed by logic and evidence.

The idea that KOTOR II is a meditation on the meaning of power is not a fact, it's an idea. The elements that resulted in the idea could perhaps be quantified (With great difficulty, as it would require a thorough psychological analysis of myself) but the idea itself is a set of thoughts and feelings that were evoked as I played the game which I describe as an idea because I can't think of a more accurate term. Factually, KOTOR II is a collection of pixels and audio files and I am a collection of cells. A game cannot "Factually" have a good story or interesting characters because "Good" and "Interesting" cannot be facts, they are a result of interpretation. That my interpretation OF the game is as I've described may be a fact, but the game itself is not factually as I've described it.

Actually, the opposite. A recommendation based on a reaction of passion is the worst kind of recommendation, because it blinds the person completely to any relevant context. The best way to understand the basis for an emotional reaction is to look at it logically. Emotions by definition cannot be comprehended in the moment.

Let me give you an example. At the end of The Last of Us I was left with a great sense of uneasiness about the whole affair. I wasn't entirely sure if I would recommend the game to another person. After reflecting a great deal on the source of my uneasiness, I concluded that it was not because the game itself was bad, but because the plot was depressing (and thus a downer) without being a classical tragedy (which usually helps you get over the downer feeling pretty quickly because it's such a familiar trope). The developers used Black and Gray Morality [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackAndGrayMorality] (so uncommon in video games) to give a decidedly unique experience. Which do you think is more useful to a reader: saying the game made me uneasy and I had a hard time empathizing with the protagonists [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/7638-The-Last-of-Us] (as though my empathy or uneasiness is a bad thing), or pointing out the game pushes Black and Gray morality as a central theme and delivers a relatively unique experience (relative to the rest of the AAA industry) because of it?

Simply because you're passionate doesn't mean you're incapable of thought, what do you mean emotions can't be comprehended in the moment? If I'm sad, I know that I'm sad, and it's usually not hard to figure out why I'm sad. I felt very strongly about the ending of Red Dead: Redemption, and I knew exactly why as soon as I did. The fact that I understood why I felt the way I did only compounded the reaction, made me feel it more intensely. But either way, it seems you would agree that incorporating subjectivity is useful, if it wasn't this would be irrelevant information; you may interpret that The Last of Us is an example Black and Grey Morality, but Black and Grey Morality is just a concept, and is likely thought of and contextualized differently by everyone. You may consider The Last of Us to be an example of it, but that does not make it a fact, and it is therefore a subjective interpretation. Can you objectively prove, without a shadow of a doubt that The Last of Us in an example of what you've just said?. So I would say that, yes, eluding to Black and Grey Morality would be of more use and is an entirely subjective concept.

Maybe I wasn't that clear. I'm saying, your reactions as a reviewer are not important to me as a reader. So if you are explaining "how the game make you feel", whether "you connected to the characters", and whether "the story made you think or explore a theme you found engaging", that is, you are talking about your own experiences in a review, and I'm someone who doesn't know a thing about you, I have nothing with which to draw a conclusion about whether the experience will be enjoyable for me. There are only two components to my reaction: me, and the game in front of me. Your experiences are not a part of that process unless you are there with me while I play.

A reviewer who understands both me and the game in front of me can help me make a purchasing decision. A reviewer who talks about himself can't; telling you my reactions literally cannot possibly give you any information on whether to buy the game unless you know a lot about me beforehand, including what my tastes are. This is why the opinion of a friend or family member works in this case where a faceless stranger does not.

I'm not saying a reviewer can't or shouldn't draw from their own reactions in their analysis. But the reality is, some part of the game was the catalyst to that reaction, and the game is what will be the catalyst of the readers reaction. So talk about the factors in the game that caused that reaction and may do the same for the reader, not your reaction.

You expressing your thoughts and feeling is exactly HOW people get to know you. Everything you think or say about the game IS your reaction to the game. Aside from saying the game flat out doesn't function, that it's buggy, there isn't much relevant information you can deliver that isn't a reaction, since a game is something that is designed specifically to engage you, or in other words, make you react. When you told me that The Last of Us made you think of Black and Grey Morality, you were describing a reaction. And the reaction you described makes the game sound a lot more interesting. What you described was still a reaction, it's just that it was a better explained one. "This game is good" would not make for a good review, not because it's based on a reaction, but because it's an unexplained reaction. The Last of Us didn't use the TV Tropes page you linked as design document, it just made you think of that trope (Unless the developer or somebody said otherwise, that's a different story)

The information I've just described? I don't know what you're talking about, I don't believe I was ever that specific. Gameplay videos and feature lists certainly do not tell a reviewer near as much as playing the game does.

I meant listing facts about a game, and I was saying that looking up the game by yourself would be just as or more useful than reading a review that does so.

Critique and analysis goes far beyond the superficial. I am literally flabbergasted that you think you can extrapolate any useful information from the opinions of a faceless unknown on the internet. More specifically, I am amazed that you think you can reach an informed conclusion about something merely by listening to other peoples conclusions.

I don't often regret my purchases, so it's worked pretty well so far. You seem to assume that simply because an opinion is emotional it is devoid of intelligence or detail; simply because you have passion does not prevent you from understanding how and why. An objective critique would have to be superficial because superficial facts are the only inarguable elements of a game.

I'd ask that you avoid using the word "opinion" and be more specific, as outlined in my first comment [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20596562] in this thread. Otherwise I find it difficult to understand exactly what you are talking about. When I read "my opinion", I read "a conclusion I reached which I am refusing to justify or defend by supplying it's premises or logic, because I probably don't even understand it myself, or it just doesn't have any actual reason behind it and therefore you shouldn't give two shits". So when I read your statement, it seems to say "when someone throws a conclusion my way and presents it without any basis whatsoever, I can usually deduce the logic and evidence behind it", to which I agree wholeheartedly; I can usually do that too even if the person talking to me isn't even cognizant of the basis for what they're saying. But I argue it's not your job as a consumer to try to understand the basis for a professional reviewers conclusions. It is their job to supply that basis for you; they are paid to make it easy for you.

And no, you can't have empathy for someone you don't know anything about. Empathy is an understanding and acknowledgement of individual circumstance, but why should a reviewer require you to know anything about him in the first place? He must attract an audience first before he can assume he has one.

If that's what you see when you read "My opinion", that's your problem. That's not what the word means and I'll use whatever word is appropriate. An opinion is just a conclusion that is not necessarily a fact; another way of saying "I could be wrong". It can be simply erroneous, but it can also be used when the subject of discussion does not have a correct answer; literally every conclusion other than proven facts is an opinion. Your idea about The Last of Us and it's morality is an opinion; my idea about The Sith Lords is an opinion; whenever you hear the words "We/you/I should do/say/be/go X", somebody is expressing an opinion, there would be no "Should", no question, no choice, if these things were facts.

No critique is ever a fact; value is subjective, and anytime it's assigned is a function of perception. There is no way to discuss a work of art in detail, short of summarizing every inch of it (AKA writing a synopsis), that does not cross into the realm of opinion. Take Black and Grey Morality; nothing is objectively an example of Black and Grey Morality, because "Black" and "Grey" (Here describing "Reprehensible" and "Questionable, or "Bad" and "Sort of bad" respectively) are value judgments. Your understanding of what makes a person or action positive or negative is your's alone. Someone with a sufficiently different set of value's could look at the exact same game and reach a totally different conclusion; somebody else might decide that the characters from The Last of Us are perfectly upstanding.

 

[Something Amyss]

I refute the both of you. The editorials are great discussion points that are fun to watch but more to think about, with my favorite one being about the view on princesses.

I'm yet to see one where he actually brings up a single new point of view to consider.

Battlefield 4.

He's angry all the time. He's always yelling about something. Even when he's happy he's happy in an angry way.

I always thought he was happy in a fake way. I think he's only yelling because he hasn't figured out how to do his audio properly.

 

[Savagezion]

Yo, had to take a break. I already replied once and the forums somehow ate my post and I got distracted.

You and I disagree on many things. I wanted to give you a better post about how I see what we are discussing just in case this conversation dies off. My logic is bouncy though, sometimes people look at me like I have asparagus in my nose. The thread asked what critics I can't listen to anymore. I did. I even expanded on it per forum rules and said why. I then got warned and you told me my opinion is unreasonable. I claim myself as proof. I want reviewers to review using a method similar to my own. I didn't just grab that review model out of my ass. I pieced it together from different parts. I paid attention to the reviewers I didn't like and tried to find why I didn't like them. I paid attention to those I do and tried to find why I did. Sooner or later you will have a large disagreement with any reviewer you once loved. Their integrity will be the only thing that keeps you caring what they have to say. "I don't like this game because I hate republicans" makes no sense and I can't be bothered to listen to it. Especially, for a solid 5-15 minutes.

I don't allow political morality to have a part in my review other than perhaps mentioning where I stand. I don't take jabs. Game Informer and many other journalists do as well. You have advertising messing with them though. The "indie critics" are wanting some of that marketing money being thrown out like candy in a parade. Now that everything must be about political correctness, many of the "indie critics" have resorted to trolling PC debates to get traffic to get advertising. Mass Effect was a big one. Most sites backed Bioware to rile the mob instead of lash at Bioware risking a piece of the money pie. Mass Effect detractors had Forbes business magazine... a business magazine. That's the only resource who gave a crap about the audience reception of the monumental title Mass Effect 3. Across all the gaming media sites, we got forbes. I believe Cracked or Rock, Paper, Shotgun came out with a column or 2 down the road that also conveniently happened to speak positively of Bioware being "so wonderful" as to make a free ending. This happened right after losing Bioware to EA who loves advertising too. This was as bad as the Xbone marketing moves.

You're right, arguing semantics over the internet is worse than being retarded. It's insanity. I should wear my Psych Ward T-shirt in honor of this tomorrow and eat some Jell-O.

I really wish you would quit referencing mental diseases and defects in a context of using them to insult me. I have only attacked your behavior and word choice; I think it's fair to ask that you limit yourself similarly.

That is making fun of limited circumstances of the condition, not the people who have it. Both the statement about retarded people and the statement about insane people joked at how being 'normal' has many pitfalls too. Normal people do really dumb things all the time. I am confessing to it. This is dumb, I know it is dumb, and I am gonna do it anyways. A retarded person would probably say "That's retarded". Haha. Yeah, it is. However, I wouldn't be able to explain why easily. Which is retarded. But I can't really explain why they are retarded. That too, is retarded.

Political correctness is what makes it hard for retarded people to be accepted easily in society. It alienates them. What needs to change is the behavior towards them, not the words. That's all fluff bullshit anyways. They should not be coddled but taught how to perceive negative comments as a reason the person making the comment should feel bad about themselves, not the victim. If I see a retarded guy at the mall and call him a "fucking retard" That is reason for the retarded dude to see me as a douchebag, not feel insulted. Hell, many normal people need to learn that. If someone insults me, or someone else, I tend to see them as douchebags. I haven't insulted anybody from my perspective. Maybe you with the quip about not giving you enough credit. But that shit was funny.

Meh, I don't wanna talk about how emotions work anymore. Just ponder this, "How is Anger Management possible?"

Or is it your argument that because "good" is inherently subjective, I ought to assume you acknowledged that in your original posts? I don't think that holds up. Whether I like it or not, words evolve over time in the society that uses them, such that one of the dictionary definitions of the word "literally" now reads "figuratively: not literally," or how "ultimate" means "best" rather than "final." Likewise, where I live (America) and hang out (the internet), the atmosphere in which judgment calls exist is one in which personal opinion is enshrined as fact, and I still believe your original posts read that way.

It doesn't matter how much you enshrine the word good in fact. Good means opinion. Saying someone's opinion is bad - bad means opinion. Saying it is wrong is a fallacy and saying it is unreasonable is opinion. Saying my word choice is bad, is opinion. Saying it is improper, I remind you I am on a gaming site, not the Nobel Peace Prize Awards. Plus, I don't agree with political correctness. Doesn't it make you happy knowing I would leave that out if you ask me how a game is?

Which is why you shouldn't rely on them to spell it out for you but be able to recognize it on your own.

I take care to use my words as precisely as possible, as to indicate my meaning with the least chance of misunderstanding. I do this because this is the internet, and the majority of the cues we use in communication--tone of voice and body language--are absent, so that word choice is all that's left and it has to carry one hundred percent of the job of conveying meaning. If you want me to recognize that what you say is not what you mean, and to further intuit from that what you do mean despite what you said, then you are holding me to a standard that is best described as telepathy. That's crap, and I cannot help noting it is the kind of crap that absolves you of any responsibility for your choice of words while putting all the blame onto me, which is suspiciously convenient.

It is not to shift blame, we both share the blame. I'm just talking. I'll take all the blame, I don't give a crap.