Game Journalism vs Personal Opinion

[rob_simple]

Quick question: If every 'professional' reviewer is supposed to give the exact same reflection on a game then why the fuck would we need more than one person doing the job, at any given time?

Wait, what's that? It's because different reviews help to form the general consensus your argument demands? Well butter my arse.

Actually, it would be the equivalent of a peer review.

If everyone says 6 or under but one person says 9 then one of two scenarios is possible. Everyone but the 9 is wrong in their assessments or the 9 has conducted a poor analysis of the game. Given the complete lack of tangible detail from the 9 review we can safely assume the latter.

I haven't played the game because I wasn't willing on dropping $99.95 US (yes, that's how much Steam charges us in New Zealand) on a potential flop and I had been burned previously by the AvP reboot. The near complete damnation of the game by most credible reviewers vindicates me there.

The credibility of the reviewer who gave a 9 is in serious questio-- actually it's not in question at all. It was terrible journalism even if you ignore the serious disparity of the score and the reviewer should be ashamed he put it "to print".

That may be true in the case of this reviewer, but the OP's logic is still flawed, and it would still only apply if everybody else said 6, exactly; if there are any fluctuations then that means there is the possibility for a different interpretation.

As other people have pointed out, the quantifiable aspects of video games that are reviewable are far fewer than the ones that can be asserted through personal opinion (ignoring the fact that much of what has become objective in entertainment is based on consensus from the majority of people (i.e. popular opinion)).

The OP's idea that personal opinion shouldn't come into gaming journalism is utter bollocks. While most people dismiss Zero Punctuation as a comedy show rather than a legitimate review show, I put a lot of stake in Yahtzee's opinions, because I have a similar taste in games to him --and from what I've seen, a similar level of skill-- so I can usually trust that his opinion on a game will match up with mine, helping me to make an informed purchasing decision.

That being said, when he trashes a game that I love, rather than climbing a mountain and screaming 'fanboy rage, come unto me' I accept that the flaws he highlights are usually valid but I can still enjoy the game for it's good parts because, hey-ho, games are a personal experience.

 

[Strazdas]

Thats the think with reviews. there is no such thing as objective review. all reviews are subjective. and all opinions, even that of Yathzee or Roger Ebert are just like you said - worthless opinions. their worth stem not from the person, but from the people that follow and agree with the person. if you dont - his opinion is simply worthless. obviously enough people who follow that particular reviewer agree with him. we have one "love aliens" post in this very forum i just read. there are people who liked it.

It would be great if reviews could be objective, but thats not possible, unless you subscribe to the ESRB folk who think all humans are homogenous.

I put a lot of stake in Yahtzee's opinions, because I have a similar taste in games to him --and from what I've seen, a similar level of skill-- so I can usually trust that his opinion on a game will match up with mine, helping me to make an informed purchasing decision.

That being said, when he trashes a game that I love, rather than climbing a mountain and screaming 'fanboy rage, come unto me' I accept that the flaws he highlights are usually valid but I can still enjoy the game for it's good parts because, hey-ho, games are a personal experience.

Thats the great thing about Yathzees videos, you may love a game, and he may bash it, you have to admit that all the flaws he claim are actually there and you are simply looking past them becuase you enjoy the game regardless.

 

[BrotherRool]

Nope. Many problems with journalism stem from journalists believing they can be objective.

^This.

In particular, if you're trying to be too objective and don't have a history in game design (ie everyone whose ever written a review), then it encourages the attitude of judging polish not excellence. It's easy to see the little bugs and glitches and mark those down if you're being objective, because they're recognisable flaws, yet the feeling that the brilliance of the game means it doesn't matter, feels like a highly objective opinion. So you give it a 7, even thought it's pushing the boundaries of what games can do.


Saying that, I do think it's important to try and give people a fair chance of guessing whether they would like they game or not, but it's important to let your subjectivity flavour the overall review.


....The exception to this is if you're a game designer or are deliberately trying to push games forward as a creative medium (Like Errant Signal), because then you probably have a knowledge base that lets you critically examine a game in a way that other people with a similar base would agree with. Even then there's got to and should be a lot of subjectivity, because how a game personally affected you is important, but we've got more room for getting closer to objectivity(because you can say 'People are more likely to like Half Life 2 than Aliens: Colonial Marine', slight objectivity isn't totally impossible)
And here's a Dishonoured one, because I've linked the GTA one before
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRrM3RI0a4I

 

[JudgeGame]

Nope. Many problems with journalism stem from journalists believing they can be objective. It's impossible. All writing is subjective, and the best journalists are those who either embrace that subjectivity or those who recognize it and do their best to address it. Even if you're just listing raw data, deciding what data to list and what to omit is a values judgement.

Journalism is different. A journalist in any area, gaming, sports or politics is supposed to be an expert in their field. Their viewpoint has a lot of weight. That weight only increases when they or the organization they report for is well known. Just think about the difference between "A NASA scientist believes that a meteor will strike the Earth in the next ten years" and "Jim down the street says we're all doomed."

Also this is a terrible analogy. If Jim down the street has convincing evidence that he may be right, his hypothesis can be tested. Good luck experimentally verifying how good a game is.

Edit: That said, while the EGM person is entitled to their opinion, we're entitled to think that opinion is stupid.

I think the ultimate problem with his review is that he can't verbally justify why he thinks A:CM deserves a 9/10. If he could give compelling reasons and a good analysis of every aspect of the game explaining what he liked and why, in that case the only thing we could say is "he has weird tastes". As it stands it's just a bunch of drivel and meaningless grand statements followed by superlative praise.

 

[Abomination]

That may be true in the case of this reviewer, but the OP's logic is still flawed, and it would still only apply if everybody else said 6, exactly; if there are any fluctuations then that means there is the possibility for a different interpretation.

As other people have pointed out, the quantifiable aspects of video games that are reviewable are far fewer than the ones that can be asserted through personal opinion (ignoring the fact that much of what has become objective in entertainment is based on consensus from the majority of people (i.e. popular opinion)).

I agree that just because there are a lot of reviews giving the same general percentage doesn't mean that the outfielder's opinion is any less valid. However, should there be an outfielder that review does deserve more scrutiny as to its method of rating or potential outside influences.

It should be a warning bell, but not evidence that something is wrong.

In the case of A:CM it could be either just poor journalism or potential outside influences, I doubt we will ever know.

 

[rob_simple]

That may be true in the case of this reviewer, but the OP's logic is still flawed, and it would still only apply if everybody else said 6, exactly; if there are any fluctuations then that means there is the possibility for a different interpretation.

As other people have pointed out, the quantifiable aspects of video games that are reviewable are far fewer than the ones that can be asserted through personal opinion (ignoring the fact that much of what has become objective in entertainment is based on consensus from the majority of people (i.e. popular opinion)).

I agree that just because there are a lot of reviews giving the same general percentage doesn't mean that the outfielder's opinion is any less valid. However, should there be an outfielder that review does deserve more scrutiny as to its method of rating or potential outside influences.

It should be a warning bell, but not evidence that something is wrong.

In the case of A:CM it could be either just poor journalism or potential outside influences, I doubt we will ever know.

That's fair enough, if I saw the single positive review of a slated game on a big-name website I would suspect foul play; akin to the kind of stuff IGN is infamous for.

Like I say, I'm not disputing that this particular review may be disingenuous, I was more railing against the OP's logic of what a 'real' review should consist of.

 

[Comocat]

For me the score is confusing based off the review. Much of the positive praise he levies at the games is heavily qualified. For example, "Sure, you?ve got some definite dents in the hull here?such as the occasionally oblivious squadmate AI, the training-wheel cover system, and the woefully heinous cinematics?but the hits far outweigh the misfires" or "while the action falls a bit short of the blend of first-person shooter and survival-horror I was hoping for, it?s all fairly well paced?thanks largely to some excellent level design and solid alien AI."

It's just puzzling how the take away message seems to be it's not perfect but playable, yet the game is given essentially a perfect score. I'd expect this is a review I could cobble together, with journalism not being my thing. However as an executive editor for one of the largest gaming publications in the world, I think the bar is a little bit higher for defending an opinion. I mean seriously, which one here doesnt belong:


Publication Score (from wikipedia)

Edge 5/10

Electronic Gaming Monthly 9/10

Eurogamer 3/10

Game Informer 4/10

GameSpot 4.5/10

GameTrailers 5.9/10

IGN 4.5/10

PC Gamer UK 48/100

Destructoid 2.5/10

Joystiq 1/5


I think he really liked the Co-op action, which is dying in todays games, but totally failed to hype up that part of the review. I just cant find anything in the review which screams out why this guy gave such a high score to something thats kind of ok.

 

[Altorin]

the problem was never "They didn't vote the way I want, VALIDATE ME!" or if it was for some people those people are dumb. The thing is, if review scores are being purchased outright by the publishers or if the reviewers aren't actually reviewing the game, but just reviewing the cover of the game rather then the game itself... ehh... I don't even care anymore. reviews are subjective. They're meant to be. Go to metacritic if you want a dry objective score. You go to reviewers because they have similar tastes to yours, if you're using them properly.

 

[michael87cn]

This whole subject makes me cringe. I've never trusted reviewers, and I've never played games simply because they were popular.

Unfortunately a lot of people do just that, hence metacritic. All they care about is that a lot of people think highly or poorly of a game, and that's enough for them. It's like a shopping list that someone else made for them. Hop onto metacritic so I can let other people pick my games for me! Oooh this one got a lot of 8/10ths! I'll buy it!

Maybe my view comes from actually playing games as a kid, before I knew anything about them. To this day I like a lot of games that aren't popular, and hate a lot of games that are.

Probly because I actually play a game before I judge it.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Skyrim is the greatest example that opinions matter. The gameplay is terrible, but it's one of the most popular games today. Someone believed that gameplay wasn't needed to make a game that would sell, and they've been proven right. That person had an opinion and was able to test it out, so we have Skyrim.
.

if the game play is awful then why do people like skyrim? for its engaging emotional story? (*snrrrrrrk*)

people must absolutly LOVE trudging to one end of the map to another...wandering around aimlessly doing shit for zombie people

ROTFL Zombie people is absolutely right! I couldn't have written it any better!

The biggest hustle in gaming? Skyrim. At least FPS have gameplay and strategy. I'm not the biggest fan of that genre, but I get why they have the industry by the neck. But Skyrim? Yuck dude.

 

[V8 Ninja]

The point is, when you give a game a 90 out of 100 when the next best score is a 68 and the average user rating is much lower, you have failed as a reviewer. You have failed to understand what the "average" consumer will think. It doesn't matter whether you honestly liked the game or not. You have failed at your job. Sitting back and saying "Well, that was my opinion" is an insult to everyone who feels cheated out of $60.

And that is the problem I have with your opinion; you assume that reviewers must have a certain mindset to approach a game from and certain understandings of what is acceptable for that mindset. Not only would adopting that mindset be homogeneous for the game reviewing industry, but it would lower the scores for some games because they do not fit that idealized mindset.

Now, what I look for in a review is whether the written text can support/relate to the claims which the author is making. Although I haven't read the EGM review of Kernel Ma'Creens (Aliens: CM), I've heard the text does not support the score and arguments made.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

There's been a huge uproar about a reviewer at EGM giving Aliens:Colonial Marines a 9/10 when the game has largely been panned by almost everyone. The defense for this person, offered by a few, is that the review is his personal opinion and he's entitled to it. I don't think that's true, and using that defense, whether you like the game or not, demeans the entire gaming journalism industry.

Opinions, you see, are inherently worthless. My opinion is worthless, your opinion is worthless, everybody's is. If you purchased and enjoyed Aliens....great. I won't spend a second arguing with you. If you hated it...I'm sorry, but same thing. You are entitled to your opinion and shouldn't have to defend it, largely because your opinion and mine don't have much of an effect on the world.

Journalism is different. A journalist in any area, gaming, sports or politics is supposed to be an expert in their field. Their viewpoint has a lot of weight. That weight only increases when they or the organization they report for is well known. Just think about the difference between "A NASA scientist believes that a meteor will strike the Earth in the next ten years" and "Jim down the street says we're all doomed."

The scientist's belief will be listened to by many more people because they are supposedly an expert. We assume they've done the necessary work to make that statement and have facts to back them up. Even if we don't trust the scientist, we trust the name of NASA and believe they have hired trustworthy employees.

The same should be true of EGM. When a journalist representing them reviews something, that review should be more than an opinion. It should be that person's attempt, focusing on the facts and using their presumably high level of expertise in that field, to explain why most of the people interested in that kind of game will or will not want to spend time and money on it. That's why we read watch reviews and support the publications that print them. We don't really want to know what the REVIEWER thinks, we want to know what will WE will probably think if we plunk down the cash.

As a reviewer, you have to go beyond your personal opinion. It doesn't really matter whether THEY liked it or not(We all have our guilty pleasures. I love Final Fantasy VIII). A good reviewer thinks "will most people like this game" and comes up with reasons why or why not.. It's THEIR job no have a good guess how others will receive the product.

That is not an easy job. That's hard! That' why most people aren't professional reviewers even though we all have opinions. I've seen many movies, but I'm no MovieBob. I ONLY know whether I like or hate a movie. I really have no idea what anyone else thinks. That's why I don't have a video series on the escapist and he does.

The point is, when you give a game a 90 out of 100 when the next best score is a 68 and the average user rating is much lower, you have failed as a reviewer. You have failed to understand what the "average" consumer will think. It doesn't matter whether you honestly liked the game or not. You have failed at your job. Sitting back and saying "Well, that was my opinion" is an insult to everyone who feels cheated out of $60.

Think I'm wrong? How long until the box of Aliens: Colonial Marines has "EGM GAVE IT A 9/10" in big bold letters on it? And how many people who don't spend much of their free time on gaming sites, will give Gearbox their money because of that review? They aren't doing that because of an opinion, but because they trust the JOURNALISM of EGM.

And its that trust that has been abused.

You're wrong, of course. One hundred percent wrong. A review is not journalism. It's a review. You need to learn the difference.

Every time Tom Chick gives some popular game 1 star or whatever his comments get flooded by idiots ranting about him dragging down the Metacritic score. See Halo 4 for an example. Those people are idiots. Firstly they suffer under the misunderstanding that a review has to be objective. That's folly and positively detrimental to the idea of reviewing anything.

A review is not objective. It's the reviewers thoughts and critique of any given work, be it a game, a book or a movie. That's not objective and it's sure as shit not journalism. Do you expect Roger Ebert to be objective? If you do, then you engage in folly. Personally I only read reviews from Tom Chick, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Richard Cobbet and Tom Francis. Why? Because I know those people and I know how they think. When Tom Francis said the new Hitman game was pretty shit I knew he was right. Why did I know that? Because I know how he thinks of Bloodmoney. I can't use an objective bullet point review counting numbers of graphics, tilt and fun factor to anything. I need to know how Tom Francis (for instance) think of the game. And I later bought Absolution for 5? and what do you know? It was absolute shite. Easily the worst game this year so far and I felt ripped off for my 5?. But I wasn't surprised as Tom Francis had already told me as much.

A review is not a buyers guide. At least not primarily. If you know the reviewer you can confidently use it as such but it's always possible to be hit by bad luck. A review is a piece of writing about another work. It's a work in its own right and frankly I'm baffled by the idea that some people seem to want objective reviews. As I said, it's folly.

Tom Francis shouldn't give a toss if I will like the game. He should tell me what he thought and I will then sift that information through what I know about his biases and my own and come to my conclusion. He can't know what I like and thus he should stay the hell away from opining upon it.

From an entirely aesthetical perspective an "objective" review is uninteresting and boring. I want to read a review with a voice. That voice is key to the review being entertaining to read and as I said, the review is a product in it's own right and should be treated as that. It's not just a bullet point list and tilt factor. It's a thought process put down on paper. It's a feeling given voice. It's not a bloody consumer guide.

TL;DR: OP is wrong. Objective reviews are folly and boring.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I think a review should not be opinion most of the time. It should be an objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the game depending on both the context and merits of the game.
Some vary from this, for example this site's Zero Punctuation, but he's more of a critic. I find critics tend to show their opinions more than reviewers.
And to people who say it's journalism- sorry? I thought journalism was an analysis of an event, not an item.

 

[Jachwe]

Interesting points are being made and most people try to derail them because they dont like the idea of professional game reviews adhering to a standard thus making the process and results of reviewing a game for a magazine or website transparent for the consumer who then can trust the review because the consumer now knows what the game offers in the context of the agreed upon criteria the review tested and evaluated the game upon. What is so bad about that?
Oh yes I forgot... because you need to be educated in the methodology of reviewing a game and not just babble your opinion for 5 minutes. That would be like hard work and required an educated work force which then leads to higher produciton costs and higher production costs means you need to make more money or you are going down. So reviews should only be crowd pleasing opinion based pieces of texts thus keeping the costs low to produce such a text because anyone that can type a sentence now is qualified for the work thus dropping prices for workforce.
Even from the consumer point of view this is desireable because if costs are low spaces like this website can provide lots of content for free. The point I am leading to is if you want quality reviews that are adhering to a transparent standard the reviewer must be educated and you yourself need to be educated to understand the value the review and the limitations of the review. and you need to pay money for such a review.