Reviews

[Warachia]

So I've seen several reviews in threads and in videos that made me wonder if people had missed the whole point of reviewing, many people seem to think a review is a persons personal opinion on a movie, it's not. A review should be as objective as possible, talking about several areas (action, story, characters, effects, environments, lighting, etc.) to give you an idea of whether or not the item in question is good, to your tastes, or good for people who aren't you. Obviously I don't mean for every review to be perfect summerization of these areas, just that they have their own opinion affect as little of the review as possible.

What a critic does is find what is wrong with an item, and tell the maker of said item so that they don't make the same mistake next time, many people seem to think all you need to do as a critic is say something sucks without saying why.

A review of something that only tells you that person's opinion, is not a review, it is a rant. I don't know why many people seem to think this is acceptable, but I would like to hear your opinions on the matter.

EDIT: I never said the reviews should be completely objective (as I know that is impossible), I said as objective as possible, a person can give their own feelings on a movie, but that person's feelings should not make a review.

 

[Marter]

Firstly, you should read <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/8812-MovieBob-How-to-Read-Movie-Criticism>this, because no, the person does not have to remain objective, nor should that even really be attempted.

Secondly, I'm moving this to the off-topic discussion forum, because this is not a review.

 

[starwarsgeek]

Should they stay objective? No. That's impossible. However, critics shouldn't let their own opinion get in the way of a review...if they elaborate enough on their opinion,then even those disagree will leave with some worthwhile information.

 

[MisterGobbles]

A review's purpose should be to convey to other people whether or not the item in question is any good, and whether it is for them. Of course you should include your opinion in a review, but if you think someone else might enjoy the item then you should say that as well. You should do your best to inform people about the item.

 

[Warachia]

Firstly, you should read <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/8812-MovieBob-How-to-Read-Movie-Criticism>this, because no, the person does not have to remain objective, nor should that even really be attempted.

I've already read (and now reread) the article, and I still don't understand why you believe objectivity shouldn't even be attempted. If you can elaborate more on your point it would be appreciated.

 

[Marter]

I've already read (and now reread) the article, and I still don't understand why you believe objectivity shouldn't even be attempted. If you can elaborate more on your point it would be appreciated.

Absolutely.

Objectivity is something that is impossible for a person to have, so therefore, they should not attempt to be objective. Almost all movies have some fans, and the vast majority have some critics that liked/disliked it. Sometimes, the reasons that they like/dislike it are about the same point. One person might have liked the story, while another might have felt that it was poor. Or maybe someone liked the acting, while the other person felt that it was too over-the-top.

Let's take the new Pirates movie, for example. One critic could argue that Johnny Depp's performance as Jack Sparrow was so good that it made the entire movie worthwhile. Another might believe that the character of Jack Sparrow has grown old, and that the series should have ended before the movie is made. Both of these points are subjective. If you want them to remain objective, you'd get things like this: "Yeah, the actor was in view the entire time, so therefore, the cinematography was good." Or maybe you won't even get that, because some people want the actor to be partially obscured at times, or they want some arthouse approach or something. I don't know.

The point is, you can't have objective criticism here, because almost anything you say about it will be subjective. There's no point in trying for objectivity, because you can't achieve it.

You are describing a bad reviewer. Maybe once you get into school you will learn that objectivity in everything is what makes the world go around.

Then I guess every critic out there is currently terrible, because they all review films subjectively.

 

[Fappy]

Objectivity is something that is impossible for a person to have, so therefore, they should not attempt to be objective.

You just mean this in regards to reviews right? >.>

 

[Marter]

You just mean this in regards to reviews right? >.>

Yes. That's all that I meant.

 

[Saelune]

A review is intended to give info about something for the sake of others to determine if they want it.
People need to realize though, that if you disagree with a reviewer about what you like, then they wont give an accurate view for you. Someone who has never played ANY Call of Duty is not going to gain anything from just saying its the same as last time, for example. Someone who plays shooters, but not CoD, would want to have comparitive info to know what they ae getting into.
NO SINGLE REVIEWER will make a review that properly caters to everyone.

 

[DirgeNovak]

A review is a judgment of quality. Therefore it is impossible for it to be objective.
You can't say "this movie/game/book/whatever is objectively good/bad". If one could do that, there would be no point to writing reviews, since every single one of them would say the exact same thing.

 

[Fappy]

You just mean this in regards to reviews right? >.>

Yes. That's all that I meant.

*Sigh of relief* Good!

In any case I agree. While you should always attempt to review the material from every angle, the benefit of embracing subjectivity in a review is the unique insight the reviewer can bring to his/her viewers/readers. If they are on the fence about something, people need to see it from different perspectives before judging the movie/game/album/etc.

 

[DirgeNovak]

A review is a judgment of quality. Therefore it is impossible for it to be objective.
You can't say "this movie/game/book/whatever is objectively good/bad". If one could do that, there would be no point to writing reviews, since every single one of them would say the exact same thing.

What does objective mean to you? It seems that most people here have no clue what it means.

Dictionary definition:
Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
No one can review/critique a work of art such as a game without considering their own feelings. It's simply inhuman.

 

[Catalyst6]

The phrase "take it with a grain of salt" applies to reviews. More to the point, every piece of editorial work should be assumed to be the opinion of the writer, nothing more. They're not factual pieces, and therefore can never be objective.

It's kind of like writing persuasive papers in school, and the teacher telling you to never use the phrase "In my opinion" because it's already assumed to be so.

And besides, even the news is opinionated. People will talk for days about how X newscaster has a Y slant and yaddah yaddah yaddah.

Finally, the only true "objective review" would be a list of features, nothing more. Bear in mind, you can't say that something is done well or not, as those are non-objective opinions. No, such a review would look like this:

CRYSIS 2
-> Is a FPS
-> Has a male protagonist.
-> Has multiplayer
-> Has graphic
-> Has lights.
(etc.)

 

[Chiasm]

The phrase "take it with a grain of salt" applies to reviews. More to the point, every piece of editorial work should be assumed to be the opinion of the writer, nothing more. They're not factual pieces, and therefore can never be objective.

I always believe using this train of thought is great not only for reviews but for anything you read.

For example OP If I love RPG's chances are i'll end up praising a few RPG games even if they really are niche based and only for fans of RPG's. Things like Shin Megami Tensei or Kings Field even Two Worlds 2 is a perfect recent example. However, chances are if I were given a sports title it would only be mildly interesting to me, and any review I wrote about the game would always show my disinterest

 

[Catalyst6]

"Snip

Snip" go the quoting shears

That is why you let the reader/listener know what portion is your opinion and which portion is not. A review that is simply your "feeling" is a bad review. Any reviewer that cannot separate analysis from emotion should not be a reviewer.

But that's the thing, there's no portion of the review that is NOT your opinion. You will always be choosing what to include and exclude, how to phrase particular sentences, and so on. This isn't a quality of the reviewer, it's a hard truth of the industry. A review cannot be fifteen volumes in length, so there must be information omitted at some point. What info gets left in and what gets taken out, well, that's opinion.

As for the writing, your opinion of the game will always taint what you write about it, no matter the context. A good reviewer minimizes this, but it's impossible to eliminate it completely.

 

[DirgeNovak]

That is why you let the reader/listener know what portion is your opinion and which portion is not. A review that is simply your "feeling" is a bad review. Any reviewer that cannot separate analysis from emotion should not be a reviewer.

Even an analysis cannot be objective. Aside from mundane stuff like "Raziel is blue", "Anders is gay" or "Harry Potter wears glasses", give me one example of objective analysis in a review.

 

[Catalyst6]

"Snip

Snip" go the quoting shears

That is why you let the reader/listener know what portion is your opinion and which portion is not. A review that is simply your "feeling" is a bad review. Any reviewer that cannot separate analysis from emotion should not be a reviewer.

But that's the thing, there's no portion of the review that is NOT your opinion. You will always be choosing what to include and exclude, how to phrase particular sentences, and so on. This isn't a quality of the reviewer, it's a hard truth of the industry. A review cannot be fifteen volumes in length, so there must be information omitted at some point. What info gets left in and what gets taken out, well, that's opinion.

As for the writing, your opinion of the game will always taint what you write about it, no matter the context. A good reviewer minimizes this, but it's impossible to eliminate it completely.

In an objective review, what you leave in and leave out can be effected by ones own opinion, but the content that remains must be based in fact pertaining to the reviewed material. Often times (too often) these facts are not "facts" but manipulated observations that do not ring true upon a direct inspection.

But by your saying that something "does not ring true" is an opinion on your part. That's the thing, it's all in your personal perspective, nothing more. Every "objective" reviewer in the world can pan something for being horrid, but if you happen to really like the subject material then it'll probably be grand for you.

 

[Wuggy]

I don't think any of you are right. While it's pointless to try to make an review strictly objective, it's stupid to make it strictly subjective. I know that didn't make a whole lot of sense but hear me out:

A reviewer should consider not only him/herself and his/her feelings about the game but also the target democraphic as well as people with different tastes and priorities. A good review, in my mind, is something along the lines of "If you're a person who likes/dislikes X then you'll probably like/dislike Y". A single person's opinion on a product is useless to me, because I probably have differing priorities and bases for judgement. While subjective feeling is a part of review, one should not forget analysis.

 

[Catalyst6]

I don't think any of you are right. While it's pointless to try to make an review strictly objective, it's stupid to make it strictly subjective. I know that didn't make a whole lot of sense but hear me out:

A reviewer should consider not only him/herself and his/her feelings about the game but also the target democraphic as well as people with different tastes and priorities. A good review, in my mind, is something along the lines of "If you're a person who likes/dislikes X then you'll probably like/dislike Y". A single person's opinion on a product is useless to me, because I probably have differing priorities and bases for judgement. While subjective feeling is a part of review, one should not forget analysis.

Well, yes, that's an appropriate thing to do *if* the subject at hand will appeal to a specific group of people. For example, "If you like Spiderman then you'll probably like Spiderman: Shattered Dimensions". However, once you move into more general sections of the populace then you'll run into trouble because there's just not enough room to list them all. That's why it's good to find a reviewer that has similar tastes to your own, or is at least constant with his, in order to get a more helpful point for you.

 

[Catalyst6]

"Snip

Snip" go the quoting shears

That is why you let the reader/listener know what portion is your opinion and which portion is not. A review that is simply your "feeling" is a bad review. Any reviewer that cannot separate analysis from emotion should not be a reviewer.

But that's the thing, there's no portion of the review that is NOT your opinion. You will always be choosing what to include and exclude, how to phrase particular sentences, and so on. This isn't a quality of the reviewer, it's a hard truth of the industry. A review cannot be fifteen volumes in length, so there must be information omitted at some point. What info gets left in and what gets taken out, well, that's opinion.

As for the writing, your opinion of the game will always taint what you write about it, no matter the context. A good reviewer minimizes this, but it's impossible to eliminate it completely.

In an objective review, what you leave in and leave out can be effected by ones own opinion, but the content that remains must be based in fact pertaining to the reviewed material. Often times (too often) these facts are not "facts" but manipulated observations that do not ring true upon a direct inspection.

But by your saying that something "does not ring true" is an opinion on your part. That's the thing, it's all in your personal perspective, nothing more. Every "objective" reviewer in the world can pan something for being horrid, but if you happen to really like the subject material then it'll probably be grand for you.

It depends on what I'm talking about. It is wise however to get out of this state where you believe everything is opinion and everyone is not right. Professors will get tired of it very quickly.

My friend, I'm a chemist (if it wasn't obvious), not a liberal-arts flower child. Not everything in the world is opinion, but everything in the written world is drowning in bias, whether we can help it or not. We don't take reviews at face value for the same reason why only a dullard would fully trust a newspaper to cover every side of the story, it just doesn't happen. It's the responsibility of the reader to absorb a wide amount of information, and make his own conclusions from what he has taken.