Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[ShakerSilver]

I honestly can't understand how people believe that it's impossible to be unbiased in critique and that you can't be impartial. I think it stems from the fact that people believe that since it's pointless to be 100% objective, why bother striving to be impartial in coverage of media? Almost like saying way strive to do better in anything when its impossible to be perfect. I think part of the problem is that game reviewers really don't have any criteria to judge games on and simply say "I noticed these things, here's what I liked, here's what I didn't".

The reason why a lot of film and music criticism (before the blogging age began at least) was mostly impartial and informative was because there was so much study done to both these areas that they could adequately analyze them and critique them on their own merits before dipping into subjective areas. Most critique comes from the analysis of formal elements in the media and how they work together. In music you can discuss the texture/instrumentation, the melody, the harmony, the tonality, the color, how they all work together in creating a piece. Film is rich with formal analysis as there's so much that can be said about technique in cinematography alone: the framing, depth, focus, camera movement, cuts, transitions, the use of time, composition, staging, etc. Jim's "objective review" doesn't really do anything like that at all, he's simply stating a list of formal elements in the game separately, as if they all exist in a vacuum, rather than examining them as a whole. This is especially troubling when talking about mechanics, because like cinematographic elements, they all contribute to a create a greater picture, a "mise en scene", if you will.

There really needs to be more serious analysis of games and their gameplay elements. I know game critics love to go on and on about games and their stories, but there's a lot more to games than that, and games that can't use the medium to its fullest shouldn't be held up as shining examples of the what the medium has to offer. If Citizen Kane was only critiqued because of its story, then it would never have been considered one of the greatest films of all time and not have been nearly as influential as it is. Games can do so much more than simply tell a story. They can marry the storytelling to gameplay in ways that other medium can't, just as film can tell a story through its cinematography.

 

[Netrigan]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

YES!

Let's shit on the consumer. Fuck'em. Even those who actually want those reviews that you want gone because they don't make you feel fuzzy inside. We need to protect the publishers and studios and even more important: METACRITIC! The intransparent piece of shit!

Fuck, and people wonder why I don't side with #GG... When people fight for censorship without realising it.

Also funny that Fallout: New Vegas is the poster child for this, because they came one point from getting the necessary score to get their bonus and not lay off people.

Maybe if they didn't have so many bugs in their game...

And there was also the issue of diminishing returns as New Vegas didn't really do anything not done in Fallout 3, apart from being more colorful and above ground. It's kind of the Casino to GoodFellas. I happen to like Vegas & Casino more than their better received predecessors, but there's no denying the been there, done that vibe of them.

 

[Riot3000]

I honestly can't understand how people believe that it's impossible to be unbiased in critique and that you can't be impartial. I think it stems from the fact that people believe that since it's pointless to be 100% objective, why bother striving to be impartial in coverage of media? Almost like saying way strive to do better in anything when its impossible to be perfect. I think part of the problem is that game reviewers really don't have any criteria to judge games on and simply say "I noticed these things, here's what I liked, here's what I didn't".

The reason why a lot of film and music criticism (before the blogging age began at least) was mostly impartial and informative was because there was so much study done to both these areas that they could adequately analyze them and critique them on their own merits before dipping into subjective areas. Most critique comes from the analysis of formal elements in the media and how they work together. In music you can discuss the texture/instrumentation, the melody, the harmony, the tonality, the color, how they all work together in creating a piece. Film is rich with formal analysis as there's so much that can be said about technique in cinematography alone: the framing, depth, focus, camera movement, cuts, transitions, the use of time, composition, staging, etc. Jim's "objective review" doesn't really do anything like that at all, he's simply stating a list of formal elements in the game separately, as if they all exist in a vacuum, rather than examining them as a whole. This is especially troubling when talking about mechanics, because like cinematographic elements, they all contribute to a create a greater picture, a "mise en scene", if you will.

There really needs to be more serious analysis of games and their gameplay elements. I know game critics love to go on and on about games and their stories, but there's a lot more to games than that, and games that can't use the medium to its fullest shouldn't be held up as shining examples of the what the medium has to offer. If Citizen Kane was only critiqued because of its story, then it would never have been considered one of the greatest films of all time and not have been nearly as influential as it is. Games can do so much more than simply tell a story. They can marry the storytelling to gameplay in ways that other medium can't, just as film can tell a story through its cinematography.

First thing first I want to thank you sir or man or robot for this summary. This whole thread I was trying to come up with a way to frame it because I share the same sentiment.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I really liked FF13 on Steam..that 4k downsample 60fps greatness really helped it.

This opinion is not really a popular one but I don't really care. As long as I enjoyed it that's whats important.

 

[Spearmaster]

This is why we cant have nice things. Rather than having those rational discussions that certain people seem to be proponents of, they instead have to delve into a mocking sarcasm that does nothing but stir the pot. Its very telling of certain people's two-faced nature and overall ignorance.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

I don't think is a question of objectivity vs subjectivity is more like professional vs amateur. For example, sometimes reviewers make comments about the difficulty of a game but the game in focus has difficulty selection. What he wants to say? The difficulty selection don't work or he had expectations about one particular difficult and was too lazy to try the others?

Well, the difficulty of a game is relative to the player's skills. I read a review of Alien: Isolation where the reviewer wrote that the developpers recomended the hard mode. So he reviewed the hard mode, and he had an awful time because it was too difficult for him

So, was it alright that he gave it negative points because he followed the developers recomendation? Or should had he changed to an easier mode to test if the game could be enjoyable for people with his same skills? In fact, isn't in general normal mode the recommended for most people (normal people)?

There's a problem (subjective or not) and there's a tool within the game that supposedly can solve the problem. Is it ok ignore the tool? Hell no! At least you have to try.

In my job, if I go around avoiding trying out solutions a simple end up being fired.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't think is a question of objectivity vs subjectivity is more like professional vs amateur. For example, sometimes reviewers make comments about the difficulty of a game but the game in focus has difficulty selection. What he wants to say? The difficulty selection don't work or he had expectations about one particular difficult and was too lazy to try the others?

Well, the difficulty of a game is relative to the player's skills. I read a review of Alien: Isolation where the reviewer wrote that the developpers recomended the hard mode. So he reviewed the hard mode, and he had an awful time because it was too difficult for him

So, was it alright that he gave it negative points because he followed the developers recomendation? Or should had he changed to an easier mode to test if the game could be enjoyable for people with his same skills? In fact, isn't in general normal mode the recommended for most people (normal people)?

There's a problem (subjective or not) and there's a tool within the game that supposedly can solve the problem. Is it ok ignore the tool? Hell no! At least you have to try.

In my job, if I go around avoiding trying out solutions a simple end up being fired.

Good point. Now, to which problem they have to find solutions?

 

[Something Amyss]

An answer that preferably wont involve shouting at an entire demographic (because that never works, and you'll piss off quite a lot of "innocent bystanders" if you do it.

The problem here is you don't need to shout at people to piss them off. Look again at Jim Sterling.

Also, apropos of #Gamergate", I thought their issue was with the collusion in games media, not "objective reviews".

They've been the ones spearheading "ethics" and "journalism," though my default position is not to believe them. They have talked a good fight and spent their time going after a pound of flesh.

However, Gamergate is not one person with one goal, but a collective with a bunch of goals. Unfortunately, the collective is very much like that kid in grade school who insisted he was never hit in games.

Or maybe the word "objective" was used to keep the reviewer distance from the company producing the product. Like Chris Harris not having Ferrari looking over his should while he reviews their new car)

Except, again, that's not who they're going after. Hell, we've had people point out they're more embedded than Zoe Quinn and the only thing that got them in trouble with GG was demonstrating that they don't care about ethics, journalism, or knowing what's going on.

But to the larger point, I don't think treating us like we're children to an even larger extent will work. Saying it's your opinion probably won't change anything, based on the track record. People are still railing against the evil SJW conspiracy that is the Escapist, even though this was the site that kept discussion open from the beginning. The site that allowed GG to air grievances. The site that hosted interviews. But they are TEH BIAS and SJWs and need to be boycotted. And last I knew, it wasn't even like "Boycott Moviebob," either.

I don't know that you can find middle ground with fanatics.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Wow The #GG in this thread missed the point so hard i think they were using Gaiges anarchy skill with max stacks. #GG just want to silence those damn sjws. They don't give a rats ass about ethics and only go after people who won't stand with their stupid hashtag.

Captcha: JABBER WOCKY ... Alice in wonderland? Why yes these forums have become like the Mad Hatter since the #GG started.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes jim, you were as wrong in 2010 as you are now. Objective reivews is a good thing. 100% objectivity is impossible, however its an ideal you and everyone else should strive for.
Funny how that 2010 joke review was actually better than majority of actual reviews, so you proved yourself wrong. though you rehashing it now is kinda boring for us that already read it. least you could do is write another one for the video.

You know stating facts of mechanics and similar things are exactly what i look for in reviews (and why i kinda gave up on reviews and went to wikis instead because reviewers seems to be more interested in telling what they dreamed about than actually reviewing the game).

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

we already got 100% objective reviews. we call them wikis.

I don?t understand either why people want a 100 percent objective review, if all they want is info on the game just read a Wikipedia article, just admit that you dislike that the reviewer gave a game you liked a low score and stop making excuses.

so i guess thats why wikipedia got so popular and none reads reviews anymore? or perhaps we hate that reviewers talk about their bias more than the game itself nowadays?

Unless the critic is psychic and can read your mind or predict the future, this is impossible.

The closest a critic can do is tell you if they personally liked a game, movie, book, etc. and explain why. If you agree with their reasons, you will probably feel the same way as they do.

Wrong. All the critic needs to do is be impartial and informative and he will suceed at it.

No one wants a 100% objective review, other than the couple of imbeciles who spam AAA game review comment sections foaming at the mouth, the ones that the media is trying to portray as the "every gamer". The folly of these people is that they have too much sugar in their system and they don't know what words mean, like "objective". "100" and "percent".

I want 100% objective reviews. therefore, you are wrong.

 

[Shjade]

"Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism.

Actually, unless you have concrete, irrefutable evidence proving what you claim about why people like or don't like something, saying why people like or don't like it is giving your opinion about why people may or may not like it, which is not objective criticism. It's subjective. You are not stating facts; you are giving your opinion. You are commenting on something that may or may not be true, not stating something that you know is true.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand what you're talking about.

Yes, it would involved actually talking to people, and doing research. Tough for many of these glorified bloggers, I know. But if you're going to claim to be professional you should probably bring more knowledge to the table than a random user review on Steam.

Yeah, no. If you're reporting on why other people like or don't like a thing, you're not reviewing the thing anymore, you're reporting on its audience.

 

[chikusho]

Maybe reviewers were momentarily dazzled by the games they give perfect scores to, but you're still left with an industry with a distinct and long-standing habit of over-praising games that quickly lose their luster.

Oh, come on. That happens with all types of media, for all types of people. A reviewer can't be expected to see in to the future, they can only tell you what they feel at the time.

 

[Strazdas]

Dude, opinions are by their very nature biased. What are you supposed to do? Give an opinion that's only kind of biased?

So what? You're not replying because you don't like how he formatted his reply? Really?

you are supposed to write a review, not give an opinion.

There's a difference between professionalism and objectivity. In a professional review you back up your arguments with evidence, even if it isn't objective evidence.

Uh, what? Evidence by its very nature is objective.

You could have done the Wikipedia article instead.

but, you know, then it would actually be, gasp, useful.

It is much more likely this wouldn't happen, but don't let reality get in the way of an argument. If you did, the rest of GamerGate would kick you out for being too reasonable.

I used to think so as well until i saw it actually happen.

The new CoD came out today. It will sell billions despite being exactly the same bilge as last year's.

sorry to break your chain but the new COD is actually pretty damn good compared to others in the series.

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).

well you certainly seem capable of slandering whole groups without being censored....

 

[chikusho]

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).

well you certainly seem capable of slandering whole groups without being censored....

Oh my..

You know, when you're repeating back a movements own goals to them, and that gets called slander, you should probably reconsider what it is you actually stand for.

 

[Strazdas]

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).

well you certainly seem capable of slandering whole groups without being censored....

Oh my..

You know, when you're repeating back a movements own goals to them, and that gets called slander, you should probably reconsider what it is you actually stand for.

What i stand for? objectivity, ethics, transparency and freedom of speech.

Now, how does what i stand for has to do with you slandering a group of people?

 

[Netrigan]

Maybe reviewers were momentarily dazzled by the games they give perfect scores to, but you're still left with an industry with a distinct and long-standing habit of over-praising games that quickly lose their luster.

Oh, come on. That happens with all types of media, for all types of people. A reviewer can't be expected to see in to the future, they can only tell you what they feel at the time.

No, it's simple grade inflation. Everyone must be a winner. We're taking away the high end of the rating system for games which are very good, rather than great... and most reviewers probably know it, but if you're on Metacritic, then you're choices for a good review are 8, 9, and 10... or else face the torches and pitchforks of gamers who want to know why you hate a game they like. Don't you know their jobs depend on you giving their game a good score? Why do you hate video games? Who will think of the devs?

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

Well, I guess it's time to come clean.

Personally, I actually agree with some of the guys in #Gamergate.

Now don't go steamrolling me just yet.

I think that harassment is wrong, no matter who does it or who it's done against (well I might look the other way if it's against Hitler or Stalin).

I don't think Zoe Quinn is the primary example of lacking ethics, or journalistic integrity (and the most times I've seen her brought up in a discussion about #Gamergate, is because someone else said that #Gamergate was because of her. I haven't actually seen #Gamergate themselves use her as an argument).

To me, the most alarming examples would be Polygon's Danielle Riendeau reviewing "Gone Home" made by friends Chris Remo and Steve Gaynor (and giving it 10/10. I don't know about you, but I'd think a reviewer should have as little attachment to the product or the people developing it as possible) with no disclosure.

Or Destructoid writers Darren Nakamura and Chris Carter reviewing ex-staffer Anthony Burch's game Borderlands 2 without disclosing their friendship.

The main thing here, is that the reviewers have a pre-existing relationship with the developers of the product that's being reviewed. At the best of times this shouldn't happen at all. And if it does happen it should be disclosed (I mean for Pete's sake. Jim Sterling gave full disclosure when the Escapist reviewed a game he did voice-acting in. Why didn't Polygon or DToid?).

Also, the 8-10 simultaneous "Gamers are dead" articles didn't really calm the waters either (more like poured high-octane petrol on it and proceeded to scatter the place with Molotov cocktails).

That together with Sam Biddle's and Max Read's frankly callous tweets (the bullying tweets, I'm sure you've heard of them. The ones that caused multiple companies to pull ad-campaigns from Gawker) is the reason why I've begun to sympathize with #Gamergate.

I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but I hope we can go from this discussion in a friendly spirit, rather than give fuel to anyone who'd want to portray gamers (or users of games-media) as immature.

Have a nice day.

 

[Netrigan]

snip

Well, I guess it's time to come clean.

Personally, I actually agree with some of the guys in #Gamergate.

Now don't go steamrolling me just yet.

I think that harassment is wrong, no matter who does it or who it's done against (well I might look the other way if it's against Hitler or Stalin).

I don't think Zoe Quinn is the primary example of lacking ethics, or journalistic integrity (and the most times I've seen her brought up in a discussion about #Gamergate, is because someone else said that #Gamergate was because of her. I haven't actually seen #Gamergate themselves use her as an argument).

To me, the most alarming examples would be Polygon's Danielle Riendeau reviewing "Gone Home" made by friends Chris Remo and Steve Gaynor (and giving it 10/10. I don't know about you, but I'd think a reviewer should have as little attachment to the product or the people developing it as possible) with no disclosure.

Or Destructoid writers Darren Nakamura and Chris Carter reviewing ex-staffer Anthony Burch's game Borderlands 2 without disclosing their friendship.

The main thing here, is that the reviewers have a pre-existing relationship with the developers of the product that's being reviewed. At the best of times this shouldn't happen at all. And if it does happen it should be disclosed (I mean for Pete's sake. Jim Sterling gave full disclosure when the Escapist reviewed a game he did voice-acting in. Why didn't Polygon or DToid?).

Also, the 8-10 simultaneous "Gamers are dead" articles didn't really calm the waters either (more like poured high-octane petrol on it and proceeded to scatter the place with Molotov cocktails).

That together with Sam Biddle's and Max Read's frankly callous tweets (the bullying tweets, I'm sure you've heard of them. The ones that caused multiple companies to pull ad-campaigns from Gawker) is the reason why I've begun to sympathize with #Gamergate.

I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but I hope we can go from this discussion in a friendly spirit, rather than give fuel to anyone who'd want to portray gamers (or users of games-media) as immature.

Have a nice day.

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why does it always fall back to TB to sort our shit out?

He's like the Batman of videogames (I sure hope his parents still live).

 

[Netrigan]

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why does it always fall back to TB to sort our shit out?

He's like the Batman of videogames (I sure hope his parents still live).

Because he's the only prominent voice who doesn't come across as a War On Opinions We Don't Like.

You had more like him who weren't eager to get bogged down in irrelevancies you wouldn't need Batman to salvage your image.