sammyfreak post=9.69228.655333 said:
First of all objectivity is impossible for human beings in any situation, we all are influenced in one way or another and our outlooks upon everything are altered thereafter
I have to disagree with that. It's understandable to claim people to be more influenced by subjectivity than objectivity. But to claim objectivity is something beyond us? I find that's terribly narrow and dismissive of the human condition on a general basis.
You missunderstand me, I definately agree that objective observation is necesary in a review. You need to explain the game and what it does diffirently but that is where objectiveness must end. You need to give a personal opinion as to why a game is good or bad.
Well, this is a much more agreeable stance than what you had claimed previously, in that a review should not be objective, period. And pretty much what I was after.
Why would a critic need to do this? Because sometimes what makes or breaks a game is panache, a certain intangible touch. Take Oblivion for example, it would seem that the game by "objective" standards is very good. It sold well, it got universal aclaim and none of the "serious" critics disliked it. But alot of players did, many many have complained about how shallow it was compared to Morrowind. Are these people wrong? No, they are in this case just underrepresented.
That is a somewhat different point. "Objective" standards are hard to define not because they are "objective", but because the standards themselves are often subjective! It is always the critic who defines what are his standards and what level of proficiency they must be presented in to register an emotional response. They may even qualify them objectively, but even then, it's conditioned by their own knowledge of the medium, of combat sytems or even overall presentation in videogames - which is subjective.
Go to Metacritic and look almost any game, you will notice that almost all game reviews fall into the 10-20 margin of the rating. Most of the reviews will be the same, they will all list the same features and have the same opinions. Perhaps I am exhagurating to a degree but this is a strong tendancy in game critisism.
It is a strong tendency, but I'd argue it's not a fault related to objectiveness, but rather, the reviewer's attempt to concede to their readership's expectations of how a game should be evaluated. There's quite a gap in information, style and personality between something like, say, IGN and Gamespot and Eurogamer. IGN in particular has long been rooted in a "traditional" reviewing method, with paragraphs about GAMEPLAY, SOUND and GRAPHICS, then a table giving points on these fields. The problem here isn't so much that they try to be objective, in the sense they only focus on a game's elements, but how they do so in a dry, humourless and predictable way - which you refered to as "personal input", I believe. And one can certainly be objective in regards to a game experience without coming off as a robot. Many are uncapable, sure, but there are also examples that prove otherwise.
Some people like the story of Braid, some thought it was vague and pretentious, which is the correct opinion? Neither!
How a story affects a gamer is certainly up to his or her tastes and interpretation. But, let's say we're comparing Halo to Space Siege. Is it that hard to determine which presents the better story? I believe Halo, whether one enjoys it or not, would be the clear winner. But in regards to Braid, is it that hard to apply the same reasoning? If so, why? If not, what would be a viable measuring unit? I haven't played it yet - although I am eager to do so, patiently waiting for the Windows version - but really am curious as to why defense of Braid seems so overwhelmingly antagonist to those that supposedly don't "get" Braid.
