Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Erttheking]

Snip

Let's be perfectly honest. People can dress it up however they want "Be objective" "Don't be biased" "Focus on what the consumer wants" It's all window dressing. Really people are saying "People keep talking about the portrayal of non-white male heterosexual characters and I don't care about that and I want them to shut up." Most of them will never admit it though.

There are plenty of people out there who really do want better "Ethics" in journalism, but plenty of people just talk about "ethics" to say "don't talk about this thing I'm not invested in and dislike."

 

[Shjade]

"Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism.

Actually, unless you have concrete, irrefutable evidence proving what you claim about why people like or don't like something, saying why people like or don't like it is giving your opinion about why people may or may not like it, which is not objective criticism. It's subjective. You are not stating facts; you are giving your opinion. You are commenting on something that may or may not be true, not stating something that you know is true.

Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[Something Amyss]

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).

I don't even believe it'll lead to fewer troubles. People are upset because they're not being told what they want to hear.

There are plenty of people out there who really do want better "Ethics" in journalism, but plenty of people just talk about "ethics" to say "don't talk about this thing I'm not invested in and dislike."

And that's the exact opposite of ethics.

That's sort of the thing that goes on, though: the best lies contain a nugget of truth. The idea of ethics in games journalism, or any journalism for that matter, is hard to argue against. It's just a pity that what people seem to be less interested in actual ethics and more interested in "ethics." It's like being promised a quality beer and getting Bud Lite.

So let me get this straight, you think that games should only get coverage based on how much money they had funded to them?

I don't know how putting words in my mouth is "getting this straight." It seems the opposite, in fact.

No. You put up a criteria, I evaluated it, it was false. You misrepresented one Kickstarter and then tried to play to it being underrepresented, and I addressed that.

Explain why games with far less funding get far more exposure then.

Such as? Your examples weren't like that. Both Schafer's game and the other earned more money than the one you claimed earned "millions," which was also untrue.

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

You're right. I can't truly believe those claims you falsely ascribed to me. I am just disagreeing on principle. The principle that what you claimed was false.

 

[rofltehcat]

Tbh, I'd prefer the whole review thing to be consistent and transparent: If a gaming publication wants to have reviews that are interlaced with social and political commentary and influence the views of the author, I'm ok with that. It is their right to represent whatever political representation they choose. However, they should be open and consistent about it. If other publications want to keep any socio-political commentary out of the reviews, that is fine too.
However, acting like a publication's reviews are always "fair" (objective) and games are not judged too harshly for possible political/social contents but then turning around and slamming single games in a disproportionate amount is the wrong way to go. The same thing counts for aiming for demographics: Attract the demographic you want to be interested in your views, not a "general demographic" that you then try to steer into a certain socio-political direction through your writing.

Define your standards and be open about them, then judge games by those standards.
There is more than enough space online for game reviews from progressive perspectives, from conservative perspectives, from satirical or comical perspectives, from purely technical perspectives, from apolitical perspectives, even religious perspectives. Sadly, not every publication seems to be certain what standards and perspectives they actually want to review games from.

As an example, I really have to give kudos to www.christcenteredgamer.com . Now, I am non-religious but I still have to say that their approach to reviews is very good: They review games for their gameplay, graphics etc. like many other publications, explain what they like or dislike and then assign a score much like non-religious publications. After that they examine the game and explain how it disagrees and conforms with the moral values represented by the publication, assigning a separate morality score. Now, I'm not saying every publication should assign several different scores to a game but I think every publication should be equally transparent about the standards by which they judge games and in what areas a game fulfills or violates those standards.

 

[CaitSeith]

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

You're right. It isn't like almost every single professional game reviewer's definition of their purpose is different that the one you stated, right? No, they're just incompetent and they can't accept it.

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.

Fair enough. Because every professional game reviewer knows clearly your personal tastes, ideologies or elements of interest or disinterest. And of course every viewer in the Internet has the exact same personal tastes, ideologies or elements of interest or disinterest than you. What are they thinking!?

This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.

Yeah! Call out their ineptitude! You are the voice of every consumer out there! No, you are the perfect example of the only consumer base that the videogames have!

*sarcasm alert* (in case it wasn't obvious)

 

[Haerthan]

Much objective, very ethic, 10/10 would come back and look at it. Much enjoyment has been had from GG.

 

[JimB]

Thank God for Jim Fucking Sterling, son!

Let's be perfectly honest. People can dress it up however they want: "Be objective;" "Don't be biased;" "Focus on what the consumer wants." It's all window dressing. Really, people are saying, "People keep talking about the portrayal of non-white male heterosexual characters and I don't care about that and I want them to shut up." Most of them will never admit it though.

Based on the conversation in this thread, the complaint seems to be, "Predict my opinion of this game with one hundred percent accuracy despite you not being me and therefore having different criteria for judging a game than I do, and formulate this prediction of my opinion by using 'objective standards' I refuse to define."

I don't doubt that there are people out there using "objectivity" as a smokescreen for not being disagreed with on social issues, but in this thread, at least, I'm not really getting whiffs of that. It's all about trying to enshrine one's own subjective opinion as objective fact (pacing is objective? Really? Okay, what instrumentation is used to measure pacing? What is the unit of measurement used to describe what that instrumentation detects?). I'm not clear on what the end goal of this is, but it strikes me personally as an attempt to abdicate one's own responsibility for critical thought of a review.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

I think Bob's objectivity inception lecture shows something insightful here. As far as I remember, the objectivity in mainstream film criticism is focused towards the normal consumer. However critics defined normal consumer in their own terms (normal = themselves).

So, what happens when the critics and the consumers are different and devoid of self-awareness?

 

[Skeleon]

Ah, thank you for that. Very enjoyable. If you found this video to be enjoyable, that is.

Yeah. Let's face it: Reviewers are not objective. And, frankly, that's fine. In fact, a lot of reviewers give a disclaimer when they look at a game that's not "their" genre. But even then, they might be able to give a valuable perspective on whether the game is well-made on a technical level or whether it is accessible to people new to the genre and whatnot. There's value in that subjectivity, you just need to be aware that it is there.

 

[CaitSeith]

Wait, that review was popular in 2010? Well, if the comments here serve us as a sign, then Jim kinda made his point about how of a bad idea is to re-release old popular content.

 

[mattttherman3]

Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.

I'll repeat what I said before:

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

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. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.

Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.

No one says you can't have an opinion, no one says reviews should be 100% objective, but that opinion should be built on video game knowledge. When you talk about whether something works or not in a video game whether the combat system is fun or not, or balanced or not, it should be based on your experience in video games, not some personal vendetta or political nonsense that has nothing to do with games and nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because that's what we're getting out of reviews these days. People who don't even like genres or know something in the game is going to "trigger" them are being given games to review specifically so their review will generate controversy clicks or they can push an agenda.

This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.

You know what I do when I want to know if I'll like a game? Watch gameplay videos without commentary.

 

[SeventhSigil]

You all right, Jim? o.o Kinda feel like you're taking this out on the folks who are generally in your corner, which is kind of like Papa blaming us for the beans on the floor, despite the fact that it was our dim brother Timmy who did it. D: We tried to keep him from spilling the noxious, gas-causing magic fruit on the floor Papa, but he was spinning in circles making dribbling noises that sounded like 'Reddit' over and over! *rim shot*

Anyway, given I've seen the idea of objectivity in reviews pop up here and there, allow me to provide a handy two-step process to dealing with encounters with reviewers possessing 'The Bias.' (This here being defined as 'I Don't Like People Discussing Feminist Issues/Resolution/Whatever In Their Reviews,' as opposed to 'Conflict Of Interest Bias,' which is obviously a much more serious issue.)

1) Go find another reviewer.
2) Actually, it was just a single-step process.

Seriously, go off to find another reviewer whose mindset is more in tune with yours! Because let's face it, it probably won't be the fact that this reviewer is incredibly unbiased that will draw your interest, it's just that THEIR biases are similar enough to your own so that everything they're saying seems sensible and levelheaded. It's often, (along with presentation to a degree) why we usually have our favorite reviewers; we find a guy whose interests and mindset seem to more or less mesh with ours. Going out and saying 'Don't Talk About This, Don't Talk About That' isn't a cry for objectivity, it's a cry to fall more in line with your own biases, to sound more 'reasonable,' here defined as 'saying less things that make me irritable.' I don't like you talking about this aspect in the game, so never again do it, because it's the 'Right Way.'

But the thing is, regardless of how objective reviews might become, the fanbase never will be. Heck, it's not our job to be objective, amirite guys? =D Meaning a theoretically 'Objective Review' is still, ultimately, going to be looked at as 'Grade A Bullshit' by lots, and lots, and lots of people, because an objective analysis, ultimately, has to include both the positive aspects, and the negative aspects, which NO game lacks in, but there will be plenty- PLENTY- of bitching on what 'Matters' in terms of mentionable aspects, or aspects that justify having a point or more docked from the score. It's a debate that will ultimately be carried out by the- aforementioned SUPER biased- fanbase, and their- equally biased- detractors. Resolution and frame rate performance? Nah, no need to talk about how well the game runs, silly, I'm not here to look at pixels! But cue complaints on how the poor PC optimization, and chugging framerate, were never discussed, even as other gamers mock them for 'caring so much about pixels.' Game featuring extensive story and many, many characters relegates most females to the strip club and celebrity sex tape, somewhat limiting the scope of the story? Sure, gamers not super interested in that sort of thing might want to know about it, so we should mention that it- OH DEAR GOD HERE COMES THE MOB, cue the 'Misogynist!' and 'SJW' insult war! The occasional admittedly hilarious glitch that sees a Mammoth suddenly appear high in the sky and plummet to the ground, or a character solemnly vanish into the ground? DEDUCT FIVE POINTS! GLITCHES ARE NEVER TO BE TOLERATED! Cue lambasting for 'blowing such small glitches out of proportion,' even as others insist that they are horribly immersion breaking.

No matter how little, or how much, importance you assign to a specific aspect, be it narrative, technical, etc, whether you decide fast is better, or slow is better, there will always be people telling you that you should have assigned more, or less, or none at all, and fuck your pacing analysis too. When criticism and dislike are all but guaranteed, should the rule of thumb then be 'Figure Out What Will Keep Most People From Bitching, And Do That Exclusively?' What about, God Forbid, the smaller groups of people whose tastes and interests differ from the mob?

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying 'Oh, everyone should dock points from game X for too much boob, not enough women empowerment, etc, etc' OR 'Nobody should dock points from game X for too much boob, not enough women empowerment, etc, etc.' On the contrary, I believe that a bit of both is ideal. In fact, the more reviewers who take differing approaches to each other (heck, let's see some of them ADD a point for more boob! =D ) the better, because those differing approaches, viewpoints, and lenses, offer the consumer more options. Pushing for an objective homogenization of the review industry (because objectivity, a single consistent viewpoint devoid of emotional or personal influence, ultimately leads to homogenization) ultimately melts it down to 'The Most Popular Biases Will Be Served Exclusively,' with reviews focusing only on aspects that the most vocal (or, to use a different bias, 'whiny') elements of the fanbase decree.

Don't like that this reviewer docked a point from GTA5 because it was a bit of a boys club? BOO FREAKING HOO! O_O Never read their reviews again! Problem solved! If you have six reviews telling you exactly what you want to hear, for the love of God don't dogpile the seventh review for daring to shine it under a different light! -_- The day all seven reviews tell us the same bloody thing is the day the industry has well and truly failed its consumers, because as a whole, 99% of that industry becomes superfluous, parrots squawking the same thing over and over again, soulless zombies going through the motions for a paycheque.

 

[daxterx2005]

But what if I want to experience the sound with my eyes and graphics with my ears?

 

[Dragonbums]

Here's a good idea- don't like that one reviewer docked points off a game because they personally felt that it's sexiness, portryals of minority characters, and how they handled certain political situations took away form the game?

Go find another fucking reviewer, and don't poop your nappies crying about "biased" reviews because someone made an opinion you don't like. Quit the fucking bluff. You just want to shut down conversations you don't like or care for.

There are enough people in the videogame sphere who DO care about this stuff and who DO want to discuss those aspects while not necessarily condemning the game's experience.

I love everything about Bayonetta 2. Everything about it. But I can completely understand why someone would be totally put off by the whole thing. What was my enjoyment was another person's distraction and the person who doesn't like it isn't less valid for stating so.


The entire fucking reason why we go to reviewers- especially the same ones- is because you LIKE their viewpoints, and their opinions on games.

Like Yahtzee sure as FUCK ain't an unbiased reviewer. But where are the blacklists asking for him to step down from journalism? Oh that's right- there isn't. Because his views on certain things align more with the traditional side. So his totally unbiased reviews are A-okay. But the dude who reviewed Bayo2 on Polygon? Fuck him. We want him out of this industry.

But that's totally not censorship guys. Not at all.

 

[MercurySteam]

The game review kinda sounds like it's being read out by Brick from Anchorman. I suppose that's what a black and white review should sound like then.

 

[Haru17]

What do you expect when so many viewers of games media are children and stupid people (not that all children are stupid people, just that a lot of them are).

True objectivism is a farce as long as humans have subjective perceptions of reality informed solely by their limited senses and interpreted as a result of their unique collection of personal experiences.

tl;dr: Do not expect other to be exactly you or agree exactly with you as, logically, they will not be you nor exactly agree with you.

 

[SushiJaguar]

My god, the amount of people who failed to get the point of this video is just depressing.

 

[chikusho]

I find it highly amusing that GG people wants to work against censorship (of slander and libel being removed from forums), and also want to force gaming journalists into self censorship (of things GG people don't agree with).

 

[seditary]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

 

[Hazy992]

Gamers are increasingly turning to people on Youtube and Twitch to get their impressions of gaming and leaving behind traditional games media and reviewers and instead of you know, trying to adapt and improve their activities, yell and scream that gamers just don't understand its impossible.

Perhaps try looking at your own house because there's a reason we're moving out.

Which is ironic because YouTubers etc are far more likely to be bought out and collude with big publishers than traditional reviewers. Just look at XB1M13, Shadow of Mordor and countless other brand deals for evidence of that.