Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[hydrolythe]

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.

I like the comment, but I disagree with the "personal ideology" part. One of the review styles of my all-time favorite video game reviewer (Dr. Sparkle) is to explain out his personal ideology on the game and then explaining why he exactly holds that personal ideology in very elaborate detail.

That being said though, I found a reviewer and (ex-EGM member) which fits your criteria of a professional reviewer. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v5EHqO153E&list=PL9D5F481536776B3A&index=1 . I hope you will like him.

 

[coheedswicked]

Is Jim broken?

 

[Netrigan]

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

Oh, you want to talk about Roger Ebert? Fine, let's talk about Roger Ebert.

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/rogers-little-rule-book

Ebert actually cared about his ethics. Now read that list and let me know how many things on there these "professional reviewers" violate each and every day?

Notice how few of the rules have anything to do with the actual contents of the review beyond a few guidelines.

First rule: tell the reader if you liked/hated it, not if they will like/hate it.
Second rule: give them a sense of the experience, as it allows them to take away useful information if your opinion is different from theirs.
.
Then some general rules about hyperbole, as too many critics will over-praise; and not being afraid of being negative.

Then a lot of stuff about how to safeguard your integrity, both to the public and to the subjects of your reviews... including some exceptions to allow for poverty.

And I'm seeing quite a few people here who are really upset that critics are following Rule #1, which is rather the crux of the argument about "objective" reviews. A bunch of people don't want critics to insert their own personal opinions into the review, because said review is supposed to tell the reader if they'll like the game or not. And a lot of us are calling Bullshit on that, because giving their honest opinion is what a critic should do... they can't be afraid to be negative if that's their honest opinion. They can't be afraid to express why they have a negative reaction, because that hides crucial information from the reader.

Far too many people just want those negative opinions to go away, never to be discussed; because they don't share those negative opinions. Then complain bitterly when game reviews don't express negative opinions, because they have those negative opinions.

Game reviewers are not your *****. They shouldn't be anyone's *****. They should be brave enough to write the reviews they believe are appropriate, not constantly be looking over their should at the fans and publishers who want to punish them for being honest.

 

[hydrolythe]

Found this episode to be particularly funny. Thank God for Jim. I also find the term "objective review" to be oxymoronic, given that the whole point of a review is to provide an opinion.

As many people have already been pointing out, a review may bring the author's biases into their thought process, subtly changing the content of their writing. But the experience of playing the game can differ between people as well, reflecting on whether or not they like the game.

Example: Suppose in a game that there's a scripted sequence in an early level teaching the player how to fight a certain enemy. The player needs to be facing the right way in order to see this, otherwise they may have difficulty fighting these grunts later on. Now suppose that two reviewers are playing the game, but only one of them is facing the right way in order to see the sequence. These two reviewers are going to have very different experiences playing the game: one is going to understand how to fight the enemies immediately, while the other is going to experience much more frustration trying to figure it out. You can sure as hell bet that's going to be mentioned in their reviews.

Even if we managed to divorce reviews from outside contexts, we can't account for how a person experiences a game with 100% certainty. Hence, the idea of a totally objective account of a game is impossible.

While I would love to agree with your opinion I find your example to be flawed.

In your example you noted that they are having different experiences fighting an enemy, but one thing their opinion is not going to diverge upon is the behavior and strength of that particular enemy. As long as you only write that you have a fact, thus showing that your example does not illustrate your point well enough.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

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.

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
-So you wanna go back in time and tell Roger Ebert how to do his job?

Actually, considering the movie in question, I'd say that's a pretty objective review of it.

 

[Hyrist]

The title was enough to avoid me giving the video a 'click'.

This level of satire is beneath you at this point Jim, and I do feel, along with others, that you've been dragged down into the narrative banter that really subtracts from anything resembling journalistic or intelligent in the discourse.

I believe in variety; in gaming, in Journalism, so long as that variety is fair. Right now in both gender issues and journalistic representation/integrity, we don't have that, and we should.

I remember your previous videos saying you were doing what you could to stay out of the mire of all of this, and now it seems you're in the thick of it. Worse, you're no longer appealing for sensibility here but joining at the Journalistic inside joke of being able to snipe at a portion of its reader/viewership without the said consumer base having a clear voice representing them.

Yes, our culture is heavily diversified: But it's the role of the Journalist to give clear voices to the chaotic mire that is any diversified community - and the more I observe the events going on, the more I've seen Journalists lose touch of that. "Us vs Them" is prevalent on both sides of the debate table and I don't agree with the tone either are taking.

One group really does not have a clear voice to carry that tone any longer - that being the mired gaming base. The Journalists, however? Each of you have something the collective consumer does not: A pedestal upon which to speak and be listened to, where many eyes are naturally drawn. There's a bit of responsibility in that position, I think. And it seems to me the biggest argument against Gaming Journalists right now is that the many of the consume feels like that responsibility is being ignored.

 

[Netrigan]

I was looking up Greg Tito's infamous Dragon Age II review (which I personally don't have a problem with because he really seemed to love it) and stumbled across this gem of a review, which is the sort of thing I personally hate about far too many video game reviews.

I don't care if you love or hate Gears of War, but if you give an A+ review to it, I expect to see a ton of love on display in the written review. If you give an F, I expect to see a ton of hate. It drives me nuts when the written review is describing a C game and clearly giving the game a much higher score.

This is why I take a bit of issue with Greg Tito's GTA V review. It's not that he didn't like it, it's so clear from the written review that he didn't enjoy the game that his 7/10 displays a certain lack of courage. But considering how insane some folks went over a 7, I almost can't blame him.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

I wasn't aware I was being dishonest here.

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.

I agree that definitely occurs, though I don't entirely blame them either given the amount of Genetic Fallacy being slung everywhere.

"Games misrepresent me, therefore: Gamers are misogynist! Gamers are insular bigots! Gamers are over!"
I'd get sick of that shit too...hell, I AM sick of that shit already.

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."

The subject of ethics in gaming journalism* appears to have morphed into some sort of metaphysical boomerang; throw it out there, and it flies right back at you.

I don't think it's unfair to request better disclosure of potential ethical issues; like conflicts of interest in reviews.
Perspective and objectivity aren't absolute requirements in criticism, but neither can they be discounted either.

Then again, it appears what I (or anyone else) thinks is fair or unfair does not matter at all if it doesn't serve some social-political narrative. Small wonder nothing changes, let alone for the better.

(*or gaming press, more accurately; virtually none of them have journalism degrees or anything more than the barest understanding of what journalism actually is)

 

[Erttheking]

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.

I wasn't aware I was being dishonest here.

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.

I agree that definitely occurs, though I don't entirely blame them either given the amount of Genetic Fallacy being slung everywhere.

"Games misrepresent me, therefore: Gamers are misogynist! Gamers are insular bigots! Gamers are over!"
I'd get sick of that shit too...hell, I AM sick of that shit already.

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."

The subject of ethics in gaming journalism* appears to have morphed into some sort of metaphysical boomerang; throw it out there, and it flies right back at you.

I don't think it's unfair to request better disclosure of potential ethical issues; like conflicts of interest in reviews.
Perspective and objectivity aren't absolute requirements in criticism, but neither can they be discounted either.

Then again, it appears what I (or anyone else) thinks is fair or unfair does not matter at all if it doesn't serve some social-political narrative. Small wonder nothing changes, let alone for the better.

(*or gaming press, more accurately; virtually none of them have journalism degrees or anything more than the barest understanding of what journalism actually is)

Good thing I wasn't accusing you of dishonest then. "Let's be honest" is just another way of saying "Let's face facts"

Pardon me, but is this really a big thing? Aside from those initial articles is this a widespread thing? Not to mention I've seen it said over and over again that the "gamers are dead" article, didn't mean what it sounded like, so it sounds like a lot of people are jumping the gun and trying to play the victim card. Also when I see gamers called misogynists, it never is about the entire demographic, and is usually in response to something that warrants it.

It's become one of those things where it means whatever the person speaking wants it to mean. What conflict of interest? Also once again, unless a reviewer is flat out lying about a game, objectivity shouldn't be an issue.

 

[CaitSeith]

I don't think is a question of objectivity vs subjectivity is more like professional vs amateur. For example, sometimes reviewers make comments about the difficulty of a game but the game in focus has difficulty selection. What he wants to say? The difficulty selection don't work or he had expectations about one particular difficult and was too lazy to try the others?

Well, the difficulty of a game is relative to the player's skills. I read a review of Alien: Isolation where the reviewer wrote that the developpers recomended the hard mode. So he reviewed the hard mode, and he had an awful time because it was too difficult for him

So, was it alright that he gave it negative points because he followed the developers recomendation? Or should had he changed to an easier mode to test if the game could be enjoyable for people with his same skills? In fact, isn't in general normal mode the recommended for most people (normal people)?

 

[hydrolythe]

You know, no matter how bad you think this week's Jimquisition was, you could accredit him one thing, that is that he managed to start a debate. A debate that is about how game reviews should look like. More specifically: Whether a video game review should be subjective or not.

Personally, I think that objectivity and subjectivity only affect ones writing style. An extremely subjective reviewer would more go among the lines of B-Movie action (think of stuff such as The Angry Video Game Nerd) while extreme objectivity will make it look like a documentary about the game in question.

Now I ask question: Where on the scale should a reviewer be to be considered a good reviewer?

 

[Hyrist]

I think we're along the lines of being impartial than simply being 'objective' it's sad that the state of debate is down to semantics, but, there it is.

But to turn the narrative on its head a moment - we need to have a more holistic approach to this. While we can harp on the journalists on the unbiasness or the threat of being 'bought' on their reviews, we also have to harp on the production companies that rate their employee's pay based off of average review scores.

It's a nasty environment all around that we really need to clean up, but winds up being a catch 22 when people's livelyhoods are on the line in a field that already suffers from high employment risk.

Both issues there need to be addressed and regarded seriously, not mocked off hand.

 

[Netrigan]

Because he always keeps the important question in mind when reviewing a game, "is it fun?". That's a question that isn't really addressed to nearly the extent it should be in pre-release review, and that's where my criticism of the current state of game journalism industry lies. Everyone clamors to examine a game for it's social commentary, or for it's decadent graphics, but nobody is telling us whether or not games are fun or not in pre-release review.

Let's not forget "how many side activities there are" and not caring if they're terribly much fun.

But I still maintain that you're looking at a gut reaction, which a reviewer has to be able to articulate. We've seen a lot of games recently which require hunting in order to upgrade various inventory items, but what if someone finds that so distasteful that they can't enjoy the game. What if you find the digs at Gamers in Borderlands 2 spoil your enjoyment of the game? What if you find your character's motivation to be obscene (something like Postal) where you don't want to complete the missions? There's a lot of things which can trump "fun". Fun is inherent on a mood and it's up to the game to build that mood.

Take GTA IV, where every time I started to get into the swing of the game, to start enjoying myself, someone calls me on the phone to get me to go do some boring activity with him... and if I don't do it, then they'll get snotty at me and I'll lose perks. So even if large chunks of GTA IV are fun, having to constantly take breaks to go do something not fun spoils the mood. The game actually nags me if I'm enjoying myself and not giving the proper amount of attention to my in-game friends. And not fun.

Or a bit in Watch Dogs where they introduce the on-line content in the single player game, so I'm told to drive across town to do something or other, then have my game invaded by the "on-line content" before I can accomplish it... which made me turn off on-line options right then and there, because I have no interest in having people interrupt my game like that. They actually killed my fun-time mood by trying to insist the on-line content on me in the most irritating way possible.

Or that movie which might be pretty good if they didn't insist on shoving some irritating comic relief character into every scene, thus insuring that I'm faintly irritated during the entire movie. Why aren't I having fun? Because Jar Jar Binks and Rob Snieder are getting in the way of it.

And maybe sexism is the Jar Jar Binks for someone, something they can't ignore because it's right there being annoying in their face.

 

[Grace_Omega]

The problem with games journalism is that its straddling an uncomfortable line between actual criticism and a product recommendation.

To give an illustrative example: a technical analysis of the features of the iPhone 6 and an opinion piece on the conditions of Foxconn workers are both valid ways of writing about the iPhone, but they exist in sharply delineated worlds. You wouldn't really expect the product recommendation to talk about factory conditions, and it would be a bit weird if the person writing the polemic stopped midway through to talk about how awesome the phone's camera is.

Games can't have that sharp separation because they're both digital products with features that can be discussed and evaluated in a dry, non-emotional way and also (frequently) story-driven experiences. The thing is, it didn't used to be this way- for a long time games didn't have much of a story at all and so I don't think it really even occurred to people to subject them to the same sort of analysis and criticism that movies or books are subjected to, and the game review = product recommendation mindset was firmly established. But now that's changing, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

Personally I think there's so much digital ink spilled on the topic, you can find whatever kind of review you're looking for. I personally prefer the highly opinionated reviews that consider things like social commentary and thematic content, but if you just want to know how good the graphics are and how fun the gameplay is you can find that too. What I'm baffled by is when people seem to think every single review has to adopt a certain style; I don't really see what the point of that would be.

(Also: whenever the topic of "objectivity" comes up it has to be remembered that a *lot* of calls for objective reviews are just being written by people who are angry that a review didn't agree with their own opinion. Take a look at the comments below any review of a highly anticipated game if you don't believe me. Also keep an eye out for accusations that the reviewer is being "unprofessional")

 

[CaitSeith]

Because he always keeps the important question in mind when reviewing a game, "is it fun?". That's a question that isn't really addressed to nearly the extent it should be in pre-release review, and that's where my criticism of the current state of game journalism industry lies. Everyone clamors to examine a game for it's social commentary, or for it's decadent graphics, but nobody is telling us whether or not games are fun or not in pre-release review.

Let's not forget "how many side activities there are" and not caring if they're terribly much fun.

But I still maintain that you're looking at a gut reaction, which a reviewer has to be able to articulate. We've seen a lot of games recently which require hunting in order to upgrade various inventory items, but what if someone finds that so distasteful that they can't enjoy the game. What if you find the digs at Gamers in Borderlands 2 spoil your enjoyment of the game? What if you find your character's motivation to be obscene (something like Postal) where you don't want to complete the missions? There's a lot of things which can trump "fun". Fun is inherent on a mood and it's up to the game to build that mood.

Take GTA IV, where every time I started to get into the swing of the game, to start enjoying myself, someone calls me on the phone to get me to go do some boring activity with him... and if I don't do it, then they'll get snotty at me and I'll lose perks. So even if large chunks of GTA IV are fun, having to constantly take breaks to go do something not fun spoils the mood. The game actually nags me if I'm enjoying myself and not giving the proper amount of attention to my in-game friends. And not fun.

Or a bit in Watch Dogs where they introduce the on-line content in the single player game, so I'm told to drive across town to do something or other, then have my game invaded by the "on-line content" before I can accomplish it... which made me turn off on-line options right then and there, because I have no interest in having people interrupt my game like that. They actually killed my fun-time mood by trying to insist the on-line content on me in the most irritating way possible.

Or that movie which might be pretty good if they didn't insist on shoving some irritating comic relief character into every scene, thus insuring that I'm faintly irritated during the entire movie. Why aren't I having fun? Because Jar Jar Binks and Rob Snieder are getting in the way of it.

And maybe sexism is the Jar Jar Binks for someone, something they can't ignore because it's right there being annoying in their face.

Hey! I like Jar Jar Binks! And I find offensive you compare him with sexism! Ok, I'm kidding in the later (I understand your point). But I do like Jar Jar Binks, even if no one else does.

 

[able_to_think]

I remember being so fucking pissed when Jim wrote that "review" because I had the exact same idea and was going to do a c-blog of it but Jim beat me to it. I'm glad you revisited this as a Jimquisition video because I can send it to people who complain about "biased reviews" when they're really just whining because they don't agree with the review. A review is a persons critique and opinion on whatever they're reviewing and an opinion is formed from biases created by past experiences. People are so fucking insecure about their own opinions and biases that they freak out if someone disagrees with them. It's really pathetic.

 

[Colour Scientist]

The title was enough to avoid me giving the video a 'click'.

This level of satire is beneath you at this point Jim, and I do feel, along with others, that you've been dragged down into the narrative banter that really subtracts from anything resembling journalistic or intelligent in the discourse.

Unless I'm mistaken, you think this level of satire is beneath him but you haven't watched the video?

 

[Something Amyss]

Unless I'm mistaken, you think this level of satire is beneath him but you haven't watched the video?

This isn't about watching his video....

This is about ethics in journalism.