The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review

[mmiki]

I would have absolutely no problem with people inserting whatever politics they want into a review if there wasn't for Metacritic. For instance, if you give the game a low score because the main character does not have enough clothes, that affects the Metacritic score, and that then affects how (some) companies will make games. Thus, their personal politics will get reflected in how games get made. It's difficult to assess how much effect these things have in the long run, as it would require a serious study, but my opinion is that there is enough to worry about it. The flood of calls for "objectivity" in reviews reflects the same anxiety.

To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with anyone having any opinion, if it wasn't for it affecting review scores. Which is why when RPS does it, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother me when Polygon does it.

For the record, I don't think there is an objective truth here, either way, it's that my biases don't correspond with their biases, and that is a source of conflict. If, for instance, a certain group of journalists decides that having the "right message" rather than fun is what games should be about, or that everyone who plays games primarily for escapism and doesn't care for deeper meaning is a basement-dwelling consumerist zombie with a mushroom hat, gamers that don't agree would be likely to backlash.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

I certainly understand what the OP is saying here. I've read a review from a site that completely loved the game for what it was, but took off an insane amount of points because "they" felt the game was over-sexualized.

Something being over-sexualized is an ideology, and ideology doesn't belong in a objective review. If Fidel Castro makes you a sandwich and you loved everything about that sandwich, you wouldn't remove points because Fidel Castro made the sandwich. Who made the sandwich is irrelevant to its taste. If a game features a ton of swear words and you have virgin ears, then removing points because there's too many swear words is a reviewer cramming their own ideology down the throat of gamers.

A review should be based on a number of criteria:

Graphics - Are the graphics good compared to other games of that system?

Sound/Immersion - Are you immersed in the world presented to you? How's the environment? How's the music/voice acting/sound effects?

Controls - Are the controls too clunky or are they buttery smooth?

Gameplay - Are you enjoying yourself (key factor here).

Replayability - Does the game hold your attention enough for you to want to play it again?



That's really all gamers want to know. You think the game is sexist? Write an opinion piece about it. You think there's too much swearing? Talk about it in another medium. You think there's too much violence in the game? Take it elsewhere.

 

[Dagda Mor]

I don't think that a review should be a buyer's guide anyway. Reviews should be critiques that start the discussion of the game and help generate buzz for it. If I hear buzz about a game, I'll check it out. If it sounds interesting, I'll buy it. When the same things are said over and over again, it kills buzz. It makes a game sound uninteresting. I want reviewers to go off on tangents and ramble about some minor detail that changed the game for them. Hell, I even invite reviewers with close ties to the developer to talk about the game, as long as they disclose that connection. Talk at length about how your connection to the game has colored your perception, I want to have more food for thought.


Reviewers are afraid to actually critique a game because readers expect the numerical score to be unbiased or objective, so nothing of value gets said about the game. Even if I do try out a game that has been made to sound less interesting than it is, I won't find as much value in it on my own as I would have if I could participate in thoughtful discussions about the game. Reviews that try to be 'objective' suck. If a game blatantly just isn't as functional as it should be, that will still come across in a proper review.


In my opinion, Zero Punctuation is actually one of the few genuinely good review shows--I don't just watch it because I think Yahtzee's funny. He talks at length about how the game fits in to the bigger picture and his personal experiences with it, and I really appreciate that.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Objective reviews are boring since you'd basically be limited to saying what the thing is. It is a game, where you are X and you proceed by shooting Y's and navigating environments.

Isn't that... I dunno... What a review is suppose to be?

 

[EternallyBored]

I would have absolutely no problem with people inserting whatever politics they want into a review if there wasn't for Metacritic. For instance, if you give the game a low score because the main character does not have enough clothes, that affects the Metacritic score, and that then affects how (some) companies will make games. Thus, their personal politics will get reflected in how games get made. It's difficult to assess how much effect these things have in the long run, as it would require a serious study, but my opinion is that there is enough to worry about it. The flood of calls for "objectivity" in reviews reflects the same anxiety.

To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with anyone having any opinion, if it wasn't for it affecting review scores. Which is why when RPS does it, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother me when Polygon does it.

For the record, I don't think there is an objective truth here, either way, it's that my biases don't correspond with their biases, and that is a source of conflict. If, for instance, a certain group of journalists decides that having the "right message" rather than fun is what games should be about, or that everyone who plays games primarily for escapism and doesn't care for deeper meaning is a basement-dwelling consumerist zombie with a mushroom hat, gamers that don't agree would be likely to backlash.

This is a problem with metacritic and publisher practices though, is it really ok to try and eliminate views and scores because an outside force has decided a review aggregator should be a basis for handing out bonuses.

Not to mention, that comes across as a mostly presumptive argument, as Metacritic weights scores from places like IGN heavier than scores from Polygon or other smaller sites anyway, so the chances that a game getting a low score due to a reviewer having an ideological bent having enough effect to screw a developer out of a contract bonus is astronomically low, we would have to start seeing a lot more sites than just Polygon and kotaku reviewing games that way for it to happen.

The weight given to metacritic isn't even a universal thing amongst publishers anyway, the most famous examples I can think of were New Vegas and the stipulation for Destiny, and both those games missed their target scores for completely mechanical reasons, because it takes a lot more than one or two sites knocking off points for sexualization or whatnot to throw off an entire metacritic score, and if a game was so close to the line that a single Polygon review would push it over, then the game would have to have more issues than just too much sexualization.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Objective reviews are boring since you'd basically be limited to saying what the thing is. It is a game, where you are X and you proceed by shooting Y's and navigating environments.

Isn't that... I dunno... What a review is suppose to be?

No a review is an evaluation, not a description.

But I've never really view reviews as being descriptions of what games are. You can certainly give your opinion on graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and etc. without sounding boring, don't you agree?

 

[EternallyBored]

Objective reviews are boring since you'd basically be limited to saying what the thing is. It is a game, where you are X and you proceed by shooting Y's and navigating environments.

Isn't that... I dunno... What a review is suppose to be?

No a review is an evaluation, not a description.

But I've never really view reviews as being descriptions of what games are. You can certainly give your opinion on graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and etc. without sounding boring, don't you agree?

Yes and no, while you can make a review interesting that way, it is not all I want out of a review, and without an analysis of story or content, even if I disagree with the reviewer, I am going to find the reviewer that touches on a more comprehensive evaluation over simply gameplay and replayability to be the reviewer who will be getting more views from me in the future.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I cannot believe this goes three pages. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" or objective review. The very concept of it is absurd, and has been spoofed effectively in the past.

Reviews will exist somewhere along a scale of relatively impartial to highly personalized. The former is likely to be relevant to a large number of people whilst at the same time not being particularly useful...of necessity it will be highly generic. The latter will be relevant to a small number of people, but for those to whom it is relevant it will be highly useful, as it will reflect their tastes.

All reviews, no matter how partial or biased, have a right to exist.

If a review aggregate site like Metacritic is including "biased" reviews in their score, as they clearly do, and that effects bonuses or what not, as has been the case a couple of times, the responsibility for that lies on the publisher who tied financial recompense to something as ephemeral as a metacritic score. If you want to protest, complain to the publisher. If you want to get your activist hat on, boycott their games and let them know why.

Don't seek to REMOVE THE REVIEWS.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Objective reviews are boring since you'd basically be limited to saying what the thing is. It is a game, where you are X and you proceed by shooting Y's and navigating environments.

Isn't that... I dunno... What a review is suppose to be?

No a review is an evaluation, not a description.

But I've never really view reviews as being descriptions of what games are. You can certainly give your opinion on graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and etc. without sounding boring, don't you agree?

Yes and no, while you can make a review interesting that way, it is not all I want out of a review, and without an analysis of story or content, even if I disagree with the reviewer, I am going to find the reviewer that touches on a more comprehensive evaluation over simply gameplay and replayability to be the reviewer who will be getting more views from me in the future.

I think you and I agree a lot more than we may both think. What are your opinion's on Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review?

 

[DaViller]

Alright look, I'm gonna drop a logic bomb here, games are just puzzles long story short.

When you get down to the nitty-gritty of it, people are dropping serious cash all over the world on high-budget glorified sudoku books. Is it possible for a puzzle to be objectively bad? Of course it is!

It can fail to give you enough information to go on to solve the puzzle, objectively bad puzzle, Imagine trying to finish a sudoku puzzle with half the page covered, nobody can do it.

So if a game can be objectively bad, can it be reviewed as objectively bad? There is no subjectivity when you're looking at bad puzzle mechanics.

And before someone comes in thinking I'm oversimplyfing it, bear with me.

Even in the most high budget open world emotionally driven games you still at some point need to find a combination of keystokes/buttons and mouse/joystick movements in order to pass on to the next stage. If in Call of Duty you fail to solve the puzzle of USE GUN ON HEAD then you don't pass the stage. If in Dark Souls you don't solve the puzzle of, THIS ENEMY IS NOT EFFECTED BY MAGICAL ATTACKS you have difficulty passing the stage. If in Batman Arkham Whatever you don't solve the puzzle of WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO NOT INITIATE COMBAT, you're probably gonna be shot and penalized for your score.

We are just playing at puzzles, and a game should be reviewed on its value as a game, it's mechanics that let you solve the puzzle because if a game doesn't have good mechanics or fails to properly explain them, and your tools for solving the puzzle are incomplete or lacking in some regard it's failed as a puzzle, it's failed as a game

Gone Home? Good game, gives you the proper tools to solve the puzzle.

Ride To Hell: Retribution? Bad game, fails to give you the effective tools to solve the puzzle through bad controls.

And I'm saying that as someone who fucking despises Gone Home, I'm saying it's an objectively good game because it does what a game should do.

And if a reviewer can't properly analyze the mechanics and form an informed opinion of them, maybe he should be replaced by someone who understands game design, food for thought.

Wich would mean that elements such as a games plot, aestethic direction, characters, the overall gameplay style or genre (some people hate rts´s others dislike 1v1 fighters and you realy can´t expect one person to be equally well versed in all of them), level design and literally anything outside of it´s controlls and possible bugs are of limits in an objective review. Trying to make an "objectively" good game is just about as impossible as making an "objectively" good movie, book, etc.. Also what would constitute a better game in this analogy? If every game is just a sudoku puzzle and can be considered good if it´s solveable, then that would mean all games are equally as good as long as they´re functional. In that case why need a review at all? Why don´t we just put a small thumbs up or down below the games title for objectively good and bad games?

Lastly, games are an artistic medium, all forms criticism are allowed in artistic media. Books, movies, songs, statues and paintings are all susceptible to criticism from ethical, social or idiological standpoints and games don´t get a free pass.

 

[DoPo]

Objective reviews are boring since you'd basically be limited to saying what the thing is. It is a game, where you are X and you proceed by shooting Y's and navigating environments.

Isn't that... I dunno... What a review is suppose to be?

No a review is an evaluation, not a description.

But I've never really view reviews as being descriptions of what games are. You can certainly give your opinion on graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and etc. without sounding boring, don't you agree?

This [http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml] is an objective review, as is this [http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/battlefield-4-review/] and that entire website. The fact that you are "giving opinion" is the opposite of "objective". Objectivity is giving straight facts, so literally it would be a description of the game...and therefore, not a review. You seem to be arguing that people can do objective analysis by giving opinions, which is a paradox.

 

[mmiki]

This is a problem with metacritic and publisher practices though, is it really ok to try and eliminate views and scores because an outside force has decided a review aggregator should be a basis for handing out bonuses.

In my opinion, no. I wouldn't advocate anything like that.

Not to mention, that comes across as a mostly presumptive argument, as Metacritic weights scores from places like IGN heavier than scores from Polygon or other smaller sites anyway, so the chances that a game getting a low score due to a reviewer having an ideological bent having enough effect to screw a developer out of a contract bonus is astronomically low, we would have to start seeing a lot more sites than just Polygon and kotaku reviewing games that way for it to happen.

The weight given to metacritic isn't even a universal thing amongst publishers anyway, the most famous examples I can think of were New Vegas and the stipulation for Destiny, and both those games missed their target scores for completely mechanical reasons, because it takes a lot more than one or two sites knocking off points for sexualization or whatnot to throw off an entire metacritic score, and if a game was so close to the line that a single Polygon review would push it over, then the game would have to have more issues than just too much sexualization.

Well, yes, but the whole "gamers are dead" thing was published by 11 or 12 different sites. If they all agree on a certain point of view, then it becomes more than a presumptive argument. And it's not like it stops at Metacritic, we had instances where some of those sites would put pressure on developers regarding, say, sexual characters in MOBAs.

It's not just about the sexuality either, see Polygon tanking Tropico 5 score because it doesn't have the message that the reviewer is comfortable with. That review so completely missed the point that it's not even funny:

"What could have been a poignant, perhaps even hilarious commentary on the nature of narrow-minded dictators merely served to enforce the game's backward world view."

On a side note, that's the point where I stopped visiting Polygon. Because my forehead started hurting from facedesking.

My point is, it's not like those views exist in an isolated shell, they are held by people with big soapboxes. I also don't know what's the solution or if there even is one. I don't agree with trying to shut people up, in any case.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

It's impossible for a reviewer to be completely objective. Even being more objective than biased would be hard.
But there are things that the reviewer can do to make sure his bias affects the score as little as possible.

Take for example Yahtzee and Jim and Hyrule Warriors. Jim says it's a great game but if you're not a fan of Dynasty Warriors, you might find them boring. Yahtzee says the game is shit and doesn't explain why. He just goes on and on about how he dislikes because he hates the whole genre. Another thing would be Yahtzee's reviews of Monster Hunter. He didn't finish the 1st quest. Tell me, what right does he have to speak about the game? To review it? Non because he didn't experience it.

Social "justice" issues? There is rape in the game and that offends you? Review the game as if it didn't have rape and then make a disclaimer that all those who don't think can stomach virtual rape should think twice before buying it. You're shit as platforming? Don't talk about how hard the game is because it probably isn't and you're just shit at the game. And for the love of God, don't reduce points because you think it's too hard. Look at this, just look at this guy play Sonic. He reduced the final score because the game is too hard and the controls are shit. Neither is true, he's just bad at the game.

He doesn't know how to sprint, then he can't decide whether to go left or right and hits the middle. It's not the games fault.

The score should only reflect how the game runs and plays and not how it fits your political image. Sure, you can mention it. Warn your fans because they are most likely your fans and readers because they have a similar opinion like you, but make it a separate comment and not a judgment of the game. And when a game does fit your political agenda, then please separate it as well. I don't need to read how Gone Home has the best narrative in video games history. And no, I'm not exaggerating, there were several reviews that compared the shitty narrative in Gone Home with games that actually deserve the tittle of best narrative.

Don't give them the crap that I'm entitled because you obviously don't know the meaning of the word. I actually am entitled for the product if I pay for it because being entitled is actually a good thing and not a buzzword like reviewers and journalist are using the world since the ME3 disaster.

In short, if you hate genre, don't review the game form the genre. If you have a company, don't review their games. If you're incompetent in games, don't complain that they are hard. If you're stupid, don't claim that a game is smart. If you didn't play games for the last 4 generations, don't go around claiming that GameX is the best X since forever.
You can't be objective, but you can try to not be a shithead and fuck over developer and the people who like the game because you just don't like X.
Scores are really important. If a game does badly on metacritic's, the developer won't get a bonus, in some cases they might even pay a penalty. The majority of users just judge games based on the cover and the score. If they don't but it because of that and the franchise gets killed, you just fucked over a dev team and everyone who loves the franchise just because you don't know that holding B makes Sonic run faster.

I might have exaggerated the impact a single review can have, but if 10 high profile gaming sites decide that the game should get a 9/10 because the MC is a white dude or because there are stripper that you can kill, it can and will have negative consequences.

EDIT: Another thing that annoys me in reviews is that every times someone else brings up objectivity, the review gets defended with "you can't objectively judge games". Okay, I'm fine with that. But why does the reviewer try to impose his opinion as facts? Why does he/she say X is bad or good rather than I dislike X? X is boring rather than I don't find it interesting? Zelda is always the same game over and over again rather than I didn't play the game but I want to talk shit about it because I know my fans will watch it and defend me despite knowing that I didn't play the game?

 

[Scootinfroodie]

I cannot believe this goes three pages. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" or objective review. The very concept of it is absurd, and has been spoofed effectively in the past.

It depends on what you mean by unbiased and objective. One thing I've consistently noticed is the confusion of journalistic and philosophical objectivity. When you boil it all down, basically nothing is philosophically objective without allowing certain assumptions. The topic is basically designed to devolve into philosophical bickering and the whole "how do you know you know something" line of thought. However, journalistic objectivity is absolutely worth discussing, even within the context of a review. Examples of journalistic objectivity being pursued taken in the past few months?
For starters, the willingness by a number of games media sites, including this one, to attempt to financially separate writers from subjects
The criticism of the actions suggested by the GameJournoPros list is also a good example.
And finally the Escapist's willingness to allow discussion and interview both sides of an online conflict that has become needlessly hostile

In terms of reviews specifically, this has been discussed already
There ought to be disclosure of bias, including any and all ties or benefits rendered to the reviewer by the game's creator/PR agent/publisher/etc. In terms of the review and its goals, as well as the efficacy of the writer themselves, there's a number of different thought processes that are all perfectly up for discussion

Reviews will exist somewhere along a scale of relatively impartial to highly personalized. The former is likely to be relevant to a large number of people whilst at the same time not being particularly useful...of necessity it will be highly generic. The latter will be relevant to a small number of people, but for those to whom it is relevant it will be highly useful, as it will reflect their tastes.

Which is why you can write more than one piece on a subject. They don't suddenly fade from existence once the first article is written. I seem to recall multiple articles talking about different aspects of Mass Effect 3 existing in tandem on the same website (and sometimes even by the same author).

All reviews, no matter how partial or biased, have a right to exist.

Nobody's saying they shouldn't exist at all. What they're saying is that websites that want people to consider them respectable/worth reading should hold themselves to, at the very least, some pretty basic standards. You have to remember that these complaints are being leveled at mainstream sites, not specialists. Not only is their knowledge of the subject matter (whether the subject is the game/genre itself or any and all shoehorned in philosophical and political ramblings) generally fairly surface level (if it's not entirely misguided), but they are writing pieces that *are* directed at a large group of people

If a review aggregate site like Metacritic is including "biased" reviews in their score, as they clearly do, and that effects bonuses or what not, as has been the case a couple of times, the responsibility for that lies on the publisher who tied financial recompense to something as ephemeral as a metacritic score. If you want to protest, complain to the publisher. If you want to get your activist hat on, boycott their games and let them know why.

The argument was that reviews don't affect the developer. I simply pointed out how that isn't true.

Don't seek to REMOVE THE REVIEWS.

Holding something to standards != removing it. There are basically no standards whatsoever for most of the mainstream gaming sites. I find it absurd that you see no issue from this even from the perspective of holding the attention of one's core market, as this lack of quality control is one of the driving forces behind vitriol levelled against the sites in question

 

[Fishyash]

In regards to bias in reviews, if there is a personal bias, let's say by genre as an example, I would much rather read a review with a bias towards the genre than against it, because if someone is biased towards a genre they are much likely going to spout an informed opinion.

With that said though, I don't give a shit about bias, if I read a fighting game review where the critic was smothering the game in praise, and it turns out he/she never played a fighting game before, I deem it a low quality review (although I would hope his/her passion in fighting games would stay, and let's say 5 years later he/she would be able to review another fighting game with a much more informed opinion).

With that said, financial or relationship biases are no good for reviews and if you are in that much need of money then you should put your site behind a paywall or something.

But let's get creative with an example of personal, rather than financial or relationship based, bias:

If I play a game where all the mechanics are excellent, production values are good, it's well optimized and the story holds up well, but I hate one aspect of the game so much it sours the whole experience (making me strongly dislike the game). How then should I then rate it?

Bolded part is the rating. "Strongly dislike the game" which would be a 1/5. I don't get what's so difficult, confusing or bad about review scores to be honest.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It depends on what you mean by unbiased and objective.

I mean "unbiased" and "objective". Your mileage may vary.

One thing I've consistently noticed is the confusion of journalistic and philosophical objectivity.

I'm not sure why people keep trying to apply standards of journalistic objectivity to media criticism. I read reviews to get an individuals evaluation of a game. I want to know their personal take on it. I don't want them dryly rattling off a feature list.

And fuck, even journalists can't even agree on what "journalistic objectivity" is supposed to mean when it pertains to actual journalism: http://www.cjr.org/feature/rethinking_objectivity.php?page=all

There ought to be disclosure of bias, including any and all ties or benefits rendered to the reviewer by the game's creator/PR agent/publisher/etc. In terms of the review and its goals, as well as the efficacy of the writer themselves, there's a number of different thought processes that are all perfectly up for discussion

Disclosure of bias in terms of "The publisher totally paid for a good review"? Absolutely. Disclosure of bias as in "I attended liberal arts college and tend to vote Democrat and align myself with these social causes and enjoyed this book by this controversial author..." so that the zealots demanding any and all political leaning (that they disagree with) be smote from the text? I do not concur.

Which is why you can write more than one piece on a subject. They don't suddenly fade from existence once the first article is written. I seem to recall multiple articles talking about different aspects of Mass Effect 3 existing in tandem on the same website (and sometimes even by the same author).

Yeah, you could do that. Or you could just write one piece. It doesn't really matter either way.

Nobody's saying they shouldn't exist at all.

Actually a lot of people are, in fact, saying exactly that.

What they're saying is that websites that want people to consider them respectable/worth reading should hold themselves to, at the very least, some pretty basic standards. You have to remember that these complaints are being leveled at mainstream sites, not specialists. Not only is their knowledge of the subject matter (whether the subject is the game/genre itself or any and all shoehorned in philosophical and political ramblings) generally fairly surface level (if it's not entirely misguided), but they are writing pieces that *are* directed at a large group of people.

Go to Alexa and check out site traffic on click-bait sites like Kotaku or Polygon. Tell me that they're not aware of how their business works and how get people to "consider them worth reading". They clearly have a handle on what they're doing. Whether you or I personally approve of them is probably irrelevant to their business model.

Holding something to standards != removing it.

Again, you hold something to your personal standard by voting with your wallet...or in this case your mouse I guess. Don't like it? Don't read it. I don't see what the purpose of the black list or the mailing campaign was if not to silence dissenting voices. Heck, I even had one guy tell me "majority rules" should determine who gets to speak and who doesn't.

There are basically no standards whatsoever for most of the mainstream gaming sites. I find it absurd that you see no issue from this even from the perspective of holding the attention of one's core market, as this lack of quality control is one of the driving forces behind vitriol levelled against the sites in question

Who said I "see no issue" with it? I've been quite up front with what my specific issues with the "gaming press" are. "Biased reviews" just happens to not be one of them.

 

[EternallyBored]

I think you and I agree a lot more than we may both think. What are your opinion's on Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review?

After having just read it, it's a review that covers a lot of the gameplay points, and misses others, given that its a WiiU game, I can understand why graphics weren't a major consideration, the bulk of the review seemed to swing from talking about gameplay to the problems the reviewer had with the sexualization. The review also doesn't talk about the story as much as I usually like in my reviews.

The sexualization complaints are ones I both agree with the author on some points and disagree on others, and I can understand why it would hurt his enjoyment of the game, the text praises much of the game whilst deriding the presentation of bayonetta herself, and that while he enjoyed the action, the propensity for the game to have heavily sexualized moments interspersed during the fights seriously impacted his enjoyment of the game.

The podcast at the end features the reviewer talking about how he really liked the mechanics, but that there was a subjective component that seriously caused him issues, and he justifies his views fairly well even if I disagree with the degree with which they may impact. He also talks about how a couple of other negatives for the game were not mentioned for space reasons and how the scoring system works.

The score seems unusually low, but that's not so much Bayonetta specifically as it seems to be an issue with polygon in general, or at least a few reviewers on it. Polygon is sort of the anti-IGN, where IGN takes flak for criticizing a game heavily in the written review but still giving it an 8.5-9.5. Polygon seems to have a lot of reviews that heavily praise a game whilst only listing a few negatives, or negatives that don't seem like a big deal, and then sticking it with a 7-8 range score. Even games that don't list ideological complaints will often get very low end scores of 7-8.5 on Polygon, so that seems more like just how their scoring rubric breaks down. As a side note, the person who writes the text of the review isn't the sole arbiter of the score review, Polygon uses some kind of weird median score system amongst multiple staff members.

Overall, it's not my cup of tea, but I can easily see how such a review would be useful to some people, especially if taken in consideration with a range of other reviews and viewpoints on the game, from the other people giving it a 7-8 to the people giving it perfect scores.

 

[DrOswald]

I keep seeing, and hearing, people talk about the call for unbiased reviews. But really, there can be no such thing from any human being that has ever played a game or has any opinions on anything. At least if you want an honest review.

Now, for sure, I don't think you have any business reviewing a game made by a friend or someone who you have certain financial ties to (such as where you stand to gain financially from the success of the game) or when you have worked on creating the game. That kind of bias through relationship is easy to identify, and avoid, and is generally considered as being corrupt - rather than just biased.

But let's get creative with an example of personal, rather than financial or relationship based, bias:

If I play a game where all the mechanics are excellent, production values are good, it's well optimized and the story holds up well, but I hate one aspect of the game so much it sours the whole experience (making me strongly dislike the game). How then should I then rate it?

Should I disregard my experience and judge the game wholly on its mechanics and execution, or should I take my experience into account and rate it based on how I experienced it - meaning based on my own values and enjoyment?

I think cases like these illustrate the problems with assigning a numbered score; as scores are problematic because it's often all people look at, rather than the actual review. Without scores the actual review does, in my opinion, carry more weight.

But as it is, ultimately, it's the number assigned at the end that carries actual weight.[footnote]I do not review games, but if I did I would not assign them scores. I'd possibly assign them arbitrary things like: "I give this game 4 penguins wearing funny hats, 25 sad seals and one seal whisperer - there to help cheer up the sad seals and teach them how to love again." or "One potted plant and a companion pillow with the print of your favorite banana, half peeled."[/footnote][footnote]Captcha: that will not work. Shut up captcha, I'll give whatever random nonsense that pop up in my head at the time as a hypothetical scores if I want to.[/footnote]

Can art be reviewed without bias? Well, no. A critic will always be influenced by their own prejudices and preconceived notions. But that does not mean a reviewer should embrace that bias and let it become the driving factor of the review. And it certainly does not mean that the quality of art is entirely subjective.

A good reviewer will acknowledge these factors and attempt to correct for them in their review. Not by changing their opinion for the final verdict but by accounting for them. Jim Sterling's recent review of Hyrule Warriors is an excellent example of this. He fully acknowledges that the reasons he likes the game may not apply to everyone and effectively communicates that idea and those factors that lead to his near perfect review of the game.

Another good example is Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review. He has nothing but praise for the mechanics of the game, but dislikes the sexualization of the game so much that it, in his opinion, taints the entire game. Fair enough, he says what he really thinks and I know to completely ignore his opinion of the game.

A "biased" review will fail to make these corrections.

Furthermore, while we can't truly say there is such a thing as the unbiased review, we can say for sure there is such a thing as the overly biased review - the review that misrepresents or twists the truth or just outright lies in a review for the sake of pushing an agenda, be that to appease a big publisher, push a specific political agenda, or to help out a friend. We know these types of reviews happen.

The fact that no review is capable of being truly unbiased is not a licence to embrace your own bias or strait up lie.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Objectivity is both impossible and undesirable. People have already posted links to the quite humorous objective review Jim Sterling did of Final Fantasy 13 so I'm not going to.

No piece of art is objectively good or bad, it's all subjective. Art is not a term that denotes quality, just because something is art doesn't mean it's good. Reviews are by their nature subjective opinion pieces. Also people talking about just judging mechanics objectively, that's subjective too. For example I don't like axis inversion, some people do. Even if you think the controls are poor sometimes that's the entire point like in Surgeon Simulator, it's fine to still not like it though.

My advice? Read/listen to/watch a number of reviews before you decide if you want to get a game or not. Find reviewers you trust and like even if that's just asking your friend what they think of it or asking on a forum if "X" is worth playing. You don't need to rely on "professional" reviews. You can also respond to someone's review if you disagree with it and stop reading someone's reviews if you think they're crap.

 

[KazeAizen]

Honestly, completely unbiased reviews sound about as enjoyable as watching paint dry. If a reviewer is allowed to show his excitement, and his passion toward something, then it can lead to far more creativity and will be more enjoyable to watch/read as a result. Force someone to give a boring, unbiased and "professional" review on something, and keep certain emotions locked up, would make for something even more disingenuous, in my opinion.

I'd much rather reviewers speak openly and honestly.

Seriously. We all have our own hang ups and fixations. I think even Moviebob addressed this issue in one of his Big Pictures a few months ago. Besides I don't inherently see "bias" as a totally objectionable thing either. I mean if you are on the opposing side of the opinion it could potentially open up your mind to thinking differently, or if nothing else you learn that this reviewers tastes don't line up with yours so you just find someone who is maybe similar so you can gauge if you truly want to watch that movie or play that game.

Heck I think one of Moviebob's "bias" when it comes to comic book movies is that he is sick to death of the grim and gritty aesthetic being applied to a lot of them when he thinks they should be a lot more light hearted and fun. Even if he likes the first two Nolan Batman movies. Heck its part of the reason I see where he's coming from on Man of Steel but I still disagree with him and think Man of Steel is a much better movie than he gives it credit for.

On the other hand Jim Sterling loves him some Dynasty Warriors and Alien stuff. So you bet your ass that even though I know he's biased towards those things I'm reasonably certain I can trust his opinion on anything related to it. Which is why I was happy with his Hyrule Warriors review. Fans are fans after all and that's really what we all are to begin with, professionally paid or not.