Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
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?
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?
Jesus Christ, it's just a bit of text.erttheking said:
You make it sound like I'm forcing you give birth to a foal.
"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.
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.
"You're a dumb piece of shit" is also just a bit of text, but you wouldn't see me putting that at the start of a review I wrote. Really it's just insulting to the audience's intelligence that you have to clarify that a review is based off of opinion, as opposed to those reviews based on the objective quality of the game that don't exist. And if we have to inform people that a review is based off of an opinion, because they couldn't tell the difference otherwise, then frankly I think we've got a much bigger problem going on than "ethics" in journalism.MrFalconfly said:
Well, personally I think you'd go longer with a bit of courtesy than with "You're a dumb piece of shit".erttheking said:
Why the slippery slope?
Why does that tiny bit of legalese feel insulting to you?
Or is it just me that's been desensitized by all the bullshit legalese that's on packaging because some company also wants to sell their products in the USA?
"Churn out the same shit, year after year..."
Looks at Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Squeenix, and all the rest of the bullshit "AAA" publishers/developers in disgust.
Never change Jim! Guess whose games I sure as hell didn't buy this year? *See above list of liars for hints*
Looks at Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Squeenix, and all the rest of the bullshit "AAA" publishers/developers in disgust.
Never change Jim! Guess whose games I sure as hell didn't buy this year? *See above list of liars for hints*
Clearly you have issues with bias reviewers. So I'm going to throw out a little idea, just a little one...Thanatos2k said:
If you find a particular reviewer too bias for your taste, now here's the key part, DON'T READ THEIR REVIEWS.
I know it might sound tired to say if you don't like it don't watch it. But come on man. There are countless reviewers out there. Plenty I'm sure that meet your objective needs. Go watch them and leave the subjective reviewers alone to those who find value in them and find them helpful.
Cause from all you've written it sounds like you want every reviewer to cater to your standards about how things should be reviewed, completely ignoring the fact that many enjoy them for the reasons you don't. Do you really want to be THAT guy who doesn't like something so no one should be enjoying it?
Ok then, something a little more tame. If a developer was to crack a little joke in his review, would he have to put a note in at the bottom of the review saying "This is a joke and it is not meant to be taken seriously" or could we just assume that the average person would be smart enough to figure it out. Honestly the reason I'm so annoyed is that, as a writer, I am violently against the dumbing down of a work to make it more accessible. Like I said. If someone can't tell if a review is opinion, that person probably shouldn't have financial independence.MrFalconfly said:
I'm the exact opposite, I'm really sick of it. We live in a country that is obsessed with idiot proofing anything. We have chainsaws that say "Do not attempt to stop with hands" on them. I had to sign a contract at my work to prove that I was qualified to use fucking WINDEX! I HAD TO SIGN A CONTACT SAYING I KNEW HOW TO USE A FUCKING SPRAY BOTTLE!
We've been over this. Sadly, as much as I would be glad to ignore certain low quality sites and reviewers, they're factored into metacritic just the same, which help determine the success or failure of games and studios themselves. I'm fine if you write your biased review for you and your extremely small audience that agrees with you that games should only fit a very specific narrow view of what is good or not, just keep it off metacritic.RavenTail said:
By the way, Totalbiscuit talks about all of this directly in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaMccosnRMc
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.)
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.)
"Honestly the reason I'm so annoyed is that, as a writer, I am violently against the dumbing down of a work to make it more accessible."erttheking said:
Eh. The whole idea is to have a stamp, or a disclaimer at the start so you don't have to dumb the core text down.
As for the second. Well at least your laws are a source of great amusement over here on this side of the Atlantic. I mean if I want a laugh I just have to read the safety manual for a grocery-bag ("You mustn't pull this over your head and pull it tight". What kind of idiot did that? Or "Don't stuff pets into your microwave-oven").
EDIT:
As for jokes.
"If a developer was to crack a little joke in his review, would he have to put a note in at the bottom of the review saying "This is a joke and it is not meant to be taken seriously""
Well on the internet (a text-based medium) we sort of already do that. You know. An obvious joke followed by /sarcasm. Poe's Law is a harsh teacher is all I can say.
It is a four man Czech publisher with no record. Even just based on geography - they're going to get less coverage.Thanatos2k said:
Also Tim Schafter is an award winning developer who has been in the business since the Nes days with a solid lineup of games. Pillars of Eternity is being developed by Obsidion, which has a proven track record and Star Citizen got $58 million in crowdfunding versus Kingdom Come's $5 million.
When the game comes out in Q4 2015 there will probably be reviews. But without any real drama, or even straight up marketing pushes - there isn't much to write about it right now.
Well, except that the choice what objective facts to mention is subjective, the choice to make an objective review is subjective, the choice to even review the game is subjective, the choice of the format for the review is subjective, the choice how to present the facts in said format is subjective, this review was fairly objective.
Except that it is not possible to make something truly 100% objective.
Except that it is not possible to make something truly 100% objective.
The real question is, do you think all that legalese is necessary? Because it sounds like you don't, but that's exactly what you're asking for in review form.MrFalconfly said:
I'm with ert. If people don't understand what a review is, if they need to be talked down to on that level, we have much bigger problems than ethics. And perhaps if we need to go that far, we should explain the entire concept of a review at the beginning of a review in case people are really lost.
Yes, you won't find many stories about Kingdom Come, but you will find more stories about Star Citizen. Well, I'll just see what that second game earned in funding...Thanatos2k said:
Oh, it earned more? And it gets more attention? Okay, I'm lost.
And Tim Shafer got more attention being a well-known figure and getting roughly twice what Kingdom Come got? Well, that's...not...fair?
Nope. Lost here.
Are ytou sure this is a media conspiracy and not just them not reporting what you personally want to hear?
It kind of is, because this is splitting hairs on the definition of 'review', just that you adhere to one split end as opposed to some other. It's a contrivance unneeded and largely unrelated to what the piece should try to portray. Also, since people tend to (habitually) infer information, that disclaimer could mean any number of things, as it is, where it's placed, or over time, etc....MrFalconfly said:
No, I don't think they're necessary personally.Zachary Amaranth said:
However, if someone says that I'll have fewer troubles by adding a line of text then fine, I'll write that little disclaimer (and the just Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V from then on).
It's not that much extra work to write it. At the most it's just a bit of redundant work.
So Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V is so much hard work?Ipsen said:
It's just a bit of extra information that normally would be Common Sense (but the internet has taught me that even breathing and thinking is hard work for some).
I think the problem is that what you've done is give a review without any opinion in it - However, being objective does not mean having no opinion, it simply means considering all the facts when putting forward your opinion. For example; if a reviewer goes "compared to the last game, the graphics and texture qualities have improved significantly", that would mean that you are making an objective statement about the game based on the information you observed and processed about the previous one. You're allowed to make objective statements about the world, and games, that in themselves are an opinion. Another example is the way you discussed weapon levelling in the game, you could have said something along the lines of "weapon levelling takes X amount of time on avenge, and due to this a player who desires to speed through the game wouldn't have much used for it" or "the amount of time it takes to weapon level in this game does not balance out with the overpowered weapons of the second boss enemy when you reach them". These things are not opinion, but rather statements about the games faults, and the difficulties a player would have when playing it. You are also allowed to reseed any statement with "If you do not like X, then you will like/dislike Y", this way you are remaining objective about the purpose of the observation. But that doesn't mean you can't give loads of detail about it. For example, I think TB is very good at reviewing games objectively, however when I watch his reviews I keep in mind, he is a PC gamer and because of that what he thinks to comment on are different to console gamers.