Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[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.

 

[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).

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.

My image.

Do I look like a PAO for #Gamergate?

Also I will say, Being appointed PAO for #Gamergate would be a daunting task. "Here. Make some good PR for this loose collection of people whose only unifying feature is their love for games, using the very journalists who seems to hate said people's guts".

Mate, I'd rather face a firing squad than that.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I think the issue of objective review is a misconception. Gamers simply don't want fanboys to shout at them why they should or shouldn't buy the game because fanboys tend to like and dislike certain games based on entirely subjective little things that other people might disagree about completely. Or they compare the game that they dislike to one that they like and base their review off of that. Which is also wrong. That kind of stuff.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now don't go steamrolling me just yet.

Any serious discussion you wanted to have went out the window with that line right there.

I just went so far as to say that Gamergate was not a unified front, and your first reaction was to assume the exact opposite.

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).

That would not be true. Not The Bees posted like a dozen examples to the contrary from one thread within only a handful of pages. She keeps getting brought up by GGers without prompting, as do the other "literally whos."

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

You mean the one that had been made public, that people were aware of, and that Gamergate didn't give a crap about until Birch made them look like hypocrites by pointing it out himself? His self-disclosed ties that nobody cared about or even looked into until said self-disclosure?

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?).

Which person voice acted in which game?

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).

Because people can't read. Again, I'm sorry, but this reaction has been infantile. People complaining that Leigh and the other guy said things they didn't when they defined their terms, couched their phrases, and spoke specifically. And this was my point in the first place. All this histrionic bull that Leigh was calling gamers angry white boys or saying that gaming was completely dead are completely false, but a bunch of people say "angry white males" or whatever, and decided to get angry without care for context, consequence, or reality.

This is the crap that needs to stop. This is why we can't have nice things. Because the minute someone says something we don't like, we throw a tantrum and blow it out of proportion.

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.

No. We cannot. I do not like dishonesty and I especially do not like people being dishonest about what I write. If you want to put shit in my mouth, you do not get to hope for a friendly spirit. I don't like lies, liars, or anything resembling them. You not only misrepresented me, but you spewed several paragraphs of falsehoods and half-truths.

This post is endemic of the very problems I have with Gamergate. Well, most of them.

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it...

Then they're wrong. They'd still be supporting Gamergate lies.

If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I call bullshit. When I looked him up on the matter, he was "leading the charge" in no small part by linking to sites which contain the exact same crap everyone else is spewing. Even as he says he's for ethics and inclusivity, he's linking to sites that rehash debunked garbage.

I'm not sure that's ethical, and it's certainly not inclusive.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

EDIT:

BTW I found the review.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/10968-Jazzpunk-Review-Spy-Humor

Jazzpunk. And Jim Sterling voiced one of the characters. And that bit of information was disclosed in the review done by the Escapist.

 

[Something Amyss]

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

The fault was mine. As I've recently been reminded, arguing with conspiracy theorists only serves to raise one's blood pressure. I should have simply bowed out when you misrepresented me.

But since you did add that edit, allow me to point out I was asking not for Jim's voice acting (which I already knew), but for those other voice actors, since you made a parallel to Jim's situation. Jim doesn't disclose all his personal relationships in the business, at least no more than Birch did, so I'm assuming you meant others failed to disclose their voice acting credits, the fair and honest parallel.

Was I mistaken? Did you seek to use Jim to hold others to unfair, uneven standards? Ones to which Jim himself doesn't actually hold himself? Because Jim ay have disclosed when he actually had a stake in the game, but does not disclose personal relationships (the thing you were contrasting it to) unless you count simply not hiding it (in which case, Jim does it but so do most or all of the people you're indicating acted inappropriately).

 

[DaViller]

The review in question is clearly biased, he called final fantasy 13 a videogame even but he gave no explanation as to wich factors constitute a videogame. Clearly jim sterling is a shill of square enix for reviewing theyr piece of software, even though it´s status as a videogame wasn´t proven.

 

[MrFalconfly]

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

The fault was mine. As I've recently been reminded, arguing with conspiracy theorists only serves to raise one's blood pressure. I should have simply bowed out when you misrepresented me.

But since you did add that edit, allow me to point out I was asking not for Jim's voice acting (which I already knew), but for those other voice actors, since you made a parallel to Jim's situation. Jim doesn't disclose all his personal relationships in the business, at least no more than Birch did, so I'm assuming you meant others failed to disclose their voice acting credits, the fair and honest parallel.

Was I mistaken? Did you seek to use Jim to hold others to unfair, uneven standards? Ones to which Jim himself doesn't actually hold himself? Because Jim ay have disclosed when he actually had a stake in the game, but does not disclose personal relationships (the thing you were contrasting it to) unless you count simply not hiding it (in which case, Jim does it but so do most or all of the people you're indicating acted inappropriately).

Those weren't voice actors.

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed. Personally I'm of the opinion that if a reviewer finds him/herself in a position where his/her professional detachment could possibly be compromised he/she should let someone else handle the review (or at least disclose that there is a relationship between the reviewer and the developer).

But that is just my opinion.

 

[Something Amyss]

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed.

Jim Sterling doesn't do this, either, so why did you offer him up as an example?