Reviews

[Jordi]

I agree that in principle objectivity should be attempted if the goal of the review is to be informative. However, reviews of entertainment (books, movies, video games, ...) will always be inherently subjective. If you review a vacuum cleaner, it's fairly easy to tell what is "broken" and what isn't. But in a video game it's a lot harder, because what one person thinks is boring and "not working for them", does work for someone else. You can then choose to not mention such subjective sentiments, but I don't think that adds value to the review.

What I think could be done is to make the reviewers opinion of secondary importance to the whole piece. He could think "my conclusion is that I don't like this game, so I'm going to build a case for my standpoint", but it's better to instead go through the features of a game and try to be as informative as possible and in the end maybe give your personal conclusion.

But that is if a review is meant to be purely informative. I think that a lot of the reviews nowadays are primarily supposed to be entertaining. And a lot of people prefer reading a rant to a balanced article.

 

[Warachia]

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.

The point in those arguments is there is different directions to approach whatever you are viewing, and both sides can be on opposite sides with equally good points, again, I'll admit nothing can be objective, but you can be objectively subjective: Those who really liked Sparrow's performance in the past three movies will most likely find it enjoyable, those who didn't, will most likely not like the movie as he is the main character, and this goes back to my original point of giving you an idea of what the product is about and it's target audience.

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.

Actually, yes. If you only ever try to be subjective, the only thing you'll end up with is an opinion, an opinion that might or might not match somebody else's, but at that point your opinion might as well be moot because the person can ask a random person on the street, at work, or on the internet and get a different opinion of the same quality each time, and at that point reviewing as a whole becomes completely worthless.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

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.

This really bothers me when reviews do it. I mean, they should do it, why not, but for God's sake don't lower the score of the game. Every game should be reviewed like it is the only game ever (but with a grain of salt too).

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

snip.

snip.

Dragon Age 2 reused too many environments for a video game that lasts about 20 hours. In all the environments of the entirety of Dragon Age 2 would constitute the same complexity as the first open world stage of the Witcher 2. Even when compared to the diversity of environments in the original Dragon Age, the game falls short quantitatively.

The omission of plot branches that effect the major outcomes of the games later events may also turn some players off as this is a huge departure from the original Dragon Age.

This is not to say that Dragon Age 2 is a complete right off for fans of Biowares epic RPG's. The characters of Dragon Age 2 have deep story arcs the player can tap into, and while the relationships may not change the overarching plot, the small intricacies are entertaining through a replay.

Returning die hard RPG players may miss the previous games customizable character armor and spell interactions, but the basics of this are still present in 2. On a brighter note, some players that found the original Dragon Age too difficult to get into combat wise will find a user friendly and quicker paced combat system and revised combat animations.

To me that was almost all opinion.

Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

1. I played Dragon Age 1 and found that the environments were not diverse. They weren't identical, which is what I think you mean to say that Dragon Age 2's environments were, but diverse means 'of a different kind, form, character, unlike.' There were a lot of muddy brown forests in DA:O, therefore they were similar, not diverse. Also, do you have proof that BioWare literally reused environments. As in used the exact same file and construction for a dungeon that they had used before? Otherwise it's just your opinion that they have been reused, and is not based in fact. Also, quantitative is a difficult term. How are you measuring the game? In terms of gameplay length? You mention that the game is 20 hours long which is probably twice as long as most singple player FPS campaigns so quantitatively it is in fact twice what should be expected. Make your terms clear before you begin the review, or alternatively include a glossary to explain what you mean.

2. This is a pointless statement. I am reading your review to know whether I will like Dragon Age 2. Therefore from your point of view of needing an objective review I don't need to know what 'might' turn me away from a game. I need to know what the game includes and nothing more. A bullet-pointed list would perhaps have been better for your purpose.

3. First off, it's 'write-off' and it's not the term you want in this case since it means 'reduce the book value to zero' and is a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. Meaning that the value of the item is void as a result of damage or market drop. Do the characters have deep story arcs? What is your proof? What does deep mean? Emotionally involving, that they take a long time to complete, have lots of facets which link together to create an overall whole? This statement is nothing but qualitative and subjective, and I don't even have to play the game and experience the arcs to know that. Also, 'are' is a definitive term, meaning that the small intricacies will be entertaining through a replay. This is subjective, because some people may not like replays no matter how many extras there are to it.

4. 'May' miss? WHy include a statement that says nothing? Just say the customisable character armour and spell interactions are missing. Also, are the basics really still present? If so in what way are they present? 'On a brighter note', really? That assumes that the previous point made was a negative one, which is a subjective opinion. And finally another use of will, which is a definitive statement yadda yadda see above. Also, how do you define user friendly combat system? What is it and how does it work?

In summary, your review was in fact very subjective, and where it was entirely objective (perhaps twice) it was entirely useless as a review and told me nothing about why I should or shouldn't buy this game.