The problem with reviews

[Altorin]

you don't have to be a big media reviewer to get a comped review copy, you just need to have a fanbase and know who and how to ask for it.

 

[migo]

A review is ostensibly supposed to tell you if you will like the game, not if the other person liked it. Certainly someone else liking the game will increase the likelihood of you liking it, but it's by no means certain.

 

[BlackWidower]

At least the harsh critics are telling the truth.

It's much easier for to give negative jokey reviews. You just pick up on one or two features and mock them. You don't have to try and understand the subtleties or work to get good at the game.

OH! I thought you were talking about harsh reviewers. Those that look for every fault in the game while acknowledging the good bits. Not assholes. You should try to be clearer in the future.

I once wrote a review of Myst V, a game I hated, and I was pretty harsh, but I noted that some of the ages in the game were pretty nice. Which was honestly the only thing I found to be any good.

 

[Lyx]

When was a review anything but an opinion?

Did I miss that meeting?

When a reviewer is not being passionate or nasty. It's really not that hard to recognize something is good even when you don't like it.

If it's good, you'll like it.

This is the entertainment industry, hun - games are meant to do just that - entertain.

If you don't like them, you would rate them poorly. This doesn't mean the game is bad, but you would personally would rate it low. That is a review.

You can't say it is good, you just don't like it. That would be an oxymoron.

Okay, let me try to start explaining this first with your terms, and then switch to terms that make more sense:

"Fun" is "objective". Actually, everything is "objective", because there are things that make something fun to someone. And those things may work better or worse. What creates the impression of "subjectivity" simply is that people may have different preferences (they rate accodording to different criteria. They look for different things in a game). What is important to one, may be less important to someone else. Still, and this is the key point: If you know how someone did rate something - what he was looking for - then you can understand how that person came to that conclusion (unless he made an error).

This means: The whole distinction between "objective" and "subjective" makes no sense: Everything can be verified, if you only know how and according to what someone rated something (so, if you understand that person). And this is also how - with a bit of mental flexibility - can see how a game could be fun to other people, even though its not fun to you. There is no such thing as "subjectivity" and "objectivity" - there is only honesty and dishonesty, and the question how much effort you put into considering things (this is what often is called "shallow" and "deep").

But besides of individual priorities, there is something else that doesn't even depend on personal "taste": Efficiency. What that seemingly "unfunny" term means is something very simple: How well something works. For example: Letting a player spent a lot of effort, and then punishing him for that, isn't going to motivate that player much, nor is it going to make him feel that he "accomplished something" - so if a player is looking for those things in a game (its "fun" to him) then that game wont be able to do this well. This is not a matter of "opinion" - it's what gamedesign is about.

Now taking all this into account, it should be obvious that reviews could give players information with which they can decide if they would like something. The reviewer could explain how playing the game is like, what happens, how gamemechanics work, etc., and even if the reviewer comes to the conclusion that he doesn't like the game, the player then via that review could notice "Hmm, but the things which you didn't like don't matter much to me, and some of them i actually like, so i'm gonna try this one."

But if the reviewer didn't even bother to give that information - if he would just state that it sucks without explaining much what he's talking about and why he thinks so... if he would review like that, the player could never understand this. All he'd know is "there is someone in the world who doesnt like something". Useless - but certainly less effort for the reviewer. Unfortunatelly, explaining exactly this "why" is the most useful part of the review to a player who is willing to think, rather than just immitate.

 

[Lyx]

You gotta explain how it is then possible to like/not like something based on a description of a game. Why would people even state "i like these things in games" or "this and that annoys me in games", or the whole genre-war thing. If as you say everything were "subjective" (whatever that is supposed to mean), people wouldn't even know why they like something - there would be no continuity at all, just randomness. How do you explain that? Or do you want to throw logic fully overboard

Hint: "Good" and "bad" always are relative to something. Shoegaze is "good at" creating those psychedelic soundscapes - like flooding the room with a wall of sound, and then painting on it with small nuances. That however makes it a kind of music, where the stuff in the "foreground" is less important than the stuff in the background (bit like with overtone music). Plus, it doesn't so much sound like a "song" (well, unless your name is slowdive - they managed to get BOTH, which may be how they got mainstream approval - because the mainstream wants "songs" - obvious melodies that "tell you" instead of you having to pay attention. That is why "pop" is so "popular" .

However, all this stuff has nothing to do with "subjectivity". Heck, it doesn't even have to do with consciousness: A hammer is "good at"... well hammering things An thriller is good at driving anticipation, suspense and blood level upwards, but not so good at creating a relaxed calm atmosphere. There is no "good" and "bad" - only "good at" and "bad at" something/someone. Good/bad ultimatelly just mean "wanted"/"unwanted"... but wanted/unwanted always depends on the context. If you want to go through with your appeal to "subjectivity", then that would be like claiming, that there is no reason why people like/dislike something. Good luck with that.

 

[Burningsok]

its just like politics/news, you don't watch or read from one source, you get your information from a few places then make up your own mind about it. I usually use gameinformer, IGN, gamespot, and sometimes others to read game reviews.