Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

Steve2911

New member
May 3, 2010
79
0
0
veloper said:
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.
Do you not find this incredibly boring though? Do you not think games as a medium deserve more than that? Because this is the sort of shit you got in game magazines in the 90s. We've come a long way since then.
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
It's really not impossible. Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:

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.
I've never played (other game). This review is subjective, because it assumes I have played (other game).

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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
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.
 

Silvianoshei

New member
May 26, 2011
284
0
0
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
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.

MarsAtlas said:
Jim, you once said that only a banana can give an objective game review, and Yahtzee once said that he is a banana, does that mean that Yahtzee gives 100% objective reviews?
Ben is capable of an objective review as a banana, but it is not a given that he exercises that capacity.

Toblo1 said:
Edit: Ok, I get the fucking joke, but still.... We don't need more potshots at FFXIII. It's filled full of holes already.....
It wasn't a potshot at FFXIII. It was a potshot at retread material which used FFXIII the first time around.

Colour Scientist said:
I appreciate the attempt at objectivity but this video really was really lacking in ethics.

Something something collusion something narrative.
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.

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

Grim Sterling said:
I think you need to release this video in a year in full color and call it the HD remix. Also add new music, frame it slightly different and add one extra clip and then charge us to view it. Really. I am begging you.
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.

MrFalconfly said:
Also, I made it clear that while I don't like the mechanic, it's well thought out, and it's not a dealbreaker (unless you're like me).
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.

"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.

ShakerSilver said:
When I hear people wanting "objective" reviews, I feel like the word they're looking for is "impartial", which is something most reviews should indeed strive for.
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.

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.
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
Zachary Amaranth 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.
Please, you're just pushing your own agenda due to your conflict of interest and professional bias. Your status as a non-professional is irrelevant.

For more on this, please read my upcoming publication The Ethical Adventures of James Gournalism
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
RaikuFA said:
Wait, Jim. Didn't you once say you were God?

And you just said God isn't real?

Then that means... YOU AREN'T REAL?!?!?!
No. He's not God anymore. According to a crazy person now he is Jim Fucking Sterling.
 

Thanatos2k

New member
Aug 12, 2013
820
0
0
Dakkagor said:
Thanatos2k said:
It's really not impossible. Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:

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.
I've never played (other game). This review is subjective, because it assumes I have played (other game).

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.
If you haven't played any other video games you're going to have a bad time figuring out what's worth playing then, mostly objective reviews or not, because you have no idea what makes a good or bad game. Many games are only good to experienced gamers (Read: Dark Souls) Most reviews are assumed to be for a player who has some experience playing video games as it is, so I don't see a problem here.

Spec Ops The Line is a tricky situation. You can objectively compare it to other shooters (and it'll come up short) but you can also emphasize this isn't the point of the game without too much subjectivity. Spec Ops the Line is a borderline unreviewable game as it is, because it has a very specific audience, and a large number of people who simply would not like it. It's almost a "Fan of bro shooters - 6/10, not a fan of bro shooters but liked shooters before the Halo generation - 10/10" situation. I'm perfectly fine with some leeway in those cases.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Colour Scientist said:
Please, you're just pushing your own agenda due to your conflict of interest and professional bias. Your status as a non-professional is irrelevant.

For more on this, please read my upcoming publication The Ethical Adventures of James Gournalism
The fact that you consider yourself a professional only pushes the narrative that you are a professional victim. Stop trying to harass and bully me with your narrative of punditry!
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
I don't think your review was objective enough, Jim. For example, assigning a "genre" is a highly subjective and muddy area, as genres are often based on vague notions of style, demographics, and creative content. So, best to leave that out.

Also, your assumption that the characters are represented to be made out of "skin-flesh" is wildly subjective, as other people may have a different perception or interpretation. The best you could say is that there are pixels used to create a visual impression. But that still wouldn't be completely objective, because if you turn your monitor off, there are no visuals and the "graphics" are just binary abstractions that only exist on a microprocessor.
 

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Colour Scientist said:
Please, you're just pushing your own agenda due to your conflict of interest and professional bias. Your status as a non-professional is irrelevant.

For more on this, please read my upcoming publication The Ethical Adventures of James Gournalism
The fact that you consider yourself a professional only pushes the narrative that you are a professional victim. Stop trying to harass and bully me with your narrative of punditry!


If I can't hear you, it must be a straw man.

Please stop trying to derail the thread.

If you do not desist, I shall put you on my ignore list but continue to try to engage you in conversation.

See how you like them apples.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Steve2911 said:
veloper said:
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.
Do you not find this incredibly boring though? Do you not think games as a medium deserve more than that? Because this is the sort of shit you got in game magazines in the 90s. We've come a long way since then.
I find it informative. How boring a piece is depends on the style or humor of the game reviewer.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
MrFalconfly said:
Also, I made it clear that while I don't like the mechanic, it's well thought out, and it's not a dealbreaker (unless you're like me).
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.

"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.
Sorry?

What campaign?

I thought we were talking about how best to meet everybody regarding this issue of reviews (obviously some want them to be as "objective" as possible, and some want to hear the opinions of a reviewer that they find they share opinions with).

If you're talking about #Gamergate, then here's a nifty little video (well "little" is a bit of a misnomer. It's a 4 hour long discussion, but it's pretty good.).

 

C.S.Strowbridge

New member
Jul 22, 2010
330
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
C.S.Strowbridge said:
Thanatos2k said:
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.
Unless the critic is psychic and can read your mind or predict the future, this is impossible.

The closest a critic can do is tell you if they personally liked a game, movie, book, etc. and explain why. If you agree with their reasons, you will probably feel the same way as they do.

And yes, your own personal ideology matters in this regard. If someone didn't like a game, because they felt it was racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and you also dislike games that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., then this information will help you decide if you may like or dislike this game as well.

Video game reviews must be about more than technical aspects of the game like frame rate. They must include information about the story and characters.
It's really not impossible.

~SNIP!~
So you want to ignore anything that isn't technical. Great. You want pretty much exactly what Jim Sterling gave you with this parody review. Additionally, comparing one game to another is only remotely useful, if the person reading the review has played the previous game and if you haven't, then by your own standards, they have failed at their job. That part I agree with you. If you need to have played a previous game that isn't in the same series to understand a review, then that review was poorly written.

Personally, if the reviewer doesn't go into plot and characters, then I think they have failed at their jobs. Any discussion of plots and characters are necessarily going to involve personal politics and are absolutely going to be subjective.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Well, that was a video with moving pictures and some sound.
I guess...

Rellik San said:
Did... did I miss a meeting?
No.
You can't miss something you weren't invited to in the first place.
I could say that "it isn't you, it's us", but that would be a lie.
Thing is we met and unanimously voted to exclude you from our group.
Simply put we have higher standards.
(you can't run the world with low standards, obviously)
Have a nice life!

P.S. We already changed location of meetings so don't even bother coming back.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
637
0
0
There was actually some useful information in that review, although admittedly it would be far shorter if you remove all the redundancy.

If it doesn't sound boring without going out of your way to make it sound boring then it's hardly a valid point.

Likewise I could do a spoof of a subjective review.

"The colours make me think of the moors in the springtime and for some reason the animations make me think of wildberries fermenting in a French wine cellar"
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
Thanatos2k said:
If you haven't played any other video games you're going to have a bad time figuring out what's worth playing then, mostly objective reviews or not, because you have no idea what makes a good or bad game. Many games are only good to experienced gamers (Read: Dark Souls) Most reviews are assumed to be for a player who has some experience playing video games as it is, so I don't see a problem here.

Spec Ops The Line is a tricky situation. You can objectively compare it to other shooters (and it'll come up short) but you can also emphasize this isn't the point of the game without too much subjectivity. Spec Ops the Line is a borderline unreviewable game as it is, because it has a very specific audience, and a large number of people who simply would not like it. It's almost a "Fan of bro shooters - 6/10, not a fan of bro shooters but liked shooters before the Halo generation - 10/10" situation. I'm perfectly fine with some leeway in those cases.
When I say (other game) I mean that in regards to your comment that a 'objective' review would reference and compare a games mechanics to another games mechanics. You can't assume that everyone has played every game. This is why some subjectivity has to be allowed, even encouraged.

Ah, but you are now being 'subjective' about Spec Ops. We both share an opinion that the game is not about the core gameplay, but the story and the message, but that is all it is, an opinion. Just because it is a widely held one does not make it 'objective'. How do game reviewers decide who gets leeway, what system is implemented? Do all reviews have to pass through some central counting house to ensure only a minimum amount of 'subjectivity'? If you are subjective, you can totally review Spec-Ops: The Line. Did you like its story? Why? Did you agree/disagree with its points? Why? What did you think of the core gameplay, and how did that affect the story, did it enhance or detract?

Every one of those questions can only be answered with a subjective answer, a point of view. Asking for anything else does the game, and the job of being a reviewer, a grave disservice.

Captcha: Spread the net. These days, I think we need to contain it. . . .
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
I was unaware being objective meant speaking in a monotone voice.

Jim, 3 steps ahead of the rest of us plebs, as always
 

T_ConX

New member
Mar 8, 2010
456
0
0
No wonder you guys are so afraid of GamerGate; you simply have no clue about what actual objectivity looks like, and imagine it as some sort of soulless fact sheet.

It's not that hard. Just write what you think about the game and compare it to similar games. How does it tackle common shortcomings of the genre? Does the game make some risky design or narrative choices that either pay off or fall flat? Does it provide value for the consumer? How replayable is it?

Oh, and don't have sex with someone who worked on the game. I really shouldn't have to say it, but doing that is a big no-no!

Aw fuck, that's too hard. Just keep claiming GamerGate is nothing but misogynist trolls so you'll be spared the painful effort of having improve yourself. Mountain Dewritos and sloppy emo blowjobs for all!
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I'm waiting for the obverse parody, something along the lines of "The cover of this game is blue, blue is a terrible color, 0/10."

I understand the frustration some people feel about demands for "objective" reviews, but pretending that the issue is black and white isn't helping. One definition of "subjective" is that it's a view corresponding to only one person (Merriam-Webster, "4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal ") And aside from the inevitable jerk who is actually saying "Your review is bad because I disagree with the conclusion", I think that's what people are really annoyed with- the reviewer who is giving an opinion that doesn't apply or isn't useful to large portions of the game's audience, who isn't taking that audience into account. And the attendant fact that said review is being tallied into an over-all score by sites like metacritic, and others' narrative about the game's underlying themes, structure, or message- which isn't directly the reviewer's fault, of course, but is an all-but-inevitable consequence.

I tend to feel that a good reviewer can utterly hate the product they're reviewing- whether it's a game, book, movie, restaurant, whatever- and still pass along information that will lead me to believe I'll enjoy it. I'm sure that there are people who have seen a game declared "too hard" and taken it as a personal challenge, for example. But there's an uncomfortable space where the reviewer takes it upon themselves to review the people who would enjoy the product- and you don't have to look far to find that; glance at Moviebob's reviews of "The Equalizer" or "Divergent", and the less he likes the underlying product, the more venom the perceived audience is likely to get for their presumed appreciation of it.

I will say right now that I really appreciate the knowledge and insight that Bob Chipman brings to much of his work. But he would be a better reviewer if that particular attitude was one he could leave at the door. And I would say the same of any critic.