I think the video had some interesting points. I actually favor objectivity, but he's right in saying that one should acknowledge his/her own biases. It actually frees you up for discussion, I think. If you admit to yourself that you can't be 100% objective about something, you can change your mind based on conversations with people who have different perspectives. You don't have to feel "ashamed" because you were wrong about something; aspects of a film/game/etc. can just be overlooked when biases are involved.
I've also been reading a lot of comments about subjective reviews being inherently bad because there's no reasoning behind it. I think that just because you are not being totally objective about something doesn't mean you can't be critical or lay out your argument logically. Like the GTAV review. A lot of people didn't think about how it could be seen as sexist; the reviewer did, and her reasoning was there. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but she didn't just throw the word "sexist" out there and end the review.
The idea of reviewing material in a larger social context is great. I like this idea a lot. I think this sort of discussion definitely has a place in the community. However, I wouldn't want to do away with the discussion of games in a smaller, individual context. I think there's plenty of room for both.
You know, as much as everyone complains about it, I see a lot of legitimate criticism of Annita's videos. It's everywhere actually. She doesn't own the internet, so she can't stifle conversation by disabling YouTube comments. She can shield herself from it if she wants, but we still talk about her work regardless of her presence. I still think Annita's biggest flaw was the initial case studies about Prince Peach and Zelda; those characters have like 50 games between them. Even if she had done a great job in every other aspect, the scope was way too big; she was bound to miss things, and her choices to narrow the scope were bound to be judged as biased or cherry-picking. You'd never do that in grad level literature classes. She should have picked characters who only appear in one or a few games so she had a reasonable amount of information to work with.
I've also been reading a lot of comments about subjective reviews being inherently bad because there's no reasoning behind it. I think that just because you are not being totally objective about something doesn't mean you can't be critical or lay out your argument logically. Like the GTAV review. A lot of people didn't think about how it could be seen as sexist; the reviewer did, and her reasoning was there. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but she didn't just throw the word "sexist" out there and end the review.
The idea of reviewing material in a larger social context is great. I like this idea a lot. I think this sort of discussion definitely has a place in the community. However, I wouldn't want to do away with the discussion of games in a smaller, individual context. I think there's plenty of room for both.
You know, as much as everyone complains about it, I see a lot of legitimate criticism of Annita's videos. It's everywhere actually. She doesn't own the internet, so she can't stifle conversation by disabling YouTube comments. She can shield herself from it if she wants, but we still talk about her work regardless of her presence. I still think Annita's biggest flaw was the initial case studies about Prince Peach and Zelda; those characters have like 50 games between them. Even if she had done a great job in every other aspect, the scope was way too big; she was bound to miss things, and her choices to narrow the scope were bound to be judged as biased or cherry-picking. You'd never do that in grad level literature classes. She should have picked characters who only appear in one or a few games so she had a reasonable amount of information to work with.