Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[wulf3n]

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.

Couldn't hurt.

What I find most amusing about the situation is the irony in criticizing a review for being subjective as it in and of itself is a subjective criticism.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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)

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...

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?

So let me get this straight, you think that games should only get coverage based on how much money they had funded to them? Explain why games with far less funding get far more exposure then.

I mean, you truly can't believe this, you're just disagreeing with me on principle, right?

 

[MrFalconfly]

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.

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....

Well all I can say is that I'm a lazy sod, and if the choice lies between trying to educate all denizens of the Internet, and just typing one line of text, I'm going with the disclaimer.

 

[faeshadow]

You know, my twelve year old pulls shit like this. "Well, if I don't get to do what I want, I'll just never do anything ever again."

Don't act like a twelve year old, Jim.

 

[Ickorus]

I don?t understand either why people want a 100 percent objective review, if all they want is info on the game just read a Wikipedia article, just admit that you dislike that the reviewer gave a game you liked a low score and stop making excuses.

Problem is, nobody is saying they want a 100% objective review, there's a massive difference between reviewing a game based on the game and using a game review as your own personal platform for whatever cause you've decided to champion for that week.

I'm personally fine if people want to talk about their problems with a game, but when you're attaching a score to it and pretending you're reviewing the game I'll call bullshit.

 

[Abomination]

Today I learned that "As objective as possible" translates in the minds of some others as "100% objective and worthless".

Sorry Jim, this was a waste of an episode rehashing the same joke for damn 5 minutes.

I would think one who has been praised for his ethical reviews in the past would understand the difference between intent and strawman.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Finally, the objective review I've been waiting for!

Thank god for you Jim. F. Stirling(.jr)!

P.S: Objectivity does not provide guarantee for fun or enjoyment for everyone(unless proven otherwise). Use at your own risk.

 

[dharmaBum0]

I'm offended. The idea that electric fields in integrated circuits are configured to present interactive audio-visual media is progressive SJW-ish-ism-ist revealing the biases of the reviewer that have no place in THE ETHICS.

Pointing out that I'm writing on a computer is a STRAWMAN. I'm not arguing this isn't a computer. *&%#GG*(~^& just wants objective opinions on the existence of computers.

Seriously, Anita Sarkeesian says she works on computers, and we all know what she was really up to!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You must be really pissed off Jim because I'm never heard you stumble over your words before.

 

[Sarge034]

So while I'm firmly in the camp of wanting objective reviews I'm also firmly in the camp of not letting Devs and Pubs run the games media. So why can't we just get objective details about the game, IE; frame rates, bugs, glitches, things that just don't work, things that fall flat, systems that do mesh well, ect., AND personal opinions so long as they are presented as such? I'm fine hearing if YOU like/don't like it but sometimes I just want to hear about the damn game.

Also, I've been out of the loop. What's the newest incident of the industry trying to take over the media that has Jim all riled up?

 

[Kinitawowi]

GamerGate has been rumbling.

Consumers are up in arms about journalistic integrity, ethics, and quality.

Developers hide behind irrelevancies and artificial shields to prop up an ailing system.

The new CoD came out today. It will sell billions despite being exactly the same bilge as last year's.

Because that's what the people want. They don't want change, they don't want journalistic ethics. They want another brown shooter. That's Jim's point, and thank god for it.

(Also, "Final Fantasy XIII is a game" is clearly a subjective statement.)

 

[bigfatcarp93]

I'm disappointed, Jim, where's your EEMOSHUN?

 

[Tono Makt]

What... did... did I miss something?

Is this a reaction to last weeks video or something? The one about Halloween games? Or the reaction to the Bayonetta video where we mostly discussed alternative views on character design, reviews and design philosophy with a (pleasantly surprising) lack of vitriol for the internet?

Did... did I miss a meeting?

Yes, and likely a significant part of this has something to do with accusations that Jim is not as objective as he portrays himself as being. Gist of that is Jim is quite willing to go up against the "easy" targets (which, ironically, are the AAA game publishers/developers) and is not willing to go up against the "hard" targets (games media, independent developers) at a time when the "easy" targets are doing very little to attract attention to themselves while the "hard" targets are actively engaged in a nasty conflict with a vocal segment of their potential consumer base. Both sides seem to be taking shots at Jim for not supporting either side enough to their liking or showing too much support for the opposing side (even if that "support" is an unwillingness to take a hard stance for one side or the other), and Jim has been trying to walk the fine line between the two as he has a public reputation to protect and private/professional connections to protect, and this conflict makes it extremely difficult to protect both.

I would imagine this is taking a significant toll on Jim, and would point to this particular Jimqusition as evidence. It was likely a very quick episode for him to make, with the hardest part of it being editing his script to walk the fine line mentioned above (ie: ensuring that he's not taking pot shots at people he really, really wants to take shots at but knows that doing so may irrevocably damage either professional/personal ties or his public reputation) meaning there was less time for him to have to pay attention to the conflicts at hand, and more time for him to get away from it all while still meeting his professional obligations (publication of a Jimquisition episode, in this case).

This isn't to say this is a BAD or lazy episode by any stretch of the imagination. I liked much of it, though I think it did get to be somewhat more sarcastic and condescending than it needed to be and as such the message is somewhat diluted. It made an excellent point about the re-release of old material with a new spin on it and calling it new material, though by this point in time I believe that no amount of articles or videos decrying the lack of originality is going to have any effect on the situation; the only way for us to actually do anything about this is to simply not buy the rehashed games. In the short term this hurts the game industry, it will cause people to be put out of work (and not the right people, unfortunately - the decision makers will be generally unaffected by a loss in sales as they stop employing programmers, artists, writers, etc.) but it looks to be the only way to make the point in a way the games industry will pay attention to.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't think the public wants "objective" reviews, but just more accurate, honest reviews...and less PR jobs for publishers.
Or at least, I hope that's the case. (and the point behind this week's subject, because I admit, I'm not entirely sure what prompted this specifically)

This isn't that complicated:
Anyone can hold an opinion on any subject; it's the degree of information one offers about that subject and why it matters that gives their opinion (or review) any value.

A review cannot be 100% objective and remain useful because part of appeal includes some degree of human irrational thought (or at least, thought that seems to have no overt explanation).

By the same token, that doesn't mean the reverse extreme: 0% objectivity; aka "It's just an opinion", is any better, and I see that line used as some sort of magical bullshit shield to hide behind. A LOT.
Sometimes, someone's opinion or interpretation is just flat out, factually (or functionally) wrong.

 

[hermes]

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.

So, what would that mean? I could assume everyone here is a veteran gamer, since we are all in a videogames forum; yet I could bet you there are people in here that agree with a lot of things Jim says in any of his reviews, and there are people in here that disagree with a lot of what he says. Some may believe Shadow of Mordor is great, some may thing its overrated; some may believe Call of Duty Future Warfare is great, some may believe its overrated. Whether position Jim takes in their reviews, its going to disagree with many people and agree with a lot more. So, the only way to present a review that everyone find unobjectionable would be to take no stance. To leave aside all bias and opinion and just state the facts: "Final Fantasy 13 is a videogame."

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?).

What do you mean? I had all the information I may need from his objective review: the game has characters, they talk with each other, it has a story, you can equip weapons, you can level up, the game uses the paradigm system, which lets me chose and assign roles in battle for the AI to take control of the characters. It was extensive and pretty comprehensive. The only thing that it lacked was whether or not he liked the systems or not, but that is an objective review... lets leave informal terms like "like" to those filthy "subjective opinionated" reviews, shall we?
Seriously, you seems to have mistaken the point of the reviews. Reviews are purchase advises from fellow gamers that A) do that for a living, B) are supposed to be capable of articulating their positions, and C) you (the reader) is somehow interested in his/her opinion (otherwise, you wouldn't be reading his/her review). If you are only interested in how the game works, how you can set paradigms, how often you save, how are the graphics, etc... there are a lot of decently written pieces of content (previews, trailers, release notes, interviews) available out there. Some of them are even available long before the game is out, so no surprises there. Of course, most of them are written by the publishers staff or heavily scripted by the PR team, so one could argue they are far more bias than any review...

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.

No; there are standards for including stuff in metacritic: They don't include content hosted by general propose companies (so youtubers will not get their scores listed in MC), and they don't include blogs (tough luck trying to find something from blogspot). But, if you are from a decently sized company, have your own domain, and are willing to get into the format they ask for you to include them, the process is pretty much automatic...
None of those standards are regarded in terms of content, though. If your review is the only one that gave Bayonetta 2 a 1/10, even when it is a pattern, they are not going to prune you, and no one from their site will contact you to ask you to review the score...

 

[Homey C-Dawg]

WTF sparked this episode? Is he poking fun at gamergate again or something?

Please Jim, just stick to consumer advocacy. It's what you're good at.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Jim votes WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA???!!!
Anyway, your "objective" review is way more interesting and straightforward than what I heard FFXIII actually is. I really thought today's video was going to be about how hard it really is to do a review that doesn't bring in the reviewers' biases and personal hang-ups, like politics and preference in genre and the like.

 

[drednoahl]

I'm not sure how to take this video. I don't know all gamers, but I know a fair few IRL (or did) and from MMOs who expect a game to be reviewed from the perspective of "a gamer." Most gamers I know don't give a toss about sites like this or even any other kind of games media. I do know folk who sold their 360s after GTA4 didn't meet their expectations, and ME3 was worse; I'm down to three mates who are gamers IRL thanks to games media at large.

As a gamer I can hop into the boots of loads of things; a green square can be me, a tank can be me, I can be a child, a man or a woman. I am a gamer - I don't see anything difficult in quantum leaping to become a gamer reviewing a game for gamers. The thing is - right now - gamers who use games media are having to quantum leap into the body of a game reviewer with soggy knees to try work out where the fuck games media are coming from; it is a leap too far.

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

Some of my mates aren't gamers any more because "OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews" bullshit attitude got mediocre games great scores/reviews and the publishers milked that. For me it started right here with a review that did not match the expected experience with a tag line that read "The ending the series - and its fans - deserve."

You asked us to "get some fucking perspective" Jim in your hate out of ten video. I did, and by the look of things a lot of other gamers did too - hence the movement.

 

[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.
[...]
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.

Do people not know what things mean? A hypothetical situation in which I clearly implore you to use your imagination is NOT a straw man. I am not misrepresenting an argument. I am stating an entirely different point about why reviewers injecting their own brand of propaganda into reviews can be harmful to the creative freedom of developers.

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.

Amazing. It's rare that people set me up this easily. THIS is a strawman. Do you see it? This is basically the definition of a strawman, undisguised, in a succinct 2 lines. You've misrepresented my argument as having something to do with current review scores rather than the hypothetical that it is. You then stated the review scores, and then claimed my argument has no merit. We see you set up the strawman as a "left-wing collusion" of reviews, and then attack it with review scores, successfully defeating your strawman and claiming victory in the next sentence. Congratulations on your win.