Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[nightmare_gorilla]

The "objective review" thing is another point GG kinda totally lost me on. asking for people to not bring their personal pov into a review is silly. I believe in advocating for an "honest" review. like or don't like a game for whatever reason you feel like they're all legitimate even if people think it's dumb but just be honest about it. we're not stupid people there are lots and I mean LOTS of game reviewers out there if you consistently mark a game down based on a personal bias I disagree with guess what I can go watch someone else's reviews. the meta-critic argument and the studios losing money over this is entirely publisher created BS instead of saying "your bias review tanked their bonus." how about saying "don't make bonuses contingent on a bullshit aggregated review website."

 

[Tinybear]

And for those who didn't follow Jim on Destructoid, where he did reviews and general pieces before going purely on the escapist:

Jim wrote a review of FF XIII where he gave it 4/10. A barely passable game, which really isn't worth the time, but not bad enough that you'll deeply regret it either. Then came a shitstorm of final fantasy fanboys who demanded that he should write an "objective review" because his was so deeply biased (because he gave it a bad score...). He then basically flipped em off by giving a 100% objective review which, to all people who understood that he gave it a shit score because he felt it was a shit game, was friggin hilarious, and became one of his most beloved moments.

Him just reposting his old glory is a statement of protest and despair at the fact that people will pay tons of cash for the same fucking game over and over and over again. Defend the same lies over and over and over again. and so on.

 

[Cyberstrike_v1legacy]

(Oh and in case it wasn't abundantly clear: this comment is not to be taken serious.)

There is someone who won't get the joke.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Then we get to the story (and/or characters), and this is the minefield where the reviewer will be tempted to shove their agenda in, but you must hold back.

In your subjective opinion they should.

Well someone finally used the "it's all opinion so no one can be wrong" defense. I should have known it was coming.

Thank you for admitting you are 100% wrong about this subject. That's the only conclusion I can make from your response.

You think pacing is something that can be objectively measure. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting you are wrong.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Snip

....A scale? Either something is objective or it isn't. Either it's unaffected by bias or it isn't.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but this is simply not true. It's understandable that anything you write is affected by bias, but the degree at which the bias informs the opinion is NOT a static value.

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?

Yes, a professional reviewer is expected to separate their bias when it is of no value to informing their audience.

The real question is what do you think the difference is between a professional review and something that shows up in the metacritic user review section?

I think there is a difference.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Then we get to the story (and/or characters), and this is the minefield where the reviewer will be tempted to shove their agenda in, but you must hold back.

In your subjective opinion they should.

Well someone finally used the "it's all opinion so no one can be wrong" defense. I should have known it was coming.

Thank you for admitting you are 100% wrong about this subject. That's the only conclusion I can make from your response.

I'm not wrong. It's just your opinion I'm wrong.

You think pacing is something that can be objectively measure. You clearly don't know what you are talking about and you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting you are wrong.

In your opinion. See how dumb things get when you use that as your defense every time? See how the discussion shuts down? That's why it's dead end reasoning.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

....A scale? Either something is objective or it isn't. Either it's unaffected by bias or it isn't.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but this is simply not true. It's understandable that anything you write is affected by bias, but the degree at which the bias informs the opinion is NOT a static value.

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?

Yes, a professional reviewer is expected to separate their bias when it is of no value to informing their audience.

The real question is what do you think the difference is between a professional review and something that shows up in the metacritic user review section?

I think there is a difference.

And who, may I ask, is the one who gets to decide when it does or does not have value?

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.

There is no such thing as an objective review, but there are such things as professional reviews.

 

[TessaraVejgan]

I think what people want by saying to reviewers, do objective reviews is not "be a fucking robot" but simple honesty with out bringing some BS biases and agendas to the review like "oh I saw bellybutton on this girl 0/10, fuck this game" and shit like that. Just tell the good, the bad and the ugly and if you have issues with certain aspect of the game because I don't know your religion, sex, etc. its fine too mention it and explain why just don't be an ass over it and go overboard. Just in case you decide to do take a bribe to say positive things about a game please make sure to put a disclaimer on top before the main text and all will be fine . Oh and on the subject of FFXIII, I think the game itself is average but the recent pc port is abysmal.

 

[Sylocat]

The issue is that games reviewers have an audience. They have an audience because that audience wants to read/watch/listen to their reviews. The audience wants to do that because they feel that the review is giving them information and opinions on portions of the game that they're interested in. And when a reviewer changes his/her reviewing style and spends big parts of the review talking about things that his/her audience isn't interested in you get some backlash because you're not serving those customers of yours anymore. In a perfect world you'd just get less traffic because of this but this isn't a perfect world so people are going to let you know that you gave them your opinion on things that they were not interested in.

I don't want some "100% objective" straw review. I want reviewers on big consumer oriented gaming sites to understand that they're there because of those consumers and those consumers (or the huge majority of them) are looking for consumer oriented information and critique on some specific game.

And it would never occur to you that maybe there's an audience out there for articles that look at these types of issues in games? Maybe there's an audience who is interested in portions of the game that you are not interested in?

That middle ground is when you realize who your audience is, do your best to inform them as consumers, are capable of separating your own political views from your review when needed/wanted and also capable of including them when needed/wanted, you're capable of understanding that different sites, audiences and mediums will demand a different type of review with different types of information etc. For example on a PC oriented, no politics allowed forum you probably shouldn't write a review about the PS4 version and go in-depth about how that game offends you as a republican. Similarly on an agenda driven site that has an audience that cares more about story, characters etc. than tech specs you should probably not write a PC performance review with tons of benchmarks, graphical settings analysis and next to no character/story analysis. Both of those are bad reviews because they don't fit their audience.

And yet this same subset of gamers are attacking the very existence of sites where different audiences besides them are written for. They are demanding that Polygon and Kotaku change their own orientations to suit them, rather than just going to one of the umpteen sites that has what they're looking for.

Gee, it's almost like what they really want to do is stifle other opinions besides their own.

Jumping back to the "objective review" and the backlash against political / agenda driven content. Another issue here is review scores. All would be well if we lived in a perfect would where review scores existed in a vacuum and didn't directly affect the livelihood of devs. If scores didn't exist, metacritic wouldn't exist and no dev would have their bonuses or future of their studio depending on what score they get on metacritic. And at this point it would be perfectly fine to have reviews that go on an on about politics, moral issues, religious issues, etc. because those would just be sections of reviews. But the situation we have right now is that those issues affect the score, and the score affects the overall score on metacritic. Which means that we're in a situation where a game offending say polygon and kotaku reviewers because it dared to include boobs can mean the meta score gets dropped by some points (maybe 5-10%), the developers don't get their bonus, a sequel isn't made and layoffs will have to happen. All that while it's entirely likely that 99% of the people that were considering buying the game did not in any way care about the issues that polygon and kotaku did.

Yeah, I kinda don't think the solution to this problem is to blame Polygon and Kotaku for a system that corrupt publishers instigated and are holding over the heads of Metacritic's reviewers to try and blackmail them into good reviews (please tell me you don't seriously think that publishers have any other reason for doing it this way, besides blackmailing well-meaning game review sites, and trumping up excuses to not pay their employees for the work they did).

 

[xorinite]

I can't help but feel you are missing the point with an uncharitably literal interpretation.

Sure some people may not have a particularly great grasp of English and ask for an objective review when if taken a little more charitably than the obvious oxymoron, I would presume they are asking for a fact-based review.
This would entail starting with a base of facts and explaining your feelings about those facts.

Ultimately what I want in a game review is not to know if you liked it, but to know if I will like it. You will have some trouble delivering on this since you don't know me from Sam.

Therefore the best I think is reasonable to achieve is to provide me with information, facts, analogy, and comparisons.
Your opinion has some importance too provided I understand enough about you to judge if your opinion is similar to my own. If you tell me you don't like something, tell me why, explain the reasons so I can draw my own judgement on your reasoning.

If you dislike a particular part of a game because you hate the art style and you tell me that, I can reflect on my own feelings about this art style and decide if I feel the same way or not.

 

[sataricon]

Ok i'm not going to shit all over Jim here because i still want to think that his heart is on the right place but Jim my friend "if that doesn't offend you"....You are being childish here.
Passive aggressive in which i say it wasn't done very will.

And the idea of an't reach perfection so fuck the whole concept is stupid....but hey what ever float you boat man.

Now again Jim is a good guy over all and i enjoy your work but please do something better with your time rather than throwing tantrums.

 

[Aikayai]

"Some people become so full of shit that they become ass holes themselves" - Gary, Team America World Police

Preach to the people not full of shit Jim, we want your opinions and we respect your opinions, regardless of if we agree with them or not. I think the rest are a lost cause.

 

[Thanatos2k]

And who, may I ask, is the one who gets to decide when it does or does not have value?

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.

There is no such thing as an objective review, but there are such things as professional reviews.

But a bias cannot really be backed up by evidence because it's just your own personal likes/dislikes. "There is no accounting for taste" after all, so it's pointless to try. It all boils down to "Is this issue an issue just for me, or the audience that will be reading this review?"

Sometimes you know it will be. Then you explain why it's a problem.
Sometimes you know it won't be. Then you don't mention it, or note it but mention how it's not really a problem. And then you don't dock points for it.
Sometimes you honestly don't know. You'd label something as such (this was a problem for me but might not be for you).

What you don't do is when you know it won't be an issue for the audience (like, say, it's an accepted facet of the genre, or a central point of the game and why people are drawn to it/the series in the first place) and make it sound like it's a big issue, that there's something wrong with players who don't think it's an issue, and put disproportionate weight of your score on it.

And it would never occur to you that maybe there's an audience out there for articles that look at these types of issues in games? Maybe there's an audience who is interested in portions of the game that you are not interested in?

There is for sure. So write an article about it and label it an op-ed piece - keep it out of your review.

 

[Small Moon Rabbit]

And for those who didn't follow Jim on Destructoid, where he did reviews and general pieces before going purely on the escapist:

Jim wrote a review of FF XIII where he gave it 4/10. A barely passable game, which really isn't worth the time, but not bad enough that you'll deeply regret it either. Then came a shitstorm of final fantasy fanboys who demanded that he should write an "objective review" because his was so deeply biased (because he gave it a bad score...). He then basically flipped em off by giving a 100% objective review which, to all people who understood that he gave it a shit score because he felt it was a shit game, was friggin hilarious, and became one of his most beloved moments.

Him just reposting his old glory is a statement of protest and despair at the fact that people will pay tons of cash for the same fucking game over and over and over again. Defend the same lies over and over and over again. and so on.

Thank you for writing this. I had no idea this was something Jim had to deal with a few years ago. Without context the video does come across as kind of spiteful.

I would personally prefer a little less hand-ringing in my game reviews and in games media in general, but I realise that 100% objectivity is not realistic and would most probably be kind of boring. I could live with a little less judging, a little more positivity in Op Eds and a lot more tolerance for peoples tastes, whether its for shooters or art games.

 

[DirgeNovak]

Snip

....A scale? Either something is objective or it isn't. Either it's unaffected by bias or it isn't.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but this is simply not true. It's understandable that anything you write is affected by bias, but the degree at which the bias informs the opinion is NOT a static value.

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?

Yes, a professional reviewer is expected to separate their bias when it is of no value to informing their audience.

"Their" being the operative word here. If you don't share a reviewer's opinion and "teh bias", you are not part of their audience and you're free to go read someone you know you generally agree with. When you read enough of someone's reviews you get to know their tastes and how they compare to yours, and you can judge whether or not you'll enjoy the game. That's how you're supposed to use reviews. Demanding objectivity and impartiality from reviewers defeats the purpose of reviews. It's your job as a reader to find reviewers you share tastes with.

Someone who finds oversexualization gross will find Polygon's reviews of Dragon's Crown and Bayonetta 2 very useful, and someone who doesn't care about it can read literally any other review that doesn't dock those games for their gross character designs.

 

[Erttheking]

And who, may I ask, is the one who gets to decide when it does or does not have value?

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.

There is no such thing as an objective review, but there are such things as professional reviews.

But a bias cannot really be backed up by evidence because it's just your own personal likes/dislikes. "There is no accounting for taste" after all, so it's pointless to try. It all boils down to "Is this issue an issue just for me, or the audience that will be reading this review?"

Sometimes you know it will be. Then you explain why it's a problem.
Sometimes you know it won't be. Then you don't mention it, or note it but mention how it's not really a problem. And then you don't dock points for it.
Sometimes you honestly don't know. You'd label something as such (this was a problem for me but might not be for you).

What you don't do is when you know it won't be an issue for the audience (like, say, it's an accepted facet of the genre, or a central point of the game and why people are drawn to it/the series in the first place) and make it sound like it's a big issue, that there's something wrong with players who don't think it's an issue, and put disproportionate weight of your score on it.

And it would never occur to you that maybe there's an audience out there for articles that look at these types of issues in games? Maybe there's an audience who is interested in portions of the game that you are not interested in?

There is for sure. So write an article about it and label it an op-ed piece - keep it out of your review.

If it's "just an issue for me" then that's assuming that no one in the entire world would share the reviewer's opinion. Something I find questionable to say the least.

Accepted part of the genre? I have to say again. Who gets to decide whether it's an accepted part of the genre? Are you saying genre's have parts that have never come under any kind of criticism? Really the crux of your argument just seems to be that reviewers should just try and appeal to the majority, tell them what they want to hear.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Snip

....A scale? Either something is objective or it isn't. Either it's unaffected by bias or it isn't.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but this is simply not true. It's understandable that anything you write is affected by bias, but the degree at which the bias informs the opinion is NOT a static value.

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?

Yes, a professional reviewer is expected to separate their bias when it is of no value to informing their audience.

"Their" being the operative word here. If you don't share a reviewer's opinion and "teh bias", you are not part of their audience and you're free to go read someone you know you generally agree with. When you read enough of someone's reviews you get to know their tastes and how they compare to yours, and you can judge whether or not you'll enjoy the game. That's how you're supposed to use reviews. Demanding objectivity and impartiality from reviewers defeats the purpose of reviews. It's your job as a reader to find reviewers you share tastes with.

Someone who finds oversexualization gross will find Polygon's reviews of Dragon's Crown and Bayonetta 2 very useful, and someone who doesn't care about it can read literally any other review that doesn't dock those games for their gross character designs.

A reviewer who submits their reviews to metacritic has every single gamer as their audience. If you don't want that to be the case, don't submit to metacritic. Many publications, in fact, do not. One famous example is a christian gaming site who grades games based on christian values. They know enough not to shove their bias in front of everyone. If only other such "professional" outlets would do the same. Kotaku, worthless though they are in many ways, doesn't put scores, and thus doesn't submit to metacritic. One of the few reputable things they've ever done.

 

[hermes]

The real kicker here is to identify if something you're complaining about in the story or characters is likely to be shared by your audience, or if it's a PERSONAL ISSUE.

That would be quite pointless. Once we got to agree that reviews are opinions, everything is personal.
Besides, you are arguing that Jim should adapt his opinion and writing to the collective tastes of his audience (comprised of thousands, if not millions, of people). I would argue that this is not only impractical, but downright impossible. Most of them are total strangers to him, and he has no way to know their opinions other than engaging in the (arguably) pointless exercise of engage in the comments.

I will give you an alternative. Instead of asking for someone to write equally to thousands of people (or, more specifically, to your parameters of what those thousands are waiting to read), why don't you try to read to see if his writings align with your taste? After all, there are several dozens reviewers out there (possibly hundreds, thanks to youtube and similar venues), and through their writings, podcasts, editorials, videos, etc, it should be possible to see whether they are agreeable to you or not... If Jim is not aligned with your tastes and sensibilities (god knows I have disagreed with him more often than not), there is always the chance another venue has people whose reviews are closer to what you expect are valid complains or not.

 

[Ipsen]

Why are AAA companies seen as poison for not wanting to change the status quo, but when it comes to journalism we can't have anything but the status quo?!

Because the (ideal) status quo in journalism would be the expression of the journalist. You can take the reviewer or leave the reviewer from there; both are valid responses, and it more properly forms the journalists' audience.

I'd go as far to say that the reported subject, whether it be news, movies or video games, is just a flimsy pretext (hyperbole here; more like a frame for purpose) for the journalist to say his or her piece.

But it has to be at least slanted towards this, and not 'objective reviews' because a journalist's expression is where the interest and attraction lies. Objectivity sheds any detail to get to the most universal truths on a game, even to the point

And to pick apart another post...

We want at least an acknowledgement that you think of your position at the escapist and any other publication you might work for in the future as a ***JOB***, and not a sandbox that you can play with your like-minded friends all day and night while getting paid.

Funny that you put more detail into what isn't, rather than the '***JOB***' itself.

But in any case, it's Jim's ***JOB*** to create interest within that sandbox. You'd be elsewhere if he had not managed this.

Yes you are getting paid, With actual money. For disseminating information to people who come to trust you. I understand that the mere thought of this is a threat to your wonderland occupation, but you have a responsibility and an obligation to review games, in part, with the thought that the game you're reviewing may not *gasp* be intended for you, but for an entirely different target demographic, and that you have to take the preferences of those people into account.

Also funnily fallacious, because neither you nor I directly pay Jim Sterling, so he doesn't get this message as you're describing it. As I take it, the Escapist pays Jim, and they do so to incentivise him to do what he does, because that just so happens to garner a lot of interest.

And perhaps you need to check your trust mechanics checked. The minute I find that Jim isn't portraying a person I like, I stop following his stuff, period. This is the extent of loyalty that you and I NEED to have with a journalist's creative work, because this trust is only predicated on how much you like the person involved. This also doesn't shackle the reviewer with explicit 'responsibilities' or 'obligation', both highly potential to stifle what people DO like about the person involved.

***YES** you HAVE to do this because you're not just some blogger or youtuber waxing off about the firt thing that comes through their mind. You are a handsomely paid professional who has to set aside his own enjoyment, at least a little bit, and think about your readers.

Like it or not you have a responsibility to step out of your fun-times sandbox and do your job properly. You don't always have to be objective, you just have to TRY. That alone would be enough.

And here's you putting Jim on a pedestal that he doesn't need to be, and probably isn't on. At core, Jim IS some blogger or youtuber; if he's not, then what is he to the genre of his work? Probably either unknown, or just where you're putting him; raised on pedestal, and thus more dangerous to fair discourse. This hearkens back to the publisher control comments Jim made fencing his own video!

And I get that feeling, that you want more responsibility out of journalists. But the most benevolent I can consider this feeling, given what a journalist does, is blind loyalty. And it's not just you that's blinded, it's Jim that's blinded by an inaccurate audience. For all your (unconvincing) dissent, you still end up paying Jim with your clicks.

I have to say that the sarcastic/humorous style of Jimquisition makes it difficult to really address this issue. A mockery of an objective review does not actually prove that one cannot be viably made.

This is a bit insulting to journalists however, seeing that it assumes that journalists haven't already honestly attempted objective reviews (in an interesting manner).

 

[DirgeNovak]

Snip

....A scale? Either something is objective or it isn't. Either it's unaffected by bias or it isn't.

I don't know how to say this any clearer, but this is simply not true. It's understandable that anything you write is affected by bias, but the degree at which the bias informs the opinion is NOT a static value.

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?

Yes, a professional reviewer is expected to separate their bias when it is of no value to informing their audience.

"Their" being the operative word here. If you don't share a reviewer's opinion and "teh bias", you are not part of their audience and you're free to go read someone you know you generally agree with. When you read enough of someone's reviews you get to know their tastes and how they compare to yours, and you can judge whether or not you'll enjoy the game. That's how you're supposed to use reviews. Demanding objectivity and impartiality from reviewers defeats the purpose of reviews. It's your job as a reader to find reviewers you share tastes with.

Someone who finds oversexualization gross will find Polygon's reviews of Dragon's Crown and Bayonetta 2 very useful, and someone who doesn't care about it can read literally any other review that doesn't dock those games for their gross character designs.

A reviewer who submits their reviews to metacritic has every single gamer as their audience. If you don't want that to be the case, don't submit to metacritic. Many publications, in fact, do not. One famous example is a christian gaming site who grades games based on christian values. They know enough not to shove their bias in front of everyone. If only other such "professional" outlets would do the same. Kotaku, worthless though they are in many ways, doesn't put scores, and thus doesn't submit to metacritic. One of the few reputable things they've ever done.

B-b-b-but Metacritic! Waaah!

Metacritic is a TOOL. You go there to have a plurality of viewpoints on a game. What's it to you if some of these viewpoints disagree with you? Do you lose a finger every time a game you like has a Metascore under 90? Does your dick shrink when a critically acclaimed game you like gets one single yellow score on Metacritic? What?