Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[seditary]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

Which is ironic because YouTubers etc are far more likely to be bought out and collude with big publishers than traditional reviewers. Just look at XB1M13, Shadow of Mordor and countless other brand deals for evidence of that.

And those issues were bought to attention by some of those youtubers, discussed by the community and resolved. Like adults should.

 

[Hazy992]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

Which is ironic because YouTubers etc are far more likely to be bought out and collude with big publishers than traditional reviewers. Just look at XB1M13, Shadow of Mordor and countless other brand deals for evidence of that.

And those issues were bought to attention by some of those youtubers, discussed by the community and resolved. Like adults should.

It still happens though. Individual incidents being resolved doesn't mean it's not still happening, which is not the case with reviews.

And how exactly was the Shadow of Mordor incident resolved? As far as I know those videos are still up, and YouTubers like Boogie actually defended it.

http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/98717807838/about-brand-deals-youtube-and-you

 

[andri88]

Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.

I'll repeat what I said before:

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.

Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.

No one says you can't have an opinion, no one says reviews should be 100% objective, but that opinion should be built on video game knowledge. When you talk about whether something works or not in a video game whether the combat system is fun or not, or balanced or not, it should be based on your experience in video games, not some personal vendetta or political nonsense that has nothing to do with games and nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because that's what we're getting out of reviews these days. People who don't even like genres or know something in the game is going to "trigger" them are being given games to review specifically so their review will generate controversy clicks or they can push an agenda.

This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

 

[MrFalconfly]

However, if someone says that I'll have fewer troubles by adding a line of text then fine, I'll write that little disclaimer (and the just Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V from then on).

I don't even believe it'll lead to fewer troubles. People are upset because they're not being told what they want to hear.

But at least they can't shout at you for being a bad reviewer, when you have fully disclosed your methodology.

 

[softclocks]

I thought this video was terrible.

Felt like nothing but snide remarks at the audience.

 

[elvor0]

I find it highly amusing that GG people wants to work against censorship (of slander and libel being removed from forums), and also want to force gaming journalists into self censorship (of things GG people don't agree with).

In situations such as?

 

[xdiesp]

What a dull and uninspired strawman of an article. It makes me sad to see the Escapist stepping so low.

 

[Littaly]

This is kind of a childish way to make a point. I'd normally expect Jim Sterling to be above this :-/

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Would have been less embarrassing (and much, much funnier) if you'd simply shouted "STRAW MAN!" over and over for five straight minutes.

This is startlingly close to what I came in here to say.

Thank you for beating me to it on the first page.

 

[Dragonmouth]

People tend to confuse "apolitical" or "objective" with "upholding the politics of the status quo."

 

[Madkipz]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

Which is ironic because YouTubers etc are far more likely to be bought out and collude with big publishers than traditional reviewers. Just look at XB1M13, Shadow of Mordor and countless other brand deals for evidence of that.

And those issues were bought to attention by some of those youtubers, discussed by the community and resolved. Like adults should.

It still happens though. Individual incidents being resolved doesn't mean it's not still happening, which is not the case with reviews.

And how exactly was the Shadow of Mordor incident resolved? As far as I know those videos are still up, and YouTubers like Boogie actually defended it.

http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/98717807838/about-brand-deals-youtube-and-you

Of course the video's are still up. Why wouldn't they be? He's doing a paid promotion. That's not corruption. That's simply what he's doing and the consumer is informed about it.

On top of that when TB exposed that the PR company had spesific clauses that prevented critique they managed to get the PR company to change it. When they released the second contract it was perfectly acceptable.

 

[Sol_HSA]

Wouldn't a 100% objective review of a game be a genre tag and a benchmark?

No, because lower FPS these days means more cinematic..

 

[Stabby Joe]

Why am I reminded of an older Zero Punctuation episodes, mailbag showdown that pretty much destroys the notion that people are trying to be "objective".

Basically, it seems what people want is a Wikipedia entry, minus the reception section towards the end.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

]It still happens though. Individual incidents being resolved doesn't mean it's not still happening, which is not the case with reviews.

And how exactly was the Shadow of Mordor incident resolved? As far as I know those videos are still up, and YouTubers like Boogie actually defended it.

http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/98717807838/about-brand-deals-youtube-and-you

Weeeeell. Here.

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/527297077504929792

TB himself goes over it.

Snip

Let's be perfectly honest. People can dress it up however they want "Be objective" "Don't be biased" "Focus on what the consumer wants" It's all window dressing. Really people are saying "People keep talking about the portrayal of non-white male heterosexual characters and I don't care about that and I want them to shut up." Most of them will never admit it though.

There are plenty of people out there who really do want better "Ethics" in journalism, but plenty of people just talk about "ethics" to say "don't talk about this thing I'm not invested in and dislike."

I appreciate that you do accept that there are some of us making a concerted effort to hold journalists to a basic ethical standard, but... "ethics" seems condescending as all hell.

Personally, I don't at all care what someone wants to put in a review, so long as it's an op-ed or doesn't have a review score that pops up to muddy metacritic scores. If this is the precedent, then there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from throwing out 5's or 1's or otherwise ridiculously non-proportional scores based on their political/social biases.

I don't care that it's about sexism. I'd be similarly upset if it were someone throwing in anti-abortion/pro-abortion or misogynistic/misandristic or racist stuff, then having that directly impact the overall score.

In any case, I definitely agree with the idea that we should seek out different reviewers if the one we're reading is blatantly biased in some respect...but metacritic. D:

It speaks to the larger issue of publishers basing dev bonuses on metacritic scores, which really needs to be addressed. If that were handled, I really wouldn't have much of a problem.

Sincerely...I'm not sure what the problem is with making an honest effort at being as objective as possible. There is no such thing as a 100% objective review and I haven't seen anybody make an argument, that didn't completely fall apart the moment it was uttered, for it.

 

[Hazy992]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

Which is ironic because YouTubers etc are far more likely to be bought out and collude with big publishers than traditional reviewers. Just look at XB1M13, Shadow of Mordor and countless other brand deals for evidence of that.

And those issues were bought to attention by some of those youtubers, discussed by the community and resolved. Like adults should.

It still happens though. Individual incidents being resolved doesn't mean it's not still happening, which is not the case with reviews.

And how exactly was the Shadow of Mordor incident resolved? As far as I know those videos are still up, and YouTubers like Boogie actually defended it.

http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/98717807838/about-brand-deals-youtube-and-you

Of course the video's are still up. Why wouldn't they be? He's doing a paid promotion. That's not corruption. That's simply what he's doing and the consumer is informed about it.

On top of that when TB exposed that the PR company had spesific clauses that prevented critique they managed to get the PR company to change it. When they released the second contract it was perfectly acceptable.

When did I say corruption? Don't put words in my mouth. I said YouTubers are more likely to be paid off. Boogie, along with many others, were paid by WB to do the promotion, a promotion where they weren't allowed to say anything negative about the game.

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's corrupt, but it's certainly dodgy to look at, and you know damn well why AAA publishers do it; because they know that Youtubers are seen as 'normal gamers' and 'just like us', so they take advantage of that. And they sure as hell don't disclose all the clauses like 'don't be negative' and 'don't show bugs', so even if they put that it's a paid promotion in the description the audience still aren't getting the full picture.

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/527297077504929792

TB himself goes over it.

Could you do me a solid and transcribe that for me? I can't access Twitter from my work PC. Thanks

 

[DataSnake]

We've been over this. Sadly, as much as I would be glad to ignore certain low quality sites and reviewers, they're factored into metacritic just the same, which help determine the success or failure of games and studios themselves. I'm fine if you write your biased review for you and your extremely small audience that agrees with you that games should only fit a very specific narrow view of what is good or not, just keep it off metacritic.

It is not a reviewer's job to suck the publisher's balls out of fear that a dev team might get axed. It is a reviewer's job to help consumers decide whether the game is worth their time and money. A reviewer who downplays a game's shittier aspects because being honest would hurt the developer is not only not being objective (a reviewer with a stake in whether the game does well is the textbook definition of bias), they're failing to do their job.
EDIT: also, sucking up to publishers isn't Metacritic's job either. It exists to inform consumers about which publications liked the game and which didn't, enabling them to make more informed decisions.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Could you do me a solid and transcribe that for me? I can't access Twitter from my work PC. Thanks

Sure, here's a link to the text blog he's reading from:

http://blueplz.blogspot.com/2014/10/saloncom-knows-nothing-about-gaming-and.html

Or a direct link to the sound cloud if you don't want to read:

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/in-which-we-expose-how-little-saloncom-bothered-to-research-its-latest-hit-piece

As for the point ya raised in that post...

Disclosure is really the biggest issue. The youtubers I frequent do disclose and I was under the impression that they are, legally, obligated to do so for paid promotional material.

Them not doing so, especially if it comes up, permanently damages their credibility for the audience and tends to drive said audience to different, more reliable, sources. The fun thing about youtube is that different youtubers will draw attention to breaches in an effort to get more of an audience for themselves.

It's a bit of a shark tank, in that respect. Each is vying for revenue/audience share in a very real and quantifiable (views/subs) way. It's kind of remarkable to see the checks and balances going into it.

 

[Hazy992]

Could you do me a solid and transcribe that for me? I can't access Twitter from my work PC. Thanks

Sure, here's a link to the text blog he's reading from:

http://blueplz.blogspot.com/2014/10/saloncom-knows-nothing-about-gaming-and.html

Or a direct link to the sound cloud if you don't want to read:

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/in-which-we-expose-how-little-saloncom-bothered-to-research-its-latest-hit-piece

As for the point ya raised in that post...

Disclosure is really the biggest issue. The youtubers I frequent do disclose and I was under the impression that they are, legally, obligated to do so for paid promotional material.

Them not doing so, especially if it comes up, permanently damages their credibility for the audience and tends to drive said audience to different, more reliable, sources. The fun thing about youtube is that different youtubers will draw attention to breaches in an effort to get more of an audience for themselves.

It's a bit of a shark tank, in that respect. Each is vying for revenue/audience share in a very real and quantifiable (views/subs) way. It's kind of remarkable to see the checks and balances going into it.

Thanks for that, appreciate it.

Anyway, my point was more to do with the fact that they can't say anything negative, point out bugs etc. I understand that brand deals happen, but my issue is they aren't disclosing the full extent of the brand deal, so their real opinions are being neutered or outright silenced by these deals.

A lot of gamers look up to YT Personalites, again with the idea of 'they're just like us', so it's quite worrying that publishers are exploiting that.

EDIT: Having glanced through the TB post, it is good to see that he managed to solve the incident. However, I stand by my stance that this isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Thanks for that, appreciate it.

Anyway, my point was more to do with the fact that they can't say anything negative, point out bugs etc. I understand that brand deals happen, but my issue is they aren't disclosing the full extent of the brand deal, so their real opinions are being neutered or outright silenced by these deals.

A lot of gamers look up to YT Personalites, again with the idea of 'they're just like us', so it's quite worrying that publishers are exploiting that.

EDIT: Having glanced through the TB post, it is good to see that he managed to solve the incident. However, I stand by my stance that this isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last.

No worries.

And I definitely get the concern there. We all have it and, apparently, so do some of the youtubers themselves. This recent incident has done a great deal for fostering good will though.

So long as there are parties who are willing to be transparent and call out this sort of behavior by publishers/pr firms, then they and, by extension, we can hopefully stave off the inevitable future attempts.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Let's be perfectly honest. People can dress it up however they want "Be objective" "Don't be biased" "Focus on what the consumer wants" It's all window dressing. Really people are saying "People keep talking about the portrayal of non-white male heterosexual characters and I don't care about that and I want them to shut up." Most of them will never admit it though.

There are plenty of people out there who really do want better "Ethics" in journalism, but plenty of people just talk about "ethics" to say "don't talk about this thing I'm not invested in and dislike."

Oh cmon now. I think a lot of people, myself included, just want to know if a game is fun to play/enjoyable to experience or not. Fact is, sometimes i want to play a game for it's social commentary (spec ops the line is downloading on steam right now), sometimes i just want to play a game for the gameplay (WARFRAME! CYBORG NINJAS WITH SUPERPOWERS! [which by the way probably has more important female characters than male, so HA]). There's a distinct lack of people reviewing purely on the latter spectrum, and CERTAINLY a lack of people doing so without a corporate string being tied somewhere. I can't speak for everyone, but would it really be SO terrible to see more game reviewers just review a game based on how enjoyable it was? Without being overly influenced by politics or corporate influence? Because that's all i'm really asking for here. Is diversity in games an important topic? Sure. Is it THE ONLY TOPIC AND THE ONLY THING A REVIEW SHOULD EVER BE BASED ON EVER?! That is a definitive NO! I want to know if a game is good, not it's place as a political chess piece.

Considering that the latest game people are complaining about falling victim to this is Bayonetta 2, which has over 60 reviews on Metacritic in the green and only two in the yellow, I have to question if this is really as widespread as people are making it out to be.