Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Plunkies]

I remember when Sterling pretended to be pro-consumer. Now he defends corrupt and hack reviewers with an incredibly weak strawman about 100% objectivity. But at least we see him for who he is now.

Objectivity is about fairness, facts, and neutrality. It's something you never 100% achieve but something you should always strive for.

Saying objectivity is impossible so you should never bother is like saying perfection is impossible so you should never bother. It's an idiotic statement born of laziness and mediocrity.

And for the people saying reviewers should be allowed to inject their own political and social agendas into every review...

Imagine every reviewer does this. Maybe they all collude together, or maybe they just happen to share the same ideology, but any game that doesn't conform to their line of thinking gets panned across the board. What would happen? Games would be forced to censor themselves to get good reviews. This is a world where Bayonetta 2 doesn't exist, not to mention countless other games that many people enjoy. We already live in a world where developers of Divinity Original Sin are forced to alter their creative work or face backlash from an agenda driven games press. A world where a medieval European game is blacklisted from games media news sites for being too white and European. We're not that far off.

To the people who like the agenda driven reviews...Is it because you like the agenda? What if it were different? What if any game that was anti-government was guaranteed bad reviews? Or any game where you kill cops? Any game with violence at all? Any game that doesn't teach you a moral lesson? Would it be right then? Or is the agenda only right when you agree with it? And how much of an effect does the agenda need to have on the types of games that are able to be created before you speak out against it?

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

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.

You might as well have a disclaimer that said, "This review contains words and punctuation."

Everyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse knows a review is subjective. Once you get beyond technical details, it is subjective. Saying a Blu-ray has a 5.1 surround sound track is objective. Saying the surround sound track has dynamic effects is objective. Saying those dynamic effects help draw in the viewer is subjective, because some people might find them distracting.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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?

You'd think, but the recent revelations over how indie games get covered/boosted indicates these journos seem to care a great deal about the financial well being of certain developers.

*Insert links to Patreon*

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.

One would think they'd be writing with gamers as their audience, yes. At the very most, the audience would be genre veterans.

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...

I mean, just because you declare "It's impossible!" doesn't mean that it actually is. This video was not an objective review - if it was, you'd have all the information you needed to know how the various systems in FF13 work (you might not know whether it's a good game, but you would know how it worked). Jim does not provide this information, and does so in a clearly patronizing way. It gives lip service to the actual explanations, even ones that would be purely factual (how does the save system work?).

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...

When opinions do indeed bounce around, cool. When certain people always seem to be the outliers it might be time to prune them. I mean, metacritic doesn't take every review out there with a score attached to it.

 

[Mezahmay]

I like how stilted Jim's speech was and at times his tone pitched up at the end of a sentence, as if he didn't quite understand the typical cadence of spoken English. Robotic banana reviews, brought to us by Jim Fucking Sterling, Son. Thank God for him.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

And for the people saying reviewers should be allowed to inject their own political and social agendas into every review...

Imagine every reviewer does this. Maybe they all collude together, or maybe they just happen to share the same ideology,

It is much more likely this wouldn't happen, but don't let reality get in the way of an argument. If you did, the rest of GamerGate would kick you out for being too reasonable.

but any game that doesn't conform to their line of thinking gets panned across the board. What would happen?

People who don't agree wouldn't listen to their reviews and would ask people who are like them if they enjoyed the game instead of reading professional reviews.

If you think anything else would happen in this imaginary world where all critics think alike, you don't understand humans.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

You might as well have a disclaimer that said, "This review contains words and punctuation."

Everyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse knows a review is subjective. Once you get beyond technical details, it is subjective. Saying a Blu-ray has a 5.1 surround sound track is objective. Saying the surround sound track has dynamic effects is objective. Saying those dynamic effects help draw in the viewer is subjective, because some people might find them distracting.

Better safe than sorry?

Isn't it generally cheaper to be prepared for any eventuality than for fixing it afterwards?

 

[Thanatos2k]

And for the people saying reviewers should be allowed to inject their own political and social agendas into every review...

Imagine every reviewer does this. Maybe they all collude together, or maybe they just happen to share the same ideology,

It is much more likely this wouldn't happen, but don't let reality get in the way of an argument. If you did, the rest of GamerGate would kick you out for being too reasonable.

but any game that doesn't conform to their line of thinking gets panned across the board. What would happen?

People who don't agree wouldn't listen to their reviews and would ask people who are like them if they enjoyed the game instead of reading professional reviews.

If you think anything else would happen in this imaginary world where all critics think alike, you don't understand humans.

Reviews really aren't where the games press kills you. They kill you by IGNORING you. Throwing out poorly written low score reviews with comments under them saying how wrong they are does some damage, sure, but people will naturally search out the truth in those cases.

When game journos collude and make a concerted effort not to cover your game, THAT destroys projects. How can people find the truth when they're not even told the lie? And it is happening, right now.

 

[Lightknight]

I remember when Sterling pretended to be pro-consumer. Now he defends corrupt and hack reviewers with an incredibly weak strawman about 100% objectivity. But at least we see him for who he is now.

Objectivity is about fairness, facts, and neutrality. It's something you never 100% achieve but something you should always strive for.

Saying objectivity is impossible so you should never bother is like saying perfection is impossible so you should never bother. It's an idiotic statement born of laziness and mediocrity.

And for the people saying reviewers should be allowed to inject their own political and social agendas into every review...

Imagine every reviewer does this. Maybe they all collude together, or maybe they just happen to share the same ideology, but any game that doesn't conform to their line of thinking gets panned across the board. What would happen? Games would be forced to censor themselves to get good reviews. This is a world where Bayonetta 2 doesn't exist, not to mention countless other games that many people enjoy. We already live in a world where developers of Divinity Original Sin are forced to alter their creative work or face backlash from an agenda driven games press. A world where a medieval European game is blacklisted from games media news sites for being too white and European. We're not that far off.

To the people who like the agenda driven reviews...Is it because you like the agenda? What if it were different? What if any game that was anti-government was guaranteed bad reviews? Or any game where you kill cops? Any game with violence at all? Any game that doesn't teach you a moral lesson? Would it be right then? Or is the agenda only right when you agree with it? And how much of an effect does the agenda need to have on the types of games that are able to be created before you speak out against it?

Reviews aren't news. They aren't journalism in the same way news and reporting is. They are, in essence, opinion pieces. I'm about as pro-GG as it gets but we've got to understand the difference between neutrality in journalism and neutrality in an opinion piece.

I would say that we simply want a game reviewed on its own merits according to the tastes of the reviewer. That it not be reviewed politically or to further an agenda. Especially not because you're buddies with the game developer. But most games aren't agenda-based. That's the funny thing, there aren't that many times where agenda pushing is relevant in game reviews. I've only seen the likes of Bayonetta get that sort of treatment in which the reviewer should like have recused themselves like a puritan trying to review a porno featuring Jesus.

 

[Jason Soler]

I think the major problem is in previews, not reviews. Take this for example:


http://www.destructoid.com/assassin-s-creed-unity-and-rogue-pax-impressions-280670.phtml


The preview comes off as if the game was playable in some form, but I was there and it wasn't playable in any capacity. It was shown in a pre-recorded video and was a perfect run. The heist mission that the previewer "participated in" was a part of the video. There were no developers there ... there was a woman and a guy that were basically hype men. I don't see how you can project that you know anything about the gameplay of a game when it:

1) wasn't playable.
2) was exactly what the developers wanted us to see and nothing more.


I expect reviews to be based on the reviewers tastes. I read reviews from people that I trust, and I value their opinions. Generally, I'll read a review once before I buy a game, and then once after to see how closely our points match up. The problem isn't reviews ... its obvious shilly hype pieces that mask themselves as "previews."

 

[DragonDai]

What a terrible video. Like, I get the point (it was a bad point back in the day, a worse point now). And I get the message at the end.

What I don't get is why Jim decided that a couple of whiny crybabies on the internet (and I guarantee it was a tiny tiny number of people) direct the content of his show for an entire episode. It's a little disconcerting. I guess he's just running out of ideas or something. A shame...

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

When game journos collude and make a concerted effort not to cover your game, THAT destroys projects. How can people find the truth when they're not even told the lie? And it is happening, right now.

Not only do you not know what the word "Objective" means, you are falling prey to conspiracy theories.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I remember when Sterling pretended to be pro-consumer. Now he defends corrupt and hack reviewers with an incredibly weak strawman about 100% objectivity. But at least we see him for who he is now.
[...]
Imagine every reviewer does this. Maybe they all collude together, or maybe they just happen to share the same ideology, but any game that doesn't conform to their line of thinking gets panned across the board. What would happen? Games would be forced to censor themselves to get good reviews. This is a world where Bayonetta 2 doesn't exist, not to mention countless other games that many people enjoy.[...]

Accuses Jim of strawmanning gamergaters' argument.
Immediately strawmans Jim's argument.

This supposed dichotomy between "gamers" on one side and "reviewers" on the other is fucking stupid. Reviewers are gamers too. A vast majority of reviewers didn't give a single fuck about Bayonetta 2's sexualization and gave it glorious reviews. One, count 'em, one reviewer said the sexualization made him uncomfortable and that he didn't enjoy the game as much because of it, and gave it a (still very positive) lower score. Where is this horrible left-wing collusion to censor our games? Bayonetta 2 has a Metascore of 91. Dragon's Crown's is 82. Divinity's is 87. Your argument has no leg to stand on.

Gamergate keeps telling "SJWs" to make their own games instead of "shoving their bias down gamers' throats". Well, how about you make your own goddamned review sites and stop shoving your bias down our throats? There's plenty of room on the Internet for an alternative gamergater press if you so desperately want it. And if "SJWs" complain about your reviews being on Metacritic I'll laugh at them as hard as I'm laughing at you right now.

 

[ryukage_sama]

I had read this review years ago when it was published, and thought, "Yeah, that's literally what those people demanding objectivity are asking for? Those people won't get the joke." I still feel the same way, but now there's a hashtag behind it.

Entertainment needs to be viewed and discussed subjectively, by many people (provided those people have adequate mastery of human communication).

 

[Erttheking]

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.

...Was that ever in any doubt? Are there people out there who honestly didn't know that that's the case with every single review EVER!?

Because if a person can't tell when it's someone's opinion on a game, then they shouldn't have financial independence.

 

[Thanatos2k]

When game journos collude and make a concerted effort not to cover your game, THAT destroys projects. How can people find the truth when they're not even told the lie? And it is happening, right now.

Not only do you not know what the word "Objective" means, you are falling prey to conspiracy theories.

Go find how many stories are out there on the major sites about Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a game that raised millions.

It's no conspiracy theory. It's happening, right now. But you'll find plenty of stories about Star Citizen or Pillars of Eternity, or Tim Schafer's latest whatever (unless of course you're talking about one of his high profile failures like Spacebase DF-9, then suddenly you won't hear much about that)

 

[RaikuFA]

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.

Read that topic, lost it in his response video.

 

[Darklupus]

Hey, Jim Sterling. Thank you for taking the time and effort to read my comment I wrote the other day on one of your many Jimquisitions on one of these comment forums. And thank you as well for actually doing a show on this. I really enjoyed listening to you reading out what I said.

I also must confess that when I was writing it, it came off as boring and void of energy so much so that I got writer's block from just reading what I wrote! Of course, that was the point that I was attempting to try to understand and for others to get the gist of it. Being 100% objective is a chore, at least for me. And yet, I need to know what games I am missing out on, and the only way to do that is with objectivity. Why? Because we all have standards on what we like and don't like, and yet some of us want to broaden our horizons on the games others play so we can play those games as well. Why? Because all of us have so little time and money to spend on so many "good" and/or "good reviewed" games for our general "consumption."

Anyway, a 100% objective review, I learned through writing my speech for you and the way that you spoke it, can come off as endless, robotic, and snooty, and probably is going to come off extremely biased even though it isn't meant to be biased at all! That's the point I was attempting to make. No one wants to go off like that. So, in order to not do that, they always want to have some sort of point of interest that makes them stand out from the crowd.

Another point is that this video was made to focus on the audience to discover for themselves on their own wisdom and intellect to clarify what we are saying without saying it. If anyone doesn't get it, try watching it again with this information and keep an open mind.

Even though I'm thankful for doing this video, Jim, I'm sorry for all the negative responses. Is there any chance for you to do a rebuttal on this video?

 

[Artemicion]

I died at "vote republican". Bravo, Jim.

 

[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.

...Was that ever in any doubt? Are there people out there who honestly didn't know that that's the case with every single review EVER!?

Jesus Christ, it's just a bit of text.

You make it sound like I'm forcing you give birth to a foal.

 

[GeneralFungi]

"You can save the games sometimes."

There was something about the timing of the line and the deadpan delivery that made me absolutely crack up while watching. I didn't think anyone could make such a thing hilarious but golly gosh you sure found a way Jim.