Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Something Amyss]

When have you known publicly airing moderation concerns to be well-received by moderation?

Well-received, or censored due to "corruption" or whatever?

You're either trying to bait me, or just being disingenuous. I'd bet both - knowing your posting patterns.

If you knew my posting patterns, you'd know better than to ask me the first question, since I've never been shy about mod complaints.

So how about you quit antagonizing people and maybe contribute something useful?

This might be a better received point, but you've not only attacked a contributor, you've doubled down on it.

Seriously, you just said you were done with this site and your "contributions" have consisted of...what, exactly?

 

[hentropy]

Personally I've never understood why people want objective reviews- whether they be 100% or 90% or 50% or mostly impartial or apolitical or whatever. I don't in any way want objective reviews- I want unfiltered but well-explained reviews that tell me someone's impressions of a game that it left on them. I want many of them, as many as possible. One review that is perfect from some kind of objective standard is much, much less useful to me than 10 biased reviews. Anyone who makes any purchasing decision based on one review is... well, they are what they are. 10 objective reviews is about as good as one, by definition they should all say the exact same things.

After I start playing a game or watching a movie, I will often seek out reviews that differ from my opinion, simply because I like reading opinions that are not my own. For someone with strong political views that color everything they do, it is still interesting and occasionally entertaining to see some of the mental gymnastics they do to try to cram it into places it doesn't fit.

I want reviews to be like humanity, varied, opinionated, occasionally nutty, and subjective as hell. It's just more fun that way. If you read enough of them, you probably will get a very good idea of whether you want to play the game or not.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

I'll repeat what I said before:

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

Yeah, no. Not at all. What you are proposing is ridiculous. Reviews ARE personal opinions. There is no such thing as objective criticism. The criticism comes from the critic/reviewer, not the perceived audience. If that were the case in other media, then the Transformers movies would be getting four stars and would all be written from the perspective of 13-year-old fanboys. That's not being an independent reviewer.

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.

I'm guessing you don't consider games to be art, because what you're describing sounds a lot like a technical review of software. And hey, if that's what you want? GREAT! If you want game reviews to read like technical walkthroughs, then have at it! There are plenty of them out there, whether they're written reviews ("Hey shooter fans, if you like X titles then you'll sure love Y!") or YouTube videos. But I don't understand why you and other folks seem obsessed with shutting down reviews that actually offer the author's opinion or true artistic criticism (rather than bland walkthroughs or technical guides). Some people actually like that content, you know.

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.

So in other words, if a reviewer does NOT assume the role of the genre fan for a game review and actually brings their personal tastes and beliefs into the equation, then they are compromised and unethical, correct? How do you not see that as problematic on multiple levels? If all we ever have is reviewers that take the perspective of the audience at large, then we'll continue to get review after review of the most popular games (CoD or what have you) that offer no insight or dissenting opinion and just keep churning out 8-10 scores. How is that a good thing for the industry? How is that kind of insular thinking going to make games better?

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.

Again, what you're describing is literally how every type of review in every other artistic medium is delivered. Even if you don't believe games are art, then go out and find some reviewers that share that idea as well as other tastes and perspectives. Again, the answer is not shutting opposing criticism down. Good lord...

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.

I gotta be honest, this sounds a lot like GamerGate's absurd "Gamer's Bill of Rights," which basically posits that only fans of the type of game being reviewed should be able to review the title in question. Or, more accurately, from #1 on the Bill: "If the act of reviewing a game causes you to write a page and a half decrying its content, maybe that game isn?t for you. Please consider passing that review off to a member of your team who might be better suited to evaluate the content, whose views may be closer to the intended audience of the game."

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Gamer_Bill_of_Rights

So basically, don't review a game unless you're going to assume the perspective of other people (fans) and toe the party line.

Objective. Ethical. Games journalism.

 

[Something Amyss]

I gotta be honest, this sounds a lot like GamerGate's absurd "Gamer's Bill of Rights," which basically posits that only fans of the type of game being reviewed should be able to review the title in question. Or, more accurately, from #1 on the Bill: "If the act of reviewing a game causes you to write a page and a half decrying its content, maybe that game isn?t for you. Please consider passing that review off to a member of your team who might be better suited to evaluate the content, whose views may be closer to the intended audience of the game."

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Gamer_Bill_of_Rights

So basically, don't review a game unless you're going to assume the perspective of other people (fans) and toe the party line.

Objective. Ethical. Games journalism.

*twitch*

Did they...Did someone seriously just try and call THAT a "bill of rights?"

I have to go lie down. I...i think I'm done.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

I gotta be honest, this sounds a lot like GamerGate's absurd "Gamer's Bill of Rights," which basically posits that only fans of the type of game being reviewed should be able to review the title in question. Or, more accurately, from #1 on the Bill: "If the act of reviewing a game causes you to write a page and a half decrying its content, maybe that game isn?t for you. Please consider passing that review off to a member of your team who might be better suited to evaluate the content, whose views may be closer to the intended audience of the game."

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Gamer_Bill_of_Rights

So basically, don't review a game unless you're going to assume the perspective of other people (fans) and toe the party line.

Objective. Ethical. Games journalism.

*twitch*

Did they...Did someone seriously just try and call THAT a "bill of rights?"

I have to go lie down. I...i think I'm done.

Yeah, I needed a stiff drink after reading that. And I didn't even quote the best (worst) part:

"5. We will continue to stand up for Freedom of Expression, Artistic Vision and a free market to decide what it wants. We suggest fans of Gone Home review Gone Home ?and fans of God of War Review God of War. It is in this moment that professionalism engages, and a journalist demonstrates whether they are worthy of our trust."

So they stand for freedom of expression and free market principles....as long as someone likes Gone Home doesn't review a *real* game like God of War III. A reviewer is only worthy of the gamer's trust if they recognize that only fans of a game should be reviewing that game, and all other critics can go pound sand. Yay !

And the language...oh it's PRICELESS: "It is in this moment that professionalism engages..."

I honestly can't tell if they've been reading (plagiarizing?) too much literary crticism or not enough.

 

[hydrolythe]

Actually, video games based on Greece kind of suffer from lots of unfortunate implications, especially misogyny.

When did I say it didn't?

I only used this statement to point out that by not letting the time being portrayed accurately you can end up with lots of unfortunate implications, even more so than by doing research on the subject.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

I can understand that. And sorry you felt overwhelmed. I know how that can be. Hope it wasn't too much for you, and that you can feel better later and come back. For what it's worth, I had no idea that English wasn't your first language, as you seemed to grasp it just fine.

Thanks, it was nice discussing this with you, and you brought some new things up I hadn't considered (especially now that I've had some time to go through the posts again with a calm head).

Happy travels, and have a good day.

I just think that a reviewer shouldn't deduct from a review score because the game depicts events that actually happened, because we know today that they were wrong.

They shouldn't necessarily do so, but they should consider how the game depicts those things and why the writers chose to include them.

And sometimes the answer to that is going to mean that the product deserves a lower score (perhaps because it was lazy or exploitative and "teh historical" is not a defence against that accusation)

I though we left all that misogyny bollocks behind in the 1960s

One of the great challenges in every fight for equality, whether race, gender, gender identity, or whatever, is convincing the beneficiaries of inequality that the round of concessions grudgingly eked out by the last generation didn't actually solve the problem because the inequality still exists.

Fair enough. I agree with you, "teh historical" isn't a catch-all defence, and I apologize if I in any way have insinuated that it may have been.

As for the fight for equality. I guess the international platform doesn't help it either. Different countries are on different levels when it comes to gender-equality issues. I'm just lucky that I live in Denmark, where the latest gender-issue apparently is whether it's just as easy for men to get jobs as a kindergarden helper as it is for women (seems equal salary, equal rights, equal access to jobs in the military, and equal whatever is already done. I mean the proportion of women in the parliament is 39.1% or 70 out of the 179 seats, which is fairly good, if I may say so. Granted it's not 50/50 but it's better than the 20% in the US Senate, or the 18.6% in the House of Representatives, or the 19.1% in the US Congress).

I can't categorically say whether Denmark is more gender-equal than the US, but looking at the statistics, at least it seems like it. And for that, I think I'm lucky. Yeah sure I'm a caucasian "cis-male" (whatever that's supposed to mean) guy, but I really feel lucky to live in a society that at least tries to make all citizens equal.

I hope I didn't piss you off too much. I can be a bit stubborn.

I hope you have a nice day, and that wherever you may go you have fun.

 

[Netrigan]

I gotta be honest, this sounds a lot like GamerGate's absurd "Gamer's Bill of Rights," which basically posits that only fans of the type of game being reviewed should be able to review the title in question. Or, more accurately, from #1 on the Bill: "If the act of reviewing a game causes you to write a page and a half decrying its content, maybe that game isn?t for you. Please consider passing that review off to a member of your team who might be better suited to evaluate the content, whose views may be closer to the intended audience of the game."

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Gamer_Bill_of_Rights

So basically, don't review a game unless you're going to assume the perspective of other people (fans) and toe the party line.

Objective. Ethical. Games journalism.

*twitch*

Did they...Did someone seriously just try and call THAT a "bill of rights?"

I have to go lie down. I...i think I'm done.

Yeah, I needed a stiff drink after reading that. And I didn't even quote the best (worst) part:

"5. We will continue to stand up for Freedom of Expression, Artistic Vision and a free market to decide what it wants. We suggest fans of Gone Home review Gone Home ?and fans of God of War Review God of War. It is in this moment that professionalism engages, and a journalist demonstrates whether they are worthy of our trust."

So they stand for freedom of expression and free market principles....as long as someone likes Gone Home doesn't review a *real* game like God of War III. A reviewer is only worthy of the gamer's trust if they recognize that only fans of a game should be reviewing that game, and all other critics can go pound sand. Yay !

And the language...oh it's PRICELESS: "It is in this moment that professionalism engages..."

I honestly can't tell if they've been reading (plagiarizing?) too much literary crticism or not enough.

I'm not sure how to read that other than "Everyone Is Winner!!!" It's a system skewed toward positive reviews.

There's really not a lot of reviews written by people who are completely out of their element. Back when Susan Arendt was here, she usually got the Lego type games, because she enjoyed them. If you got a sports gamer, he does the sports games. Maybe it's fun to get the theater critic to review a KISS concert every now and then, but mostly they line up a reviewer with a game kind of in his wheel house (although there seems to be no wheel house for most movie tie-in games, the stuff most fobbed off on the new guy because no one wants to play them... ever).

And if they're not liking the game... you should hand it off to someone who might? I know we hired you to give your honest opinion, but if your honest opinion is negative, then would you kindly keep it to yourself if at all possible. Yes, I know you were a big GTA fan years ago, but you appear to have grown out of it and not liking GTA V is simply not an option... because of journalistic ethics. We have to protect consumers from your honest opinion of games, so they'll buy stuff they maybe won't like and keep devs in business... because journalistic ethics. Journalistic ethics are very important to us, so it's vitally important that you stick to these opinions, because other opinions violate journalistic ethics... because journalistic ethics.

By saying journalistic ethics so many times, I have proven that I care deeply about journalistic ethics, even if I clearly have no idea how they work... because journalistic ethics. I care about journalistic ethics. You do not say journalistic ethics nearly as often as I do, therefore you obviously care less about journalistic ethics... because journalistic ethics.

In summary, journalistic ethics.

 

[Shaitan051]

4:00
Ohhhhh that's what this is about. I didn't think you were a part of the problem, I didn't even consider the possibility . . .


. . . until this. Shouldn't you have put this out back on August 28th with the rest?

I'll admit this is a new tactic though.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Maybe they finally realized how absurd that "Bill of Rights" sounded because the file the page has been delete, with the following note: "This was one person's blog which should probably never have been made into an article."

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Gamer_Bill_of_Rights

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

This week's video was both a terrific walk down memory lane and a fantastic case study on why objective reviewing is a horrible idea.

 

[baconmaster]

All I want from a review is to know why you think it is good or bad. And if a reviewer thinks his/her political opinion on a game that mildly offends him/her carries more weight than gameplay, I simply won't read that person's reviews. I don't understand what's so hard about that for some people. There's a reason I mainly get professional reviews from 3 sources. Because I know they can give me accurate predictions of what I might like. There's plenty of reviews out there. I'm sure there's some that discuss what you want to know.

 

[runic knight]

Well, been arguing it in the other thread, might as well post the general idea here.

A review is something for the audience, in particular, the consumer seeking information about the product in hopes of being informed about if they want to buy it or not. If that interest wasn't there and if that motivation wasn't there, reviews wouldn't exist at all (then it would just be artistic critique).

Now because a review's purpose and intent it based on the consumer, they shouldn't end up as platforms for personal politics. This is because not everyone shares those politics and as such attempting to make the review about those politics does a disservice to everyone who doesn't share them. It is taking what should be something for the audience and instead making it about the reviewer. Or to put it another way, it is someone who's task and duty it is to give relevant information to the audience instead using the opportunity to take advantage of the people who came to listen for that in order to soapbox. Imagine asking your friend about if a car is worth buying and they start ranting about foreign versus domestic car politics and you have a general feel for why many people dislike that crap.

Now, because of this, people often say they want more objective reviews. After all, if it is objective, you don't have to put up with that trojan horse political preaching crap from the people you expect actual product reviews from (as you already know you can go to blogs and professional critique for that where that is the actual purpose of those places.) The problem is that isn't quite the right word. Yes, a review should certainly seek to be objective where it can. There are ways to help that, such as comparison between similar products in order to establish benchmarks that people may find relevant ("The graphics look better then the previous game", "The controls are tighter and more responsive then that other game"), as while even if still a subjective opinion, it is applying that opinion in a more controlled and relevant to the audience way. They also tend to review with mention to core components that define a game or that are critical for a game (graphics, story, game mechanics, controls, sound, etc). While, yet again, these are subjective opinions, they are done in a more controlled way so as to inform the public about the product rather than use the platform as a soapbox. Hell, one can even mention aspects of the game that are political or controversial just fine as that is useful inform for the audience to know when making a purchase and having mentions like "you probably wont like this game if you dislike gore" is relevant to customers same as "you probably wont like this game if you dislike grinding".

The problem is that while people say "objective" most tend to mean "unbiased". Many people want a more unbiased review (seeing objectivity as a means to obtain it) and don't want to listen to a personal political ideological purity test applied to the product. But I suppose trying to argue against unbiased reviews would be very silly. Or might result in the exact same reply, who knows.

 

[gridsleep]

Jim, have you been reading John Brunner's The Sheep Look Up?

 

[CaitSeith]

Yeah, I needed a stiff drink after reading that. And I didn't even quote the best (worst) part:

"5. We will continue to stand up for Freedom of Expression, Artistic Vision and a free market to decide what it wants. We suggest fans of Gone Home review Gone Home ?and fans of God of War Review God of War. It is in this moment that professionalism engages, and a journalist demonstrates whether they are worthy of our trust."

So they stand for freedom of expression and free market principles....as long as someone likes Gone Home doesn't review a *real* game like God of War III. A reviewer is only worthy of the gamer's trust if they recognize that only fans of a game should be reviewing that game, and all other critics can go pound sand. Yay !

And the language...oh it's PRICELESS: "It is in this moment that professionalism engages..."

I honestly can't tell if they've been reading (plagiarizing?) too much literary crticism or not enough.

"...and a journalist demonstrates whether they are worthy of our trust."

Yes, journalist, it's time for you to prove our trust. *aims a gun to the journalist* We trust you can dance...

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The problem is that while people say "objective" most tend to mean "unbiased". Many people want a more unbiased review (seeing objectivity as a means to obtain it) and don't want to listen to a personal political ideological purity test applied to the product. But I suppose trying to argue against unbiased reviews would be very silly. Or might result in the exact same reply, who knows.

Honestly, yeah. You're going to get the same arguments against "unbiased" reviews as you are "objective" ones, for the same reason. Everybody has bias, every piece of media is political, etc, etc.

That's the rub. People don't want "unbiased" reviews, they want reviews that share their biases. And that's not a bad thing. Bias is impossible to eliminate. Find reviewers that work for you and, more importantly, ignore reviewers that don't. I'm not gonna go to Yahtzee for a JRPG or fighting game review, and telling him to change or trying to get him fired would be daft.