charge52 said:
The problem there is that that would not be a review, it would be you stating how long it took you to play. Like I said, you can write objective articles about a game, but not an objective review.
The definition of a review actually extends far and wide, wider than you think apparently.
In fact, a simple statement like the length of a game can actually be considered a review. It's no different than reviewing, say, a smartphone and saying that it hasn't broken despite you having dropped it on the pavement 10 times. That might be a simple fact of information, but that's actually a pretty objective way of saying that this is a durable smartphone, even if someone else contradicts you and explains that his identical smartphone already broke the first time he dropped it. And i know people who have bought their smartphone on the above premise alone because they are the types who always drop their phones. They don't need any other information from a review other than a comment on durability.
If you actually go around reading reviews, you will actually find a lot of reviews who differ quite a bit in objectivity/subjectivity. Some are, as i suggested, more focused on explaining their experiences while others (most in fact) are busy explaining their feelings, what pleased them and what annoyed them.
If you have yet to read a 90-100% objective (or even a 60-90% one), it's because they're generally boring or unfulfilling. People WANT reviewers to describe their feelings rather than just delivering monotone descriptions. While objective reviews surely are possible, they are unfortunately limited compared to subjective reviews, because there is only so much you can explain to people without them experiencing it personally. Describing a game as a "fast paced adrenaline rush" might be subjective, but it's also exactly what people who like a fast paced adrenaline rush want to hear before they jump out and spend $60 on the new Call of Duty.
charge52 said:
Then tell me great Magistra, what exactly is an objective review? Since all you've done is bang on about objective journalism, while completely ignoring the entire reason we are even talking to each other, which is because I stated you cannot make an objective review! Please, do tell me, oh, and I would very much appreciate it if you would respond to all the points I bring up, rather than snip one sentence out of context and reply to that. And before you try to point out any hypocrisy, I snipped your part about jogging out because it was just your Mass Effect 3 example in a different form.
The reason i snip out one point of your text is because it's the only relevant part when the rest is banging on about something you misunderstand to begin with. I only need a small part to demonstrate the misunderstanding. That you snip out only parts of my text is fine, since most of my writing style is based around giving analogies and examples which doesn't need to be quoted (but certainly should be read nonetheless, even though i have a terrible habit of banging on about things several times).
A review is a journalistic article, and as such is covered in what can be considered objective or subjective journalism. Reviewing a game (either objectively or subjectively) is in fact not much different from reporting an event like the U.S. Election or the recent Hurricane, and while the approach might be different, the same basic journalistic principles still apply.
So to answer your question: An objective review is a review about a product that explains about factual non-biased experiences with the product. Yes, the experiences might be different because different people will always have different experiences, but that's why it's up to the receiver to decide whenever he or she has enough information to draw a valid conclusion, which - ironically - is also going to vary between people. Some people want to know everything about a product before they decide to purchase, while others are satisfied if the name is "iPhone".
What's paramount in the review though is that the information is non-biased, both in content, context, coverage and delivery. It's extremely hard and most of the time it's not preferable either. But it's certainly not impossible.
