Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Jim played some person's game on Youtube. He didn't like it because it was kind of bad, so he said so. It wasn't a review, it was just him playing the game for the first time.Rellik San said:
The Dev saw it, got mad, and made a reaction review of the review where he spent most of his time calling Jim dumb, or "JIM FUCKING STERLING"!
Then Jim mad a reaction where he watched the review of his "review", and mostly just laughed.
Plus all the things Jim mentioned in this video.
It's really not impossible. Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:C.S.Strowbridge said:
The battle system is similar to that of this other game. *Shows reasons why they're similar* *Shows ways they're different* *Suggests which one works better or not, gives detailed reasons why. (SUBJECTIVITY ALERT!)* *Does this for several other games* Note that these reasons will never consist of political ideology.
The reason this works is because very little of this is the reviewer telling me what they think is good or not, they use my own notions of what is good or not to guide me. This is valuable to me. Saying Tactics Ogre plays similarly to Final Fantasy Tactics and showing why is extremely valuable information to me, because I like Final Fantasy Tactics, so it's pretty obvious I'd like Tactics Ogre. If I didn't, I similarly would not like Tactics Ogre. You can even throw in whether you think Tactics Ogre plays better than FFT or not, and tell me why. If you're going to suggest that the game sucks because SRPGs are boring (PERSONAL AGENDA ALERT!), then you're the wrong reviewer for the job.
Can't there be a middle ground? Somewhere between Jim's 'exaggerated dry, emotionless apparently 100% objective review', and the 'I'm having a relationship with a writer of this game, my boss has a financial stake in its success and three of my colleagues do voices for characters!' Kotaku/Polygon type reviews?
Or is that just too hard? Is game journalism simply, for lack of a better term, too inbred? Everyone has fucked everyone else, everyone is besties and/or roommates with everyone else. Everything is a favor to someone.
I get what Jim is saying, I really do. Everyone has bias, that's why they're internet personalities rather than internet voices, but come on Jim! Do an episode on the reverse! Do an episode where you gleefully praise an upcoming game and never disclose you're getting a kickback from its sales. Do a crossover review with, I dunno, MovieBob or Lisa Foiles and never mention that person wrote the game!
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?!
Or is that just too hard? Is game journalism simply, for lack of a better term, too inbred? Everyone has fucked everyone else, everyone is besties and/or roommates with everyone else. Everything is a favor to someone.
I get what Jim is saying, I really do. Everyone has bias, that's why they're internet personalities rather than internet voices, but come on Jim! Do an episode on the reverse! Do an episode where you gleefully praise an upcoming game and never disclose you're getting a kickback from its sales. Do a crossover review with, I dunno, MovieBob or Lisa Foiles and never mention that person wrote the game!
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?!
No one wants a 100% objective review, other than the couple of imbeciles who spam AAA game review comment sections foaming at the mouth, the ones that the media is trying to portray as the "every gamer". The folly of these people is that they have too much sugar in their system and they don't know what words mean, like "objective". "100" and "percent".
Jim, these are not the people you have to worry about. They will eventually choke on their own spit or accidentally hang themselves while trying to tie heir own shoe laces. The very large demographic that you and other journalists need to satisfy are us, the pissed off gamers. And don't worry, we don't want complete objectivity from you or anyone else. 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. 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. ***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.
Jim, these are not the people you have to worry about. They will eventually choke on their own spit or accidentally hang themselves while trying to tie heir own shoe laces. The very large demographic that you and other journalists need to satisfy are us, the pissed off gamers. And don't worry, we don't want complete objectivity from you or anyone else. 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. 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. ***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.
Well it's a good thing fucking NOBODY was asking for 100% objectivity then isn't it? Come to think of it, isn't there a word for countering an argument that isn't actually being made?
My god Jim, you're not stupid. You know full well this isn't what people are asking for. Videos like this do not achieve anything except make you look petty.
My god Jim, you're not stupid. You know full well this isn't what people are asking for. Videos like this do not achieve anything except make you look petty.
Actually even this is arguably not objective since when listing facts about the game would require a decision of which facts about the game are important and worth mentioning. The concept of what is and is not importance is very subjective.
I think this was an anvil that needed dropping. The idea of "objectivity" when talking about entertainment is really silly. We consume entertainment because of the way it makes us feel and that's the important thing.
A review that is informative and tries to explain why it is that something is good/bad is all that you need. A review that is critical enough to be self-aware.
I think this was an anvil that needed dropping. The idea of "objectivity" when talking about entertainment is really silly. We consume entertainment because of the way it makes us feel and that's the important thing.
A review that is informative and tries to explain why it is that something is good/bad is all that you need. A review that is critical enough to be self-aware.
I'm a little surprised how proud Jim is with his demonstration of how he can combine beating a dead horse and beating on a straw man. He should run with it and coin a new phrase, Beating a Dead Straw Horse.
Oh, it's 2014, let me modernize it #BeatingADeadStrawHorse
Oh, it's 2014, let me modernize it #BeatingADeadStrawHorse
Too easy.
Nobody is really asking for purely objective reviews.
What many gamers are simply looking for is reviewers who judge games consistently by a reasonably set of criteria (usually some variant on the old set of gameplay, story, gfx and sound) even if they don't actually use a scorecard.
Also valuable are experienced reviewers who can compare new games to similar games of the past and who can recommend some good alternatives if they find a game lacking.
Nobody is really asking for purely objective reviews.
What many gamers are simply looking for is reviewers who judge games consistently by a reasonably set of criteria (usually some variant on the old set of gameplay, story, gfx and sound) even if they don't actually use a scorecard.
Also valuable are experienced reviewers who can compare new games to similar games of the past and who can recommend some good alternatives if they find a game lacking.
But some reviews feel objective. Last of Us come to mind. 99,9% of the reviews are the same, same opinions, same scores. Or is something objective like THE TRUTH about the game or is something VERY wrong about the reviews.
Honestly the "objective review" is a problem game journalists create themselves. After years of "OMG let's all celebrate!" or "Shit! Let's kick it together!" what did you expect?
Honestly the "objective review" is a problem game journalists create themselves. After years of "OMG let's all celebrate!" or "Shit! Let's kick it together!" what did you expect?
Most of the comments in here are too opinionated for my taste. The only good comment is an objective comment. Since I'm clearly the arbiter of commenting, everyone needs to conform to my standard of objectivity or you've made a bad comment.
Did that sound stupid to you?
Those of you who think that reviewers should change the way they review games to meet your standards are just as stupid. No one is paying for reviews, so if you don't like opinionated reviews, then don't voluntarily read those reviews that have opinions you don't like, or better yet, write your own to meet your obviously superior standards.
Did that sound stupid to you?
Those of you who think that reviewers should change the way they review games to meet your standards are just as stupid. No one is paying for reviews, so if you don't like opinionated reviews, then don't voluntarily read those reviews that have opinions you don't like, or better yet, write your own to meet your obviously superior standards.
I've never played (other game). This review is subjective, because it assumes I have played (other game).Thanatos2k said:
More and more, people seem to say 'objective' and actually mean 'agrees with me'. Being 'subjective' is being thrown around as some kind of slur on a reviewers professionalism. Its bloody ridiculous. Especially considering the day and age we live in. I know Yahtzee will not give any RTS game a good review because he is subjective, but thanks to the Internet I can easily look up half a dozen different reviewers and get a balanced view on the game.
Also, why can't a review have commentary on political ideology? I don't want to play a shooter if its about a Skinhead killing thousands of Jewish women, no matter how good the mechanics, or how slick the graphics are. On the flip side, I might be tempted to play a game if it is actually trying to get some kind of nuanced message across but its graphics or budget don't quite reach that far (for instance, Spec-Ops the line)
Infact, Spec-Ops: The line is a great example of where a completely objective review would fail to do a game justice. It would be compared poorly to other shooters with more polished gunplay, mechanics, graphics, and a better multiplayer. But without any 'subjectivity' (to say, without any mention of the biases and politics the game is wearing on its sleeve) it just comes across as a third rate knock-off shooter, rather than as gut punching attack and critique on that genre of games. Its value would not be shown to the audience, and that would be a terrible thing.
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. Furthermore I think we all know that "objectivity" is intended to be interpreted realistically, rather than someone following the letter of the demand rather than the spirit in which it is intended.
That said, opinion is fine up until a point which is why we have reviewers. When this comes down to inserting personal politics into things though I believe that's going too far. What's more, if the political comment was intended in response to Gamersgate, it's important to understand that as a movement the complaint is less that liberals speak their minds, but rather that only liberals speak their mind, there is no real political representation from the other side of the spectrum, combined with political commentary taking the form of insults or mockery directed at the other side. The demand is for there to be conservative game reviewers hired by sites and/or for liberals to be more even handed in handling both sides if they must absolutely bring politics into the escapism people use to get away from them. A big part of the explosion is that things have gotten so bad that you see censorship of people that have socially conservative opinions because they are "offensive" to those who do not. It's particularly bad when some feature goes out of it's way to belittle what is a major political point of view, and then you see people who object or fire back get banned.
It is true that no review worth anything is going to be 100% objective, but it should also be noted that a lot of people that are effectively producing things that serve as reviews try and dodge accusations of their lack of standards and professionalism, and using their platform for inserting personal tirades, by them being critics as opposed to reviewers. A big part of this could be defined as saying we need less critics, and more reviewers who are held and hold themselves to a higher standard. Right now when it comes to geekdom everyone is pretty much a far leftward leaning critic as far as most big issues (like social ones) are concerned, and that really isn't what the gaming community needs. Dare I say, it's time to do what liberals always cry about and diversify... by taking an axe to a lot of those liberals and sending them to unemployment while hiring a more diverse group of people. If it helps, frame it as affirmative action for conservatives.
NOTE: I was online all day yesterday into the wee hours, but I'm probably not going to be posting regularly on The Escapist for a while. I'm simply pointing this out as to why responses might not be forthcoming. Other commitments and interests so to speak. in part I was on so long to throw things back and forth since I've been feeling so terrible and unable to concentrate well recently but that's clearing up finally.
That said, opinion is fine up until a point which is why we have reviewers. When this comes down to inserting personal politics into things though I believe that's going too far. What's more, if the political comment was intended in response to Gamersgate, it's important to understand that as a movement the complaint is less that liberals speak their minds, but rather that only liberals speak their mind, there is no real political representation from the other side of the spectrum, combined with political commentary taking the form of insults or mockery directed at the other side. The demand is for there to be conservative game reviewers hired by sites and/or for liberals to be more even handed in handling both sides if they must absolutely bring politics into the escapism people use to get away from them. A big part of the explosion is that things have gotten so bad that you see censorship of people that have socially conservative opinions because they are "offensive" to those who do not. It's particularly bad when some feature goes out of it's way to belittle what is a major political point of view, and then you see people who object or fire back get banned.
It is true that no review worth anything is going to be 100% objective, but it should also be noted that a lot of people that are effectively producing things that serve as reviews try and dodge accusations of their lack of standards and professionalism, and using their platform for inserting personal tirades, by them being critics as opposed to reviewers. A big part of this could be defined as saying we need less critics, and more reviewers who are held and hold themselves to a higher standard. Right now when it comes to geekdom everyone is pretty much a far leftward leaning critic as far as most big issues (like social ones) are concerned, and that really isn't what the gaming community needs. Dare I say, it's time to do what liberals always cry about and diversify... by taking an axe to a lot of those liberals and sending them to unemployment while hiring a more diverse group of people. If it helps, frame it as affirmative action for conservatives.
NOTE: I was online all day yesterday into the wee hours, but I'm probably not going to be posting regularly on The Escapist for a while. I'm simply pointing this out as to why responses might not be forthcoming. Other commitments and interests so to speak. in part I was on so long to throw things back and forth since I've been feeling so terrible and unable to concentrate well recently but that's clearing up finally.
Wait...are people actually taking this seriously? I'm reading through some of these comments and HO-LY SHEET. It's like people are deliberatly trying to antagonize Jim "Fucking Idiot" Sterling (son) for no reason. I can't believe that this could have gone MILES over some people's heads.
Jim, you didn't give us the option to not thank God for you. I demand you repost this video with a new ending. Or possibly multiple endings. Maybe they could be sorted by colour.
"That's your opinion" or "you're biased" come off as playground retorts, and really, demanding that we be told these things strikes me as the demand to infantilise us. At the same time, that's what it looks like all this outrage against bias and for objectivity and fairness in reviews is: a campaign to treat us like spoiled children. Which is fitting, because that campaign gives us all the appearance of being spoiled children.
I'm sure there are people who really want impartiality, but then, there are people who really want only objective things in the reviews (like tech specs). I'm betting most people want something a little closer to "Fair and Balanced" news.
Ben is capable of an objective review as a banana, but it is not a given that he exercises that capacity.MarsAtlas said:
It wasn't a potshot at FFXIII. It was a potshot at retread material which used FFXIII the first time around.Toblo1 said:
I was going to suggest we boycott Jim's clearly ethicless ethics, but your narrative of narrative bias towards the narrative conflicts with my narrative. I'm afraid I must boycott you now. Boycott you and your biased narrative bias.Colour Scientist said:
And you're missing the point that even those things can be considered subjective by the very people who are at issue. And I don't think you're doing it on purpose.loa said:
I hope he does a VOTY (Video of the Year) edition, too. With 10 extra seconds of footage that would have ended up on the cutting room floor.Grim Sterling said:
I would hope that we would be mature and literate enough to understand that when someone talks about the combat feeling disconnected, they were talking opinion with or without such a label.MrFalconfly said:
"That's your opinion" or "you're biased" come off as playground retorts, and really, demanding that we be told these things strikes me as the demand to infantilise us. At the same time, that's what it looks like all this outrage against bias and for objectivity and fairness in reviews is: a campaign to treat us like spoiled children. Which is fitting, because that campaign gives us all the appearance of being spoiled children.
When you look at the actual complaints about given reviews, it's not so much impartiality that's generally balked at. People will complain that the reviewer didn't mention X or Y, which they personally liked or felt was strong. Or the flip, that the reviewer didn't pan X or Y, which they personally didn't like.ShakerSilver said:
I'm sure there are people who really want impartiality, but then, there are people who really want only objective things in the reviews (like tech specs). I'm betting most people want something a little closer to "Fair and Balanced" news.