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.Thanatos2k said: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?"erttheking said: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.
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.
There is for sure. So write an article about it and label it an op-ed piece - keep it out of your review.Sylocat said: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?
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.