Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[wulf3n]

Uhhh, so I thought that objective review was actually quite good, sans the snark.

Maybe I'm just weird but I don't go to reviews to know whether or not a reviewer "liked" the game, I go there to find out about the game to determine myself if it's worth buying, Subjectivity tends to get in the way of that.


Now I'm not saying all reviews should be like that, I love Zero Punctuation and that's the epitome of a subjective review, though it would be nice to have more objective review options available.

 

[Kwame Digital]

Because you cannot make an interesting review without inserting your political/social agenda. Weird we need to tell Yahtzee this since he does that all the time.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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 you dick shrink when a critically acclaimed game you like gets one single yellow score on Metacritic? What?

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

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.

Again, I already addressed how to do this above. And can people stop representing my argument as reviewers MUST 100% DIVORCE ALL OPINION from a review? I simply ask that they TRY as much as possible. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[Lightspeaker]

I fear the point has been missed with a major strawman here. No, games reviews are not completely objective and CANNOT be fully objective. But that does not exclude a measure of journalistic objectivity being injected into the review.

I'm not a professional games reviewer, so my writing is likely to be poor from sheer lack of practice at this. However compare and contrast my attempt at two mini-reviews of FF13's battle system:

Following on from the changes to the battle system made from FF10 to FF12, FF13 mixes it up further. In a controversial move the player can now only control one party member in battle, with the other characters choosing their own actions as a result of the class they have been set via the new "Paradigm" system. This system allows you to change your team setup on the fly; for example allowing you to change from an aggressive stance of two damage-dealing mages (Ravager) and a physical attacker (Commando) to a defensive stance including two healers (Medic) and a guarding "tank" (Sentinel).

However this system is the only way you can influence the behaviour of your companions and you have to trust in the system to do the rest, a marked contrast for the complete control you had over your party in past games. This is something which devotees of the series might find unsettling and, indeed, some may find frustrating due to your options being limited to one character. On the other hand the faster paced gameplay, which is the trade off for this system, combined with the clear combat roles (obviously modelled after traditional MMO roles) may well appeal to newcomers. In addition there is the option to "auto-battle", which allows your own character to also carry out actions according to AI decisions; on the one hand this allows for tedious battles against easy enemies to be over with quickly, on the other it further removes the need for the player to make conscious tactical decisions in battle. In many cases I found myself just hammering the auto-battle button over and over every turn to get through fights, which somewhat harmed the interactivity of it as a game.

Perhaps the greatest criticism which can be leveled at this system, however, is how hard the game pins you to the lead character; to the extent that if the lead character (that is to say the one you control) is killed you immediately get a game over screen. No Phoenix Downs from allies or revive spells. You just lose. However if an NPC party memeber drops you can freely revive them. This jarring contrast between the player character and NPC allies is disconcerting, especially given that later in the game you can choose to play as any character, and can lead to some extremely frustrating moments. This is disappointing given that a simple solution would have been to allow the player to take control of one of the other party members at this point; but that this option was not offered.

FF13's battle system shows that the series has finally jumped the shark. The insane decision to have the player control only one character is completely at odds with previous games in the series which have typically required full player interaction or at least (in the case of FF12) had it as an option. Not so here. You are stuck with up to two AI controlled party members acting out a limited range of actions according to the roles you specify in the "Paradigm" system; a system with roles blatantly copied from every MMO in existence and clearly designed to appeal to that crowd rather than the traditional FF audience.

The complete lack of control of your character is absurd and you have to simply trust the AI to make the right decision after setting a role. To make matters worse you don't even have to play the game yourself. An auto-battle option exists which means not only can you not control 2/3s of your party but you don't even need to control the character you're supposed to be playing! You can just keep hammering over and over on that button and win most of your battles if you are strong enough.

The very worst thing is that you are completely tied into your main character. If it dies, you straight up lose the game. And the absurd part is that if your NPC controlled party members die, they can be revived by Phoenix Downs! This has NEVER been a feature in Final Fantasy games and is completely at odds with how the game has played in the past. It is an absolute joke that this system was put in place and I'm disgusted that you can't simply use another party member if your main one drops.

For full disclosure here - I kinda liked FF13 but I really hated its battle system. And actually I think I was quite kind in that second one.

My point? Yes, my writing is terrible; but my other point? Tone matters. As does detail, explanation and elaboration of the impact on the game. Liking or not liking something and having an opinion on it is to be expected. But reviewers should be seeking to inject a level of objectivity into their reviews which allows people to see not only WHAT the reviewer thought but also WHY they thought that and HOW it effects the game. It is also important to play devil's advocate on some of your points to provide counterpoints and explain why the developer might have done what you don't like. This greatly benefits the consumer.

You can even do this with sexism that everyone seems to get over-excited about these days:
"Kratos can have sex with two women just because he can and that's sexist"
Compare with:
"Kratos has the option to have sex with two women in a scene which may be intended to emphasise his brutish character, but the scene simply comes off as crass and a cheap attempt to appeal to the audience's base instincts which some are likely to find offensive"


All opinion and no substance or justification or explanation of the impact on the game itself gets us nowhere. You don't have to cut out your opinion, but a review should include more than just that bare minimum to be truly helpful.

 

[linforcer]

Best Jimquisition yet. Same thing next week, please.

 

[Bruce]

Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.

Nope. Sorry, that is still subjective - based on your choice of who to put in what column. Further, you are still expressing their subjective views.

 

[Deadcyde]

So reviews can't have constructive criticism without personal bias?

Yeah okay Jim. You know exactly that GGers wanted reviews not pushing a personal bias when it had no bearing on the game, yet you chose to insult them and straw man the objective review or impartial review.

So there you have it, you'd rather insult your audience rather then understand their concerns. Treating them like children that have no idea what they want rather then meet them half way. Final straw for me.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

I'm sorry Jim, but I have to disagree with you here.

This isn't the way to review games (and to hell with majority. The majority of US citizens might think that the world is 6000 years old, but that doesn't make that true either).

Now I'm not gonna tell you how to review games (you do it professionally, I just play the games), however, I do still think that most reviews could still benefit from playing the devils advocate at every point.

Point is, to play the devils advocate I'm fairly certain that you actually have to wear your personal biases and opinions on your sleeve (like WoW styled combat. Some like it because it adds a strategic element. Now if I were to review WoW I'd mention that while I thought the combat-mechanic felt too disconnected, I could see why other people would like a more detached, more strategic mechanic).

Anyways, that's just my personal opinion of how you could make an "objective" review.

That would still be subjective. A review by its very nature is subjective.



adjective: subjective

1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

adjective: objective

1.(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

[DirgeNovak]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

But they ARE worth reading and DO help consumers with purchasing decisions. They just don't help you. You do realize the world doesn't revolve around your navel, right? That people with different backgrounds and opinions might like to hear about that kind of stuff before making a decision?
And putting your reviews on Metacritic doesn't mean you think your review is for everyone, for the same reason that reverse mortgage companies putting their ads on TV doesn't mean their target audience is everyone that watches. Some people will be interested, others won't. Welcome to the world of mass media.

 

[Howling Din]

You could have done the Wikipedia article instead.

 

[Aurion]

Not exactly Jim's best work.

Unfortunately, there's only so long you can stretch out a gimmick before it completely collapses. That's leaving aside that it's pretty much just an exercise in tryhard look-at-me-I'm-so-witty-I'm-scoring-a-rhetorical-point pedantry to begin with.

 

[Thanatos2k]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

But they ARE worth reading and DO help consumers with purchasing decisions. They just don't help you. You do realize the world doesn't revolve around your navel, right? That people with different backgrounds and opinions might like to hear about that kind of stuff before making a decision?
And putting your reviews on Metacritic doesn't mean you think your review is for everyone, for the same reason that reverse mortgage companies putting their ads on TV doesn't mean their target audience is everyone that watches. Some people will be interested, others won't. Welcome to the world of mass media.

Given the outcry of late it seems clear they aren't helping a whole lot of people besides me. Also please stop trying to insult me in a roundabout way.

 

[proghead]

Objective doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be informative.

For instance you could've said that most maps in ff13 are lines with little to no junctions.
You could've said that the game expects you to read the codec textlogs to comprehend the story.
You could've said that the tutorial lasts around 16 hours and that your levels are capped as the game drip feeds them to you.
Those are all facts and you're only being subjective if you add a "and I (don't) like it".

You're missing the point on purpose and that just makes you look like a bufoon.

Yeah. He obviously wasn't even trying. I actually think that the reviews at http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/ aren't really bad, even though clearly tongue-in-cheek.

Either way, I'll take a more descriptive and technical review over an opinion-piece most of the days. I like thinking for myself.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I'm sorry Jim, but I have to disagree with you here.

This isn't the way to review games (and to hell with majority. The majority of US citizens might think that the world is 6000 years old, but that doesn't make that true either).

Now I'm not gonna tell you how to review games (you do it professionally, I just play the games), however, I do still think that most reviews could still benefit from playing the devils advocate at every point.

Point is, to play the devils advocate I'm fairly certain that you actually have to wear your personal biases and opinions on your sleeve (like WoW styled combat. Some like it because it adds a strategic element. Now if I were to review WoW I'd mention that while I thought the combat-mechanic felt too disconnected, I could see why other people would like a more detached, more strategic mechanic).

Anyways, that's just my personal opinion of how you could make an "objective" review.

That would still be subjective. A review by its very nature is subjective.



adjective: subjective

1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

adjective: objective

1.(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Aight.

Then have a wacking great DISCLAIMER sign at the top saying something like.

THIS REVIEW IS BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE OPINION OF THE REVIEWER

That should do it.

 

[hermes]

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.

Again, I already addressed how to do this above. And can people stop representing my argument as reviewers MUST 100% DIVORCE ALL OPINION from a review? I simply ask that they TRY as much as possible. Is that really too much to ask?

No, you didn't. You just said that, because they post to metacritic, they should consider the entirely of Internet as their potential audience, and because of that, they have to cater to their entire audience at the same time... all of it: The mothers that play angry birds while cooking, the frat boys that play madden all night long, the little girls that play sims, you, me and everything in between.

I already told you that is impossible, unless he does the kind of remarks he does on this video: objective, literal, factual, matter-of-factly, neutral statements; and what good is that? Sure, it was accurate, but how is any of it informative? So, instead of taking the passive attitude of disagreeing with him and expecting him to change his opinions because... reasons; I invite you to take a more active role and go find people closer to your own opinion. You don't have to base your purchase decisions of Jim exclusively, there are hundreds other venues out there...

And another thing, Metacritic is an aggregation of opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Reviewers (and users) feed their opinions into metacritic, not the other way around. The people listed in metacritic don't agree to any sort of contract to reach a verdict on any subject (the verdict is reached through a flawed mathematical formula). That is the reason why, many times, opinions on the same subject are varied... To expect people that appear in metacritic to tacitly agree on a consensus Because they are in metacritic is like asking everyone that appears in google under "who would win in a fight, Superman or Goku?" to reach an agreement, because otherwise those that search the question won't discover the answer...

 

[Lightknight]

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."

That's one of those grey area points. It isn't a major component of the movement but some do want it. I personally consider that ridiculous and it sounds like a far larger number of us mirror the opinion that reviews are going to be subjective to a large degree.

The big central tenet regarding objectivity is about the news articles. Fair and balanced reporting with at least an attempt to get both sides address where pertinent.

But reviews? Those are overt opinion pieces. The only thing that isn't subjective are things like technical issues and such.

Now, there are some ways that the subjectivity could take a negative turn. For example, if they're friends with the developers then we'd expect a disclosure on the relationship. Also, reviewing games in an attempt to further some kind of agenda would likely be poorly received by the GG community but that's a rare occurrence. They basically want games reviewed on their own merits and not elsewhere except in extreme scenarios (for example, a game about columbine that was superbly designed may be fun to play somehow... but come on... the context of what it pertains to just can't be overlooked, you know?). For example, marking down a game because the main character is sexualized may be considered a political move rather than a review of the game. Like marking down a game because it allows you to kill animals in it. So a degree of objectivity would be important or an all-out recusal would be nice for titles you have a strong bias against.

Jim has got to be one of the best reviewers in the business.

 

[Bruce]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

But they ARE worth reading and DO help consumers with purchasing decisions. They just don't help you. You do realize the world doesn't revolve around your navel, right? That people with different backgrounds and opinions might like to hear about that kind of stuff before making a decision?
And putting your reviews on Metacritic doesn't mean you think your review is for everyone, for the same reason that reverse mortgage companies putting their ads on TV doesn't mean their target audience is everyone that watches. Some people will be interested, others won't. Welcome to the world of mass media.

I am also going to add something here: Since when was giving a fuck about the financial wellbeing of the developer or publisher even vaguely ethical in any form of journalism ever?

But I forget, Gamergaters come from a mystical world where reviewers exist to ensure developers get a nice fat bonus at the end of the development cycle, even if their games are full of stereotypes that would make a Victorian era sex slaver shout "That's racist/sexist."

 

[Stilkon]

Found this episode to be particularly funny. Thank God for Jim. I also find the term "objective review" to be oxymoronic, given that the whole point of a review is to provide an opinion.

As many people have already been pointing out, a review may bring the author's biases into their thought process, subtly changing the content of their writing. But the experience of playing the game can differ between people as well, reflecting on whether or not they like the game.

Example: Suppose in a game that there's a scripted sequence in an early level teaching the player how to fight a certain enemy. The player needs to be facing the right way in order to see this, otherwise they may have difficulty fighting these grunts later on. Now suppose that two reviewers are playing the game, but only one of them is facing the right way in order to see the sequence. These two reviewers are going to have very different experiences playing the game: one is going to understand how to fight the enemies immediately, while the other is going to experience much more frustration trying to figure it out. You can sure as hell bet that's going to be mentioned in their reviews.

Even if we managed to divorce reviews from outside contexts, we can't account for how a person experiences a game with 100% certainty. Hence, the idea of a totally objective account of a game is impossible.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

A reviewer who submits their reviews to metacritic has every single gamer as their audience.

Nope.

This is simply not true. Metacritic uses averages, because they know no one critic will be accurate for every single gamer. If every critic was accurate for every single gamer, then there would be no need to sites like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Good Reads, etc. If you are right, then you would only need one review from one "professional" critic.

They know enough not to shove their bias in front of everyone.

Again, your definition of "shove their bias" seems to be, "Says something political I don't agree with."

I will point you to the example with How to Train Your Dragon 2 I gave that you completely ignored the first time. What you are calling "shove their bias" another person would call "important information needed to make a judgment about the game, movie, book, etc."

 

[Risingblade]

Well that review was as bloated as...jim .-.