I don't frequently post here but I fear I may have to wade into this one with another post which will no doubt be lost amongst the others, but hey ho. It's been pointed out to death but this video feels a bit sort of... I dunno... off the mark, as while the idea of this supposedly perfectly objective review is humorous when taking in isolation or as a one off feature, it doesn't really work in something like this show. The problem is that this show is supposed to be about actual arguments about actual issues - while often they're delivered with a jokey undertone or with the obvious extreme mannerisms which Jim displays while playing this character, the message is usually a coherent argument which makes logical sense. This just doesn't fit with that simply because it's such an obvious straw man, and just results in Jim coming across as facetious about actual legitimate complaints about the so called objectivity of reviews.
I just wanted to get that bit out of the way as that was my actual complaints about this particular video, but offering my opinion on the topic at hand I agree with the base sentiment of the video in that "objective" reviews aren't something we should be striving for. I put objective in quotation marks because the point was raised earlier in this discussion that when people say they want their reviews to be "objective" they mean "impartial", something which I honestly think is true. People aren't asking for a review akin to the one in this video, it's more of a reaction to things like when Polygon gives Bayonetta 2 a lower score than a lot of other sites because of the nature of Bayonetta's sexualised character, or the Escapist giving GTA:V a 7/10 with a major contributor to the points being dropped being that Greg didn't like the personalities of the characters he was playing, as games which people are obviously invested in are not doing so well with their review scores because of reasons which are highly personal to that particular reviewer.
People don't actually want say that GTA:V review to be amended to a 9/10 and the reviewer to not make a comment about how pleasant it was to be playing as those particular characters because "that's not objective", I honestly think that they'd rather they were given a deconstruction of the game, and it to be amended to say a 9/10, but with the reviewer making a point in the review of saying how, while the game itself is a 9/10 game, if like them the player doesn't like the idea of playing as an outwardly "bad" character they should be wary and maybe take a point or 2 off, simply because otherwise if you say "It looks amazing, the world is expansive, there's countless hours of content, I don't like the characters 7/10" there seems to be a very noticeable disparity between what the review is saying and the score, which is what creates a backlash.
This is a viewpoint I completely disagree with.
Contrary to popular belief, the job of a review is NOT to write a piece explaining whether or not a game will appeal to YOU. A reviewers job is to play a game and give as detailed a deconstruction as they can as to what THEY though of the game. It is not the job of a reviewer to take as many points of contention about a games mechanics, world, design etc. and present why you might like it, or why you might not. They present you a point, and then explain what THEIR opinion of it was - "As a result of the tone and the actions of the lead in the first game, Bayonetta as a character has obviously gained a reputation for being overly sexualised. Between the gratuitous crotch shots and her clothes frequently flying off, this made me uncomfortable and as a result lessened my enjoyment of the game". Obviously my standard of writing isn't fantastic, but if I saw something like that in a review, I would totally understand a lower score given to that game.* The job of the person reading the review is to then look at what that particular reviewer listed as praises and criticisms and take the criticisms which are usually frequently flagged as being "subjective" and determine whether their opinion of them is the same as the reviewer, and if not then you can almost strike those remarks from the review and you can still see if the review reads significantly more favourably without them, and if it does it just helps you decide whether you're interested enough in the game to make a purchase.
The problem however with this sort of approach to reviewing is that the readers also have to put in the effort to find reviewers whose opinions are generally aligned with theirs if they don't want to have to do what I wrote previously or if they just generally have differing ideas as to which mechanics in games are good, or which genres they're most interested in. Obviosuly this can be hard but it's something which is improving as time passes as individuals within the industry start coming to the forefront. For example, I often find myself agreeing with the opinions of Steve Burns from VideoGamer for example so I know what to expect when I read his reviews, and if he gives something a very high score it makes me more interested. On the flip side I don't always agree with the opinions of Arthur Gies so I just don't read his reviews, but he obviosuly still has an audience for people who think like him. If all reviewers were going to make completely objective reviews then surely it begs the question of what is the point of having multiple reviewers and reviewing institutions? Why not just declare 1 person as the reviews overlord and everyone just read what they have to say in the impartial, objective reviews that inform everyone as to whether they'll like a game or not?
Of course the problem is that whenever the average persons kicks up a fuss about objective reviews it's because a game they like got a score they didn't. It's obviosuly a concern but it's something which I think is unavoidable in this industry, moreso than others simply because games are expensive. If someone drops £40+ on a pre-order for a game then that creates a personal investment, as a lot of people can't afford to buy too many games at launch, so obviously they have to pick and choose and will miss out on some games which they'd otherwise buy, and a negative review on a game which people are excited about will generate a backlash because people are essentially being told they're wrong in their choice and that they've wasted their money. This obviosuly isn't a problem with people who're actually interested in the industry and can articulate their own opinions because then you'll get actual constructive criticism. I think the whole argument about why reviews shouldn't have opinions is often blown out of proportion because you can usually see from reading the comments by the people who get geniunely worked up about it that it's as though they're too busy typing with their elbows to do something more useful than say "This was too opinionated" then sling an insult at the reviewer, in which case I'm not sure they're the sort of person that journalistic standards should be formulated from the opinions of. This paragraph feels awfully incoherent and rambly but my brain has stopped working properly because good lord I'm tired, I might ammend this tomorrow after I give it a read back when I'm awake again.
And while I'm at it, think of this is a footnote. I wish people would stop talking about how evil metacritic is. It's not. It's literally a site which says "on average, critics thought this", then I can have a nice list and see "ah, The Escapist gave it x, VideoGamer gave it y, PC Gamer gave it z", and then I can access their reviews if it's a game I need persuading on or if I'm just curious for their opinions beyond the little summary that's given. It doesn't make metacritic evil if users then give a 10 or a 0 for games they actually think deserves an 8 or a 5 to have a greater impact on the average score. It's not metacritics fault if game developers are going to commit the completely and obviously abhorrent act of working in minimum metacritic scores into developer contracts. I don't understand why it's the website that gets so much flak because people decide to abuse it.
*Obviously, the concession I will make is that the mistake that many reviewers make is that they confuse presenting their opinions as exactly that, OPINIONS, and instead present them as though they are FACT. "Bayonetta is sexualised therefore the game is worse" isn't hugely detached from my previous example at all, but the latter isn't the sort of thing which I want to see in a review, that tone is the sort of thing i'd expect to see when talking about issues which are obviously universal - "the game frequently crashes therefore is worse". You can't argue with that. If anyone argues that a game is better because it crashes then they should be ignored.)