Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[Gatlank]

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

LMAO. That's a good joke. Jim, a consumer advocate... A good one... Oh man my sides.

 

[Sylocat]

If reviews on metacritic are not worth reading and don't help consumers with purchasing decisions, they shouldn't be there. Especially since metacritic scores have tangible effects on the success or failure of studios. Blame the publishers all you want, but game journos know what reality is right now. And if metacritic is so worthless why are sites so keen to get their reviews listed there?

But they ARE worth reading and DO help consumers with purchasing decisions. They just don't help you. You do realize the world doesn't revolve around your navel, right? That people with different backgrounds and opinions might like to hear about that kind of stuff before making a decision?
And putting your reviews on Metacritic doesn't mean you think your review is for everyone, for the same reason that reverse mortgage companies putting their ads on TV doesn't mean their target audience is everyone that watches. Some people will be interested, others won't. Welcome to the world of mass media.

Given the outcry of late it seems clear they aren't helping a whole lot of people besides me.

Really? Because I've noticed that most of the rest of the planet seems to be against said outcry. The people making the "outcry" seem determined to think of themselves as a persecuted, voiceless minority, and you're telling us that they are actually such an overwhelming majority that their tastes are the only ones that Metacritic reviews should cater to?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Biran53]

If you don't like the criteria a reviewer uses to critique something, the solution is fucking simple.



Don't. Read. That. Reviewer.
There is BOUND to be someone out there who fits your standards. Just stop trying to force change upon critics who I like for doing what they do.

 

[mega lenin]

List of Objective things in a video game:

- Graphics (not aesthetics mind you!)
- Sound Quality (in the physical sense )
- Certain Technological aspects (physics, AI for example)
- Optimization

The graphics consists of at least 36,000 shades of color and can boast a polygon count of 40k on most characters. There's an objective description of some game's graphics without getting into aesthetics. Are we enlightened, yet?

The sounds appear to have been recorded at 256bits and were purchased from a sound effect suite sold by ILM. The musical score is written by Joseph Gordon Levitt.

The game uses a menu driven turn based battle system where character avatars carry out player input in realtime through pre-rendered animations. The enemy AI uses a random number generator with a suite of possible responses to determine it's attacks on the player with some scripting to modify RNG behavior.

The game runs at full frame rate on a windows seven platform with 4 g's of ram an I5 processor and ge force gtx 770 graphics card.

So is this the heart of what makes a game good? Is this all you need to know?

 

[dukemagus]

Bah! it's all or nothing with Jim nowadays. or we give a full faux pass for paid bloggers to put any agenda even if it means detracting for analyzing the game just to focus on that detail that is very specific to the writer even if it isn't 100% gaming related and put the rest of the game analysis in second plan

Or he goes full neutral because he can't play the game for what it's worth instead of forcing your non directly game related beliefs into it.

To hell with it! A good reviewer can separate where his opinions in a review help in analyzing the game (mechanics, art, graphics, sound, plot, etc.) to what criticism he should give less focus because it concerns a very specific point of view of the person.

Bringing back THAT review from THAT site that spent too much time complaining about the main character's exaggerated sensualization in an exaggerated action game with a setting and writing exaggerated in most aspects, from dialogue to camera angles.

Let's be fully honest here: does it really distracts you from playing the game? can the cutscenes you didn't liked be skipped? does the thing you didn't liked makes the plot loses its key points or strenght? If not, it's an artistic choice you didn't agree with, not a flaw. Save a spot near the end to say "i personally don't like that artistic choice" and see if the way it was done and with what it had in mind, it was well done.

If you feel you can't stop focusing on that artistic or design detail that goes against your personal beliefs, don't review that game! you're not neutral enough.

There's a ton of games i just don't like the narrative, setting or artistic style, but i can still see if it was well made.

To hell with it Jim, you can do better than empity mockery to prove your point. Be more than that! Be someone i can thank god for.

 

[VonBrewskie]

I don't agree with the people clamoring for "objective" reviews, but god damn. I would rather ally myself with fools than the type of person who would make this video. It isn't insightful, it isn't smart, it doesn't bring a new and interesting perspective, it doesn't inform, it doesn't address the issue in any real way and it isn't even funny. This video is a failure on every level.

But that isn't why I care. I care because you are better than this. The appeal of Jim Sterling is that he holds opinions that are well thought out. I may not always agree with you, but I can trust that if I watch the Jimquisition I will at least get a well reasoned perspective on the issue you talk about. But this? Nothing but a stupid, straw man cheap shot. You are not this stupid Jim. You are not the idiot that completely misses the point. You understand the issue and you could have responded intelligently. But you chose instead to make this farce mocking a straw man.

This is by far one of your worst video's ever. You shut down, you stopped thinking, you cheapened yourself and sunk down to the level of straw manning and deliberate misrepresentation. I expect more from you. This sort of drivel is beneath your normal standard. I would like to think it is beneath you, but I guess I was wrong on that.

I mean, I'm pretty sure everything you said was the point Jim was trying to make with this video. Although, maybe Jim is just pissed and ranting. He seems to do that from time to time. I'm still pretty sure Jim re-released his FFXIII "Objective" review to drive home all of the points you've made in your response. In other words, he did that on purpose.

 

[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?