Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Something Amyss]

If he looses enough viewers then he might grab another job.

Given his continued popularity, do you believe this is likely? Looking at the rest of both this and other entertainment media, do you believe this is likely? How probable would you put this?

As for "Why did you trust Jim right up until now?". I trusted him because I thought he'd disclose any information pertaining to the review.

Why?

As for "Do you feel that games journalism should hold itself to a higher standard than other entertainment media?" This standard is what I hold all media to.

How many media critics do you trust?

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

"My problem with #GG is that they advocate censorship, mainly self-censorship. Reviewers should not bring up issues they perceive as such and don't sack points from the game because... I don't know why."

Don't you think it'd be wrong to sack points from a game set in the Old West for showing misogynistic themes?

I mean, as a general I agree, censorship is bad, however I don't think that this is censorship. At the most it's just a request to keep the game-review on topic (if the game is set in a historical period, and the game world is historically accurate I don't think you should deduct points for it not being politically correct to our current standards).

As for Metacritic.

Well you are right. It it bollocks to the highest order. I however haven't seen any arguments or anything to show that #Gamergate supports Metacritic (could you perhaps PM me a link?)

Thanks for the response though.

snip

1) No.

2) Because of aforementioned disclosure of a pre-existing relationship.

3) Not many. I analyse them by a case-by-case basis, so I can't give a definite number. However I generally trust media-outlets that disclose their sources more than I do ones that don't (for the simple reason that I can read the source myself and determine whether they understood it properly. You know, a bit like scientific peer review).

EDIT:

I will say I still retain some respect for The Escapist, primarily because of this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12224-The-Official-Ethics-Policy-of-The-Escapist

Unlike Polygon, Destructoid, Eurogamer and Kotaku, The Escapist actually adopted a substantial ethics policy (and publicised it).

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't you think it'd be wrong to sack points from a game set in the Old West for showing misogynistic themes?

Why would it be wrong?

1) No.

Fair enough

2) Because of aforementioned disclosure of a pre-existing relationship.

Okay, allow me to rephrase: why is this a problem now?

3) Not many. I analyse them by a case-by-case basis, so I can't give a definite number. However I generally trust media-outlets that disclose their sources more than I do ones that don't (for the simple reason that I can read the source myself and determine whether they understood it properly. You know, a bit like scientific peer review).

How much research do you actually do to their ties with the media in question?

I mostly ask because Anthony Burch only came up after he professed ties to reviewers and websites himself, and Jim Sterling only came up after he professed the same. But at the same time, neither of these people particularly hid it and had a history of correspondence, appearance, and even a Twitter trail (I guess, since one or both of them have showed twits to that extent).

The Jim Sterling connection dates at least a couple of years, and while one such favourable review discloses a former professional relationship, it does not get into personal relationships and other favourable reviews do not have such disclaimers.

At that point, can you really trust anyone or assume no connections? Jim Sterling comes across as a fairly straight shooter and has either given negative reviews himself or been reviews editor while Gearbox games got negative reviews in other instances, even instances where Burch was attached in some form.

Should disclosure be the determining factor?

 

[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.

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

I wanna more meaning, more analysis, more rigor from reviews.

If a feature is good or bad is subjective, I give you that. But bring me some consistence, some fucking meaning.

I not even think that is necessary play in every difficulty to review a game but, if difficulty is a big point of your review, so attack the difficulty problem! Say things like "is on the easy side" or "is frustrating" period! in a five difficult to choose game has no real meaning.

Honestly, well prepared people with better english already talked about this. You can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb3HQlFmfds

 

[MrFalconfly]

Don't you think it'd be wrong to sack points from a game set in the Old West for showing misogynistic themes?

Why would it be wrong?

1) No.

Fair enough

2) Because of aforementioned disclosure of a pre-existing relationship.

Okay, allow me to rephrase: why is this a problem now?

3) Not many. I analyse them by a case-by-case basis, so I can't give a definite number. However I generally trust media-outlets that disclose their sources more than I do ones that don't (for the simple reason that I can read the source myself and determine whether they understood it properly. You know, a bit like scientific peer review).

How much research do you actually do to their ties with the media in question?

I mostly ask because Anthony Burch only came up after he professed ties to reviewers and websites himself, and Jim Sterling only came up after he professed the same. But at the same time, neither of these people particularly hid it and had a history of correspondence, appearance, and even a Twitter trail (I guess, since one or both of them have showed twits to that extent).

The Jim Sterling connection dates at least a couple of years, and while one such favourable review discloses a former professional relationship, it does not get into personal relationships and other favourable reviews do not have such disclaimers.

At that point, can you really trust anyone or assume no connections? Jim Sterling comes across as a fairly straight shooter and has either given negative reviews himself or been reviews editor while Gearbox games got negative reviews in other instances, even instances where Burch was attached in some form.

Should disclosure be the determining factor?

"Why would it be wrong?"

Because it'd be like deducting points for depicting Nazis in a WWII game. They were kind of important in that historical period.

2) It has always been a problem. I've just noticed that example now.

3) Disclosure is not the only determining factor. There's never a SINGLE determining factor. However, I generally trust people who disclose their sources more than I do people who don't. To me, disclosing this information shows that the reviewer takes his job seriously.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

Preferably yeah.

I know that there are many cases where something is based on opinion, but when it isn't I'd very much like to see news-media (general news, or the review of entertainment media) to be held to the same standard as Scientific Journals.

snip

1) I 100% agree.

2) Again 100% agree (I guess we disagree on the amount of times when the argument have been a non-sequiteur)

3) Fair enough. And thank you for providing a link.

 

[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.

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?

I'm not following. Things are being praised to high heavens and then immediately forgotten in all forms of media. Things are initially poorly received and go on to be important cultural phenomenons in all types of media. An artworks perceived quality always evolves and changes over time. This isn't exclusive to games, so what's your point?

And again, you say you can't give low scores because pitch forks or accusations of being click-bait or contrarian. I say, you can't give high scores, because pitchforks, or allegations of being bought or corrupt. And both are true, so neither should matter.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because it'd be like deducting points for depicting Nazis in a WWII game. They were kind of important in that historical period.

Are you saying that misogyny was as important to the period as Nazis were to World War 2? Isn't that a bit extreme?

2) It has always been a problem. I've just noticed that example now.

Why the trust yesterday, especially when this information was all available? I have done no original research on Jimothy Sterling and in fact largely relied on his own disclosure.

3) Disclosure is not the only determining factor. There's never a SINGLE determining factor. However, I generally trust people who disclose their sources more than I do people who don't. To me, disclosing this information shows that the reviewer takes his job seriously.

Then why say you were done with Jim based upon this factor? What other factors went into play?

Additionally, the ethics standards you respect The Escapist for are ones GG claims The Escapist has already violated. Do you respect them because they posted such a claim, or have you policed them?

Also, regarding peer review, it appears NTBs has walked you through the peer review process. Do you honestly feel that this sort of intensive and time-intensive process is suited for a timely review of entertainment?

Honestly, I believe most scientists will tell you "the right tool for the right job."

 

[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?

I wanna more meaning, more analysis, more rigor from reviews.

If a feature is good or bad is subjective, I give you that. But bring me some consistence, some fucking meaning.

I not even think that is necessary play in every difficulty to review a game but, if difficulty is a big point of your review, so attack the difficulty problem! Say things like "is on the easy side" or "is frustrating" period! in a five difficult to choose game has no real meaning.

Honestly, well prepared people with better english already talked about this. You can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb3HQlFmfds

Uh? I thought I asked about what kind of problems would get them fired if they don't find a solution (maybe I wasn't specific enough).

PS: That video addressed the objective vs. subjective topic (although with different names) in a better way than Jim's.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

You aren't rude at all. It's nice to hear this information from someone who've actually seen it from start to finish.

As for waiting 3 months. Well sure. 2 Years might be pushing it though (but I think if that was the approach we took with games-review then few games would have had enough content to warrant a 2 year long period from the reviewer first seeing the product to the final review).

Thank you very much. Your post was very informative.

snip

1) I'm not saying misogyny is as important to the old west as nazis are to WWII. I'm saying that you shouldn't deduct points from a game for being historically accurate (no matter how important the offending component is to the period).

2) Because I hadn't seen it. There's a difference between "information being available", and "information being disclosed".

3) Because I have other, more detached sources if I want to read game reviews.

As for Peer-review. Well if the process (depending on the product) is between 3-5 months then yeah. I think it is (I'm tired of the hunt for the scoop pushing good journalistic practice to the side-line. There once were a time when journalists actually properly researched, found, and disclosed sources for their news. Now it seems even a random Blog written by Joe Average can be seen as a source).

 

[GloatingSwine]

1) I'm not saying misogyny is as important to the old west as nazis are to WWII. I'm saying that you shouldn't deduct points from a game for being historically accurate (no matter how important the offending component is to the period).

Conversely, historical accuracy is not an invincible shield behind which a product can hide. Because even if the attitudes in a modern product are accurate to the times it represents, the product itself is a product of now, and so the product is judged by the standards of now based on what it does with those attitudes, how it shows them and why it included them.

 

[MrFalconfly]

1) I'm not saying misogyny is as important to the old west as nazis are to WWII. I'm saying that you shouldn't deduct points from a game for being historically accurate (no matter how important the offending component is to the period).

Conversely, historical accuracy is not an invincible shield behind which a product can hide. Because even if the attitudes in a modern product are accurate to the times it represents, the product itself is a product of now, and so the product is judged by the standards of now based on what it does with those attitudes, how it shows them and why it included them.

Then why bother with making a game based on a historical period?

Why not make a fantasy game then?

Fantasy games aren't constrained by actual historical events.

 

[Something Amyss]

1) I'm not saying misogyny is as important to the old west as nazis are to WWII. I'm saying that you shouldn't deduct points from a game for being historically accurate (no matter how important the offending component is to the period).

Why is misogyny historically accurate and why does a fictional game need to reflect that? Also, why use such a severe example as the Nazis if it's not comparable?

2) Because I hadn't seen it. There's a difference between "information being available", and "information being disclosed".

how can you really trust your vetting process if something this open slipped your radar?

3) Because I have other, more detached sources if I want to read game reviews.

How do you know?

Well if the process (depending on the product) is between 3-5 months then yeah.

Except that's generally not the case for the parallels you gave. At this point, you seem to be saying you want peer review, except not. Both parts of that confuse me. The strength of peer review is the extensive scrutiny and time involved. Skimping on that is counter-intuitive.

Additionally, I wonder if you understand much of the benefit to scientific review is that it relies on hard data and replicable results. These are not particularly germane to entertainment reviews.

 

[Something Amyss]

Then why bother with making a game based on a historical period?

I'm going to go out on a limb as say "there are many reasons to make a game based on a historical period which do not require misogyny, nor does the historical period validate any and all misogyny."

 

[GloatingSwine]

Then why bother with making a game based on a historical period?

Why not make a fantasy game then?

Fantasy games aren't constrained by actual historical events.

Nor are historical period games, even the most cursory glance at the medium's output in that regard should tell you that.

On a further note, attempting to reproduce the "attitudes" of a particular historical period is generally going to be more accurate to a caricature of the period than the reality, because history is far messier than "people at time X thought and acted this way"

So including, say, misogynistic elements in a historical piece would be appropriate if they were attached to a particular character, because then they become part of that character*, but not if they were presented as "an accurate portrayal of the period", because different people will always have acted differently in that regard, and the claim of accuracy is false.


* That might not excuse the writer, if the narrative is constructed to prefer that character's opinion then the writer is showing that they agree with those opinions.

 

[The Choke]

"Final Fantasy XIII is a video game."

Jim, thank God for you, but I have to admit the boyfriend immediately piped up with: "That's debatable," and I didn't even have it in me to stop laughing and show him your other video about "It's not a video game!"

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

1) Alright. I'll give you an example of historically correct misogyny.

Spoiler: Example of misogyny represented in a game where the game wouldn't work without it

Do you think L.A. Noire would work without the misogyny or the racism that was common back in the 1950s, but have since become, if nothing else, old fashioned.

2) Because we're still at 0.01% have slipped past it.

3) Because they aren't big, or popular enough to create a blip on the Corporate RADAR.

As for Peer-Review at 3-5 Months. I wasn't skimping. I was using examples which NTB gave me (she said Peer Review could take somewhere between 3 Months to 2 years).