The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review

[Scootinfroodie]

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

I know that when asked for clarification for the sake of honest discussion *I* always find restating terms that mean different things depending on context helps

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

I do believe there's a middle ground between feature list and spending most/all of a review not talking about gameplay or utilizing a popular release to soapbox and then give a rating out of 10. There's a point in general coverage and writing between a dry detached press release and calling the creator of a game a 14 year old that most professionals should be able to navigate.

As far as the ongoing debate over the standards of journalism, that's perfectly welcome. Blatant dismissal of the idea, however, shows a lack of respect for the reader's time and patronage.

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.

Disclosure as in dinners, flights, "swag", outright bribes, previous employment at the company in question, living with or being in a relationship with a developer, funding the developer on a regular basis etc.

As for the second portion, while it's valid to come at a critique from a particular philosophical or political viewpoint, I don't see why the consumer should accept soapboxing in the middle of a product review. This is less about objectivity and more about quality and professionalism however.

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

I don't know if you've noticed, but reviews tend to be a certain length so that people read them. If you try to cram a lengthy post-modernist critique in the middle, something gets cut
Sounding like a broken record, but again, look at the RPS Skullgirls review

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

Most of what I've seen is a request that they remain separate. Perhaps from your position of insistence that the status quo remain, their challenge is read as an attempt at removal. I have a hard time believing that "a lot" of people are dumb enough to believe that you can keep things "off teh interwebs"

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.

Alexa rankings, from what I've read recently, are a bit sketchy. I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so reliant on them

It IS worth noting, however, that investors have pulled support, and that RPS and Gamasutra seem to be having a bit of trouble, so there's definitely more than a few signs that, in fact, the contrary is true. I don't suspect any Gawker site will close or change tactics any time soon, but that has more to do with what the site is and how it works. I wouldn't be using it as a positive example though, no matter what political viewpoint they espouse

Also on the flip side, confirmed 10% increase in Escapist traffic after they allowed discussion and changed their reporting methodology

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.

And people have done so. This thread was clearly made with some form of discussion in mind, however, so if your goal was to point out what people are already doing, and attempt to dismiss or outright stop discussion, why did you post?

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.

Where have you done this exactly? Without further explanation, your posts in this thread only act in defence of the status quo. As far as "biased reviews" go, you clearly agree that aspects of writer/subject involvement are worth knowing and dealing with. Other aspects of acceptable reviewing can and should be discussed and that, once again, ought to be the purpose of this thread

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I know that when asked for clarification for the sake of honest discussion *I* always find restating terms that mean different things depending on context helps.

Fair enough. Objectivity - completely fact based. No subjective opinion allowed to enter whatsoever.

Unbiased - Reviewer is not permitted to allow any personal beliefs or outlooks affect the content of their prose. It must be completely neutral.

Both those things are argued for by individuals in this thread. Notably, they seem particularly incensed at the idea of beliefs they do not share being espoused, or a game receiving a score they do not agree with.

I do believe there's a middle ground between feature list and spending most/all of a review not talking about gameplay or utilizing a popular release to soapbox and then give a rating out of 10. There's a point in general coverage and writing between a dry detached press release and calling the creator of a game a 14 year old that most professionals should be able to navigate.

What amount of subjectivity is too much? Is there a metric we can use to determine this? How do we determine lack of professionalism? Is there a metric for THAT? Seems like it would be down to the reader's opinion to me.

Disclosure as in dinners, flights, "swag", outright bribes, previous employment at the company in question, living with or being in a relationship with a developer, funding the developer on a regular basis etc.

Sure, to all of that.

As for the second portion, while it's valid to come at a critique from a particular philosophical or political viewpoint, I don't see why the consumer should accept soapboxing in the middle of a product review. This is less about objectivity and more about quality and professionalism however.

I don't really view it as my lookout what other consumers want or don't want in a review.

I don't know if you've noticed, but reviews tend to be a certain length so that people read them. If you try to cram a lengthy post-modernist critique in the middle, something gets cut
Sounding like a broken record, but again, look at the RPS Skullgirls review

I've read reviews of many lengths and varieties. Whether I read them or not is usually contingent on my interest in the subject matter and/or appreciation of the writer.

Most of what I've seen is a request that they remain separate. Perhaps from your position of insistence that the status quo remain, their challenge is read as an attempt at removal. I have a hard time believing that "a lot" of people are dumb enough to believe that you can keep things "off teh interwebs"

My position of what now? Sounds rather like you're attempting to assign a position to me based on my disagreement with you.

I have a hard time believing it too, but there you have it.

Alexa rankings, from what I've read recently, are a bit sketchy. I'm not entirely sure why everyone is so reliant on them

Lack of other available data?

It IS worth noting, however, that investors have pulled support, and that RPS and Gamasutra seem to be having a bit of trouble, so there's definitely more than a few signs that, in fact, the contrary is true. I don't suspect any Gawker site will close or change tactics any time soon, but that has more to do with what the site is and how it works. I wouldn't be using it as a positive example though, no matter what political viewpoint they espouse

I'm aware of the slumps in RPS and Gamasutra, and have commented on them before. You'll note that, particularly in the former case, the slump in question was mirrored at this time last year, and views are climbing again. Wouldn't it be natural to assume this is a cyclical readership issue driven by a lack of strong PC releases?

Also on the flip side, confirmed 10% increase in Escapist traffic after they allowed discussion and changed their reporting methodology

What are previous rises in traffic attributed to?

And people have done so. This thread was clearly made with some form of discussion in mind, however, so if your goal was to point out what people are already doing, and attempt to dismiss or outright stop discussion, why did you post?

The thread poses a question, I responded to that question. Am I "outright stopping discussion"? Oh god...am I censoring people? Is that what's happened?

Where have you done this exactly? Without further explanation, your posts in this thread only act in defence of the status quo. As far as "biased reviews" go, you clearly agree that aspects of writer/subject involvement are worth knowing and dealing with. Other aspects of acceptable reviewing can and should be discussed and that, once again, ought to be the purpose of this thread

No, they really don't. They act as refutation of a particular idea, that of the "objective" review. However, in this forum's current entirely polarized "you are with us or against us" atmosphere, I am not surprised the interpretation was that I delight in all aspects of gaming journalism because I defended one.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Fair enough. Objectivity - completely fact based. No subjective opinion allowed to enter whatsoever.

Unbiased - Reviewer is not permitted to allow any personal beliefs or outlooks affect the content of their prose. It must be completely neutral.

Alright, so you're using them within a different context. Subjectivity is, on some level, going to bleed into everything you do. You've decided upon a context where there is utterly no win condition for the opposition even outside of talking about games journalism.

Both those things are argued for by individuals in this thread. Notably, they seem particularly incensed at the idea of beliefs they do not share being espoused, or a game receiving a score they do not agree with.

While I'm not going to doubt the entire existence if these ideas, I doubt their prevalence in this particular thread. I feel that this may be, intentionally or otherwise, an instance of strawmanning

What amount of subjectivity is too much? Is there a metric we can use to determine this? How do we determine lack of professionalism? Is there a metric for THAT? Seems like it would be down to the reader's opinion to me.

It most certainly is down to opinion. This thread is about discussing that opinion. How much do you feel is too much?

I've read reviews of many lengths and varieties. Whether I read them or not is usually contingent on my interest in the subject matter and/or appreciation of the writer.

Sure, but not everyone has time to do so. As a result you're going to get a large number of people reading a small number of trusted sites. If those sites betray that trust, people complain. As you've said before, ultimately the solution is to leave, but simply leaving does not help the writer in question improve or avoid losing other readers.
In my case, other people had already made the complains I would have of RPS' methods, and I haven't really visited that site since

My position of what now? Sounds rather like you're attempting to assign a position to me based on my disagreement with you.

I'm commenting on your implied position that this is a non-issue, and can further draw from my now-confirmed suspicions as to your definitions of the words involved.

I have a hard time believing it too, but there you have it.

What I'm saying is, perhaps it's a result of your perception of the overall conversation, and not necessarily their actual position

Lack of other available data?

Lack of other data doesn't make potentially biased data more accurate though. Other sites not reporting on Gawker rumors doesn't make Gawker any less sketchy, for instance

I'm aware of the slumps in RPS and Gamasutra, and have commented on them before. You'll note that, particularly in the former case, the slump in question was mirrored at this time last year, and views are climbing again. Wouldn't it be natural to assume this is a cyclical readership issue driven by a lack of strong PC releases?

If it is, it certainly isn't cutting it anymore for the RPS staff, as they've introduced a new monetization system to their site

What are previous rises in traffic attributed to?

I'd have to know the context of the previous traffic fluctuations and whether or not they actually occurred. Again, Alexa has been accused of inaccurate reporting methods and even fudging numbers

The thread poses a question, I responded to that question. Am I "outright stopping discussion"? Oh god...am I censoring people? Is that what's happened?

The thread posed a question, and you dismissed it. I don't see the purpose in condescending lecturing and dismissal of discourse, but perhaps you do. More power to you I suppose

No, they really don't. They act as refutation of a particular idea, that of the "objective" review. However, in this forum's current entirely polarized "you are with us or against us" atmosphere, I am not surprised the interpretation was that I delight in all aspects of gaming journalism because I defended one.

Dismissing a conversation about current issues is, implicitly or explicitly, defence of the way things currently stand. Whether this is in relation to all of games "journalism" or simply the topic of reviews depends on the conversation had. It's interesting that you accuse me of attempting to attribute positions when that's all you've done thus far in this thread, aside from insisting that the conversation is "absurd" and that you "cannot believe it lasted 3 pages"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Alright, so you're using them within a different context. Subjectivity is, on some level, going to bleed into everything you do. You've decided upon a context where there is utterly no win condition for the opposition even outside of talking about games journalism.

I am using them within a common context, supported by the definitions of the words and employed by others in the thread.

While I'm not going to doubt the entire existence if these ideas, I doubt their prevalence in this particular thread. I feel that this may be, intentionally or otherwise, an instance of strawmanning

Well that is certainly your prerogative. People are often given to doubt the existence of inconvenient reality.

It most certainly is down to opinion. This thread is about discussing that opinion. How much do you feel is too much?

Personally? Or in general?

What I'm saying is, perhaps it's a result of your perception of the overall conversation, and not necessarily their actual position

There is always room for miscommunication in a written medium. That said, some people have been pretty clear about their belief that 'biased reviews' should not exist, that journalists who engage in them should be fired, that "media corruption" equates to "having an ideology", etc, etc, etc.

Lack of other data doesn't make potentially biased data more accurate though.

That's fine. If you want to disregard it, disregard it. What data do you use to support the assertion that they are losing customers?

If it is, it certainly isn't cutting it anymore for the RPS staff, as they've introduced a new monetization system to their site

Yep, I know what's going on with RPS. Do sites only engage in monetization systems during periods of dramatic view loss? We can speculate, but we have nothing to base it on. RPS has also been declining in overall quality for many months now, having lost some of their better staff writers. Could that also attribute to view loss? Or must we ascribe it Gamer Gate because that fits a narrative?

I'd have to know the context of the previous traffic fluctuations and whether or not they actually occurred. Again, Alexa has been accused of inaccurate reporting methods and even fudging numbers.

Oh god, are they part of the social justice liberal media conspiracy too? I can't keep track any more. What motivation are they meant to have for fudging numbers?

The thread posed a question, and you dismissed it. I don't see the purpose in condescending lecturing and dismissal of discourse, but perhaps you do. More power to you I suppose.

Personally *I* don't see the point in characterizing someone's tone as "condescending lecturing" whilst masquerading as interested in collegial debate. Your mileage may vary.

Dismissing a conversation about current issues is, implicitly or explicitly, defence of the way things currently stand. Whether this is in relation to all of games "journalism" or simply the topic of reviews depends on the conversation had. It's interesting that you accuse me of attempting to attribute positions when that's all you've done thus far in this thread, aside from insisting that the conversation is "absurd" and that you "cannot believe it lasted 3 pages"

Yep. That's "all I've done", and the entire summation of my argument can be boiled down to two statements. Good faith discussion. Really enjoying it.

 

[Kerethos]

What I would be interested to know is: having read our responses, how you yourself would now answer the central question in your first post:

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?

Do you slam the game, do you merely subtract a point or just scrap the entire review?

I'd try to talk about what's good and then go into full lengths to explain why I still, despite the good parts, dislike the game.

And rather than just make the final rating based on some sort of "+points for good -points for bad" -formula I'd try to give a number representing my overall enjoyment of the game (provided I had to give a number, which I'd rather not).

So if I found the game to be a technical masterpiece, but horribly offensive, I'd rate it something like a 1/10 - "No amount of excellent mechanics can make me able to enjoy something I find this offensive."

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.

I strongly object to this attitude of "you should only review games of genres you like and have extensive experience with".

If you normally don't enjoy platformers, and people who normally never enjoy platformers never review them, how would you ever be encouraged to broaden your horizons when someone with similar tastes as yours finds a game they actually like? I don't normally enjoy racing games, but I've still encountered some that where really fun.

By your review requirements a reviewer should only play games of genres they like, and games with broader appeal should never be reviewed by anyone who's not already likely to be a fan.

I mean if Yahtzee played a JRPG even he had to admit was fun I would be much more likely to check out. Even though I had my fill of JRPG's after FFX (which I found, for the most part, quite fun).

 

[grassgremlin]

What kind of review would this be then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S6myWz3Kzg

 

[Scootinfroodie]

I am using them within a common context, supported by the definitions of the words and employed by others in the thread.

They are one common context, and not necessarily the one being used by the people you're arguing against.

Well that is certainly your prerogative. People are often given to doubt the existence of inconvenient reality.

Condescension is a great replacement for arguments and evidence

Personally? Or in general?

Either, or both

There is always room for miscommunication in a written medium. That said, some people have been pretty clear about their belief that 'biased reviews' should not exist, that journalists who engage in them should be fired, that "media corruption" equates to "having an ideology", etc, etc, etc.

Again, it depends on what they're considering "biased". People who write about their employers, SO's etc. and don't disclose should be suspended or terminated for sure. As for the last bit, that's most certainly not what I'm seeing. Could you quote the specific bit of text where somebody considers having a political or philosophical affiliation to be worth firing someone over?

That's fine. If you want to disregard it, disregard it. What data do you use to support the assertion that they are losing customers?

Losing customers in general? Word of mouth? My own experiences?
Larger moving of readers? Maybe the pulling of ads?

Yep, I know what's going on with RPS. Do sites only engage in monetization systems during periods of dramatic view loss? We can speculate, but we have nothing to base it on. RPS has also been declining in overall quality for many months now, having lost some of their better staff writers. Could that also attribute to view loss? Or must we ascribe it Gamer Gate because that fits a narrative?

When did I mention a twitter hashtag, or attribute customer loss to that? These issues have been around for years

As for RPS specifically, if we look at similar sites/business models, a sudden shift in model is a result of the previous system not working. While it's possible that RPS is just gettin' greedy, it's not really probable.

Oh god, are they part of the social justice liberal media conspiracy too? I can't keep track any more. What motivation are they meant to have for fudging numbers?

Where did I mention a conspiracy? For someone who complained about attributed positions, you seem to be doing nothing but. A watchdog group accused the site of bumping up the numbers of left wing sites, and lowering those of right wing sites when those sites were reporting growth. Whether or not that's true, there are countless articles on how Alexa's ranking system is flawed either in the sense of it being inaccurate (generally due to sampling methods) or easily gamed (generally for the same reasons)

Personally *I* don't see the point in characterizing someone's tone as "condescending lecturing" whilst masquerading as interested in collegial debate. Your mileage may vary.

When one is being condescending and is showing no interest in actual discussion, what is the appropriate term? I'm perfectly interested in discussion. You're assertion that I'm "masquerading" holds no weight

Yep. That's "all I've done", and the entire summation of my argument can be boiled down to two statements. Good faith discussion. Really enjoying it.

That's some killer reading comprehension. If your entire position can be boiled down to two statements, how can it also be a third thing (attribution of positions). Much of your "argument" has been that the argument is stupid, the rest has boiled down to:

Insisting that you, I, or someone else has stated X without actually explaining where or how that happened
Insisting that everyone is using the context of two words that you are using, by virtue of you stating that it's the case
Making snarky jabs instead of actually holding any kind of position that would facilitate discussion

Please explain what portion of your position I'm expected to honestly discuss. Feel free to use points from other threads, but only if you're going to bother actually listing them here and not vaguely reference them like I'm expected to read your entire posting history throughout however many months count for this exercise

 

[Erttheking]

You know what I've noticed? A lot of people in this thread don't really have a problem with reviews that have bias. They have a problem with reviews that have NEGATIVE bias. They say that they only want genres to be reviewed by people familiar with it. That's bias towards the subject matter, but they don't have a problem with that.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Condescension is a great replacement for arguments and evidence

This is the second charge of "condescension" from you, and I was made curious. I read back through your posts in this thread, and then your post history in general. I don't know if you're oblivious to your own posting style, or simply calling out behavior your recognize in yourself. Yes, I am being condescending. I am most definitely not alone in that. Alas, I can't control your behavior, I can only control my own, so I'll try to be less of an ass. I would appreciate it if you would return the favor.

Either, or both.

For myself, "too much" would be that point at which the bias distracted from my enjoyment of the review. Either by completely obfuscating the information I'd come to find, or by presenting an ideological perspective I found unpalatable.

In general, not at all. It's not for me to police the internet and decide what people should or shouldn't be reading.

Again, it depends on what they're considering "biased". People who write about their employers, SO's etc. and don't disclose should be suspended or terminated for sure. As for the last bit, that's most certainly not what I'm seeing. Could you quote the specific bit of text where somebody considers having a political or philosophical affiliation to be worth firing someone over?

Okay, this is one of several points that provoked my "bad faith" comment. I know from your posting history that you have spent time in the Gamer Gate threads, including the mega thread. From your tone and the people you choose to debate, I'm relatively certain I know which side of the debate you land on. I know you're aware of the existence of a media blacklist, and I know you're aware there have been calls to drum people out of the industry. I know you're one of the major reasons for that call is a presumed "ideological bias" in the media, and that the ideology in question is "liberal". I know you're aware that there have been calls to have people fired, to crumble websites, to "go to war".

I'm not going to data mine 1600 pages of thread to provide you quotes. I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but my investment in proving this point to you does not run that deep. You can dismiss it all you want on grounds of insufficient evidence, if that is your preference. Burden of proof is on me, and I'm unwilling to provide it, because it's a lot of fucking effort for something that ultimately doesn't matter very much to either of us. If you wish to characterize me as a fabulist, you may do so. I know what I read. There is a reason for my rancor on this issue.

I don't require quote mining to know that people who oppose Gamer Gate have said or done terrible things. It stands to reason. It's a polarized, aggravated debate (that for some reason has become deeply politicized). I know that people on both sides are saying ridiculous things the same way I know the water in this glass is wet.

There's a reviewer named Tom Chick. He's been plying his trade in this industry for a long time. He's known for a couple of things...idiosyncratic taste in games, and a propensity for being honest whilst employing his entire 5 point scale. He often gives popular games he didn't enjoy bad scores, most famously Deus Ex. He is LOATHED for it. On this website, a year or two ago, there was a thread discussing his review of some Halo game or other. He was called a troll and a malingerer, a clickbaiter and an attention whore. Some people don't like "honest". Some people like confirmation of their existing beliefs. Quite frequently when someone charges a review with being "too biased", what they mean is "too not what I believe".

Losing customers in general? Word of mouth? My own experiences? Larger moving of readers? Maybe the pulling of ads?

That's fine, as long as you acknowledge this isn't any more reliable than Alexa. If I offered up "my own experiences" or "word of mouth" to contradict your beliefs on this subject I highly doubt you'd put any stock in them.

When did I mention a twitter hashtag, or attribute customer loss to that? These issues have been around for years

I'm referring to Gamer Gate in general. The commonly accepted narrative is that Gamer Gate "won", and that the sites who wronged them were devastated and bleeding customers. I've never seen any concrete evidence to support that.

As for RPS specifically, if we look at similar sites/business models, a sudden shift in model is a result of the previous system not working. While it's possible that RPS is just gettin' greedy, it's not really probable.

Honestly, neither one of us knows anything. We're both just speculating.

Where did I mention a conspiracy? For someone who complained about attributed positions, you seem to be doing nothing but.

Yes, I attributed a sympathetic if not wholly involved stance in Gamer Gate to you. That was unfair of me.

A watchdog group accused the site of bumping up the numbers of left wing sites, and lowering those of right wing sites when those sites were reporting growth.

A watchdog group. Which watchdog group? Could it have been a...right wing watch dog group? I'm not even trying to be snarky, it just...stands to reason.

Whether or not that's true, there are countless articles on how Alexa's ranking system is flawed either in the sense of it being inaccurate (generally due to sampling methods) or easily gamed (generally for the same reasons)

Yes, a quick Google search confirms this to be true. I'm certainly not married to Alexa, the first time I even used it was when I Googled something along the lines of "site traffic" when wanting to see if sites really were taking it on the nose. If there a better tool, I'll happily use the better tool.

Please explain what portion of your position I'm expected to honestly discuss.

My OP, despite hanging on a particular interpretation of the terms...one employed almost universally through the thread up to that point...was not unreasonable. Yes, I exhibited astonishment that there was even debate. I also clarified my opinion and provided context. Your response to this was to wade in swinging and say I was being "absurd". I was already in a bad mood due to the poor judgment I showed earlier in the day reading the contents of a variety of Gamer Gate threads on the Off-Topic Forum, so I was not in the mood to be snotted at about semantics. Things devolved from there.

The unfortunate thing is I've actually tried to stay relatively moderate in this debate (not THIS debate, but the GG debate), and clearly I'm becoming a bit polarized myself if I'm reacting THAT aggressively to perceived agenda. I need to take a break from reading this shit.

 

[veloper]

What I would be interested to know is: having read our responses, how you yourself would now answer the central question in your first post:

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?

Do you slam the game, do you merely subtract a point or just scrap the entire review?

I'd try to talk about what's good and then go into full lengths to explain why I still, despite the good parts, dislike the game.

And rather than just make the final rating based on some sort of "+points for good -points for bad" -formula I'd try to give a number representing my overall enjoyment of the game (provided I had to give a number, which I'd rather not).

So if I found the game to be a technical masterpiece, but horribly offensive, I'd rate it something like a 1/10 - "No amount of excellent mechanics can make me able to enjoy something I find this offensive."

I would scrap the review myself.

If the offensive thing is so bad that the game goes from 10/10 material to 1, then it have to be something like neo-nazis making a game about gassing jews (and somehow receiving a massive budget for it).
In which case I would argue not give the game any time in the spotlight at all. Negative attention is also attention.

Alternatively if the game were about hard gay pornography, or something else than I'm really not into, then I'd still give it a 10/10, if I had to review it and put in bolded text that the game is only for guys who are into that stuff.
It would be really petty and unfair to slam the game in such scenario.

In both scenarios I'm not reviewing the game for myself, but have my audience in mind.

 

[loa]

That's why I like video reviews such as total biscuits which show as much of the game as possible so you can form your own opinion instead of being stuck with an article and ~5 screenshots.

 

[Kerethos]

What I would be interested to know is: having read our responses, how you yourself would now answer the central question in your first post:

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?

Do you slam the game, do you merely subtract a point or just scrap the entire review?

I'd try to talk about what's good and then go into full lengths to explain why I still, despite the good parts, dislike the game.

And rather than just make the final rating based on some sort of "+points for good -points for bad" -formula I'd try to give a number representing my overall enjoyment of the game (provided I had to give a number, which I'd rather not).

So if I found the game to be a technical masterpiece, but horribly offensive, I'd rate it something like a 1/10 - "No amount of excellent mechanics can make me able to enjoy something I find this offensive."

I would scrap the review myself.

If the offensive thing is so bad that the game goes from 10/10 material to 1, then it have to be something like neo-nazis making a game about gassing jews (and somehow receiving a massive budget for it).
In which case I would argue not give the game any time in the spotlight at all. Negative attention is also attention.

Alternatively if the game were about hard gay pornography, or something else than I'm really not into, then I'd still give it a 10/10, if I had to review it and put in bolded text that the game is only for guys who are into that stuff.
It would be really petty and unfair to slam the game in such scenario.

In both scenarios I'm not reviewing the game for myself, but have my audience in mind.

I would find it hard to review anything honestly for anyone but myself, as I - while quite capable of empathy - can not imagine myself reviewing a game based on what I think someone else would think of it without just calling it guesswork (rather than a review). But your audience will obviously have expectations on the structure of your review, such as what parts of the game you'll be most critical off (as in what parts you talk about the most, be it story, gameplay or design) and possibly your general attitude towards certain types of games.

You make a good point about not even doing a review, if you come to utterly despise the game, as a simple statement of "The game is too bad to be worth reviewing" is even more damning that 1/X.

That's why I like video reviews such as total biscuits which show as much of the game as possible so you can form your own opinion instead of being stuck with an article and ~5 screenshots.

I find them to be a good addition to written reviews, word of mouth, friends recommendations and let's plays. A video review is, after all, able to actually show what is being talked about, which I find quite valuable in my own decision making.

So if TB reports positive on the game, reviews are positive, other gamers are mostly[footnote]Everyone will hate some games, so if there's ever a game which is universally loved by everyone then I'm starting temple of and will conquer the world in the name of our new entertainment overlord. Or perhaps not, as that sounds like a lot of work that could be spent playing the perfect game instead.[/footnote] positive, let's plays make the game seem fun and your friends report good times (optional, since your friends might not have the game, if they too have these criteria before buying games) then chances are high of good times happening with the game.

 

[veloper]

What I would be interested to know is: having read our responses, how you yourself would now answer the central question in your first post:

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?

Do you slam the game, do you merely subtract a point or just scrap the entire review?

I'd try to talk about what's good and then go into full lengths to explain why I still, despite the good parts, dislike the game.

And rather than just make the final rating based on some sort of "+points for good -points for bad" -formula I'd try to give a number representing my overall enjoyment of the game (provided I had to give a number, which I'd rather not).

So if I found the game to be a technical masterpiece, but horribly offensive, I'd rate it something like a 1/10 - "No amount of excellent mechanics can make me able to enjoy something I find this offensive."

I would scrap the review myself.

If the offensive thing is so bad that the game goes from 10/10 material to 1, then it have to be something like neo-nazis making a game about gassing jews (and somehow receiving a massive budget for it).
In which case I would argue not give the game any time in the spotlight at all. Negative attention is also attention.

Alternatively if the game were about hard gay pornography, or something else than I'm really not into, then I'd still give it a 10/10, if I had to review it and put in bolded text that the game is only for guys who are into that stuff.
It would be really petty and unfair to slam the game in such scenario.

In both scenarios I'm not reviewing the game for myself, but have my audience in mind.

I would find it hard to review anything honestly for anyone but myself, as I - while quite capable of empathy - can not imagine myself reviewing a game based on what I think someone else would think of it without just calling it guesswork (rather than a review).

Guesswork wouldn't come into it. It would only be a matter of applying the same criteria consistently, always.

For me those criteria would include: gameplay, atmosphere, gfx, story, etc. with a big focus on gameplay, then at some distance atmosphere and far behind the rest. Personal issues or politics are NOT one of those criteria.

If I recognize the gameplay (mechanics, controls, balance, etc.) as being excellent (as indeed it is in your given hypothetical scenario), than I cannot honestly call the game crap, certainly not with all the other criteria being more than satisfied.

But your audience will obviously have expectations on the structure of your review, such as what parts of the game you'll be most critical off (as in what parts you talk about the most, be it story, gameplay or design) and possibly your general attitude towards certain types of games.

You make a good point about not even doing a review, if you come to utterly despise the game, as a simple statement of "The game is too bad to be worth reviewing" is even more damning that 1/X.

It would not even be a statement, but more of a boycott.
If I could be forced to start and finish the review, I would have to honestly rate the hypothetical nazi game: 10/10 AN EVIL MASTERPIECE!!
That's why I wouldn't want to review such a game in the first place.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Think you may have misunderstood my comment. My complaint wasn't "I want these people silenced", it was that no single school of thought should control all reviews of culture or art, nor should adherents to a single school of thought, in positions of editorial control, collude in a clandestine manner to aggressive force an agenda.

Yeah, but you're completely misidentifying the nature of the "agenda" being forced.

The "agenda" in videogame journalism is "buy our videogames!", not "be less shit to women"

It's unhealthy, no matter how much one happens to agree with the school of thought, you just end up on an unpleasant witch-hunt, single issues start dictating review scores, people start competing to write the most "zeitgeist-y" review and ultimately you end up with useless reviews. Nor should people be hounded from their homes or abused due to their agenda. The issue, to my mind, it's binary, there's quite a lot of people doing things that don't help.

Or maybe videogame reviewers are communicating human beings and, via communicating with each other influence each other. Because that's what human beings do, influence and take influence from other human beings via the medium of communication. The reason you see a lot of similar things in reviews might be because the reviewers have discussed it prior to final submission and found they agree with another reviewer's opinion and so include it in their own.

This doesn't require any form of conspiracy, it just requires human beings doing human being things.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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?

Once you start giving opinions... you become a biased review.

But you can't evaluate without giving an opinion.

Reviews are inherently subjective and biased, there is no way for them not to be. A good reviewer is aware of their own biases and applies critical thought to how those biases affected their opinion of the product, and says so in the review.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

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.

I have to disagree with you. Saying Bayonetta 2 is over sexualized and then doxing it is the same as saying GTA is too violent and doxing that. If the series is known to be sexual (as Bayonetta 1 clearly shows), why punish the sequel for incorporating a tone the original already has? This is exactly what happens in this Polygon review. Saying a character is too sexy and then calling the game "bad" because of it is disingenuous to the gamers who really only want to know if the game is good or not.

 

[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?

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.

Believe it or not, being objective in a review doesn't mean giving straight facts. It means to be fair and balanced. How does one be fair and balanced when reviewing a game? By reviewing the game based solely on what it is, and not some arbitrary ideology someone has.

For example: If you hate Chicken Noodle Soup, you wouldn't review Chicken Noodle Soup. Why? Because you hate it and your review about it wouldn't be fair nor balanced. If you hate fighting games, you wouldn't review a fighting game, because you do not like them. On the contrary, if you loved fighting games, then you'd be the perfect person to review it, since you'd give a more insightful view than someone who doesn't. Why? Because, chances are, you know more about fighting games than a person who hates them, so you may pick up on more of what the game has to offer as opposed to a person who does not like fighting games. The same goes for Chicken Noodle Soup.

If you're a feminist or are sensitive to the portrayal of women in the media, you wouldn't review Bayonetta 2, because your review wouldn't be objective. Why? Because the game sexualizes the main character and the overall tone of the game would offend you. This would also apply to people who hate the depiction of violence in entertainment mediums such as video games or movies reviewing GTA. Do you think Jack Thompson would give GTA5 a glowing review? Of course he wouldn't. He'd condemn the game, so there's no way he'd review it objectively.

 

[GloatingSwine]

For example: If you hate Chicken Noodle Soup, you wouldn't review Chicken Noodle Soup. Why? Because you hate it and your review about it wouldn't be fair nor balanced. If you hate fighting games, you wouldn't review a fighting game, because you do not like them. On the contrary, if you loved fighting games, then you'd be the perfect person to review it, since you'd give a more insightful view than someone who doesn't. Why? Because, chances are, you know more about fighting games than a person who hates them, so you may pick up on more of what the game has to offer as opposed to a person who does not like fighting games. The same goes for Chicken Noodle Soup.

On the other hand, if you love fighting games you might be more willing to excuse problems inherent to fighting games* because you have a preconcieved set of ideas based on your familiarity with the format, in other words because you are biased.

Your argument is "Bias X bad, bias Y good".

* Like crap tutorials and single player modes, endemic to fighting games but solved in other predominantly multiplayer competitive genres.

 

[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?

Once you start giving opinions... you become a biased review.

But you can't evaluate without giving an opinion.

Reviews are inherently subjective and biased, there is no way for them not to be. A good reviewer is aware of their own biases and applies critical thought to how those biases affected their opinion of the product, and says so in the review.

Exactly my point. A good reviewer either makes no pretense at being unbias and wears their bias proudly like say Yahtzee or Moviebob, or tries to make sure to state their biases and try to exclude them from their evaluation.. which is impossible,. Human psyche works in a funny way.. we aren't consciously aware of more than half our own biases so it is impossible to exclude them or be up front. Best solution is to simply roll with them... if someone recognizes your biases and shares those biases then your review will be more useful to them and to those that don't well they are very well aware of your biases.

Everyone has bias, but that's not what objectivity means. When reviewing a game, objectivity, in this sense, doesn't mean to be free of bias. It simply means to be fair. Let me provide you a few more examples:

If you ding GTA5 for poor controls (for example) and you remove points from that game, then every game you review after that with poor controls should also be dinged. If you're willing to ignore glaring defects in a game simply because you enjoyed the game while condemning another game for having those same issues, then that's when your review is no longer objective.

The Polygon reviewer that reviewed Bayonetta 2 had reviewed other games that totally sexualized its characters, but he turned a blind eye to it. When it came to Bayonetta 2, he suddenly had a problem with it. That's the issue here (among many I've listed in my previous post).

This guy talks about this very same subject, but does so from a very interesting perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJX2JW0IFY&index=22&list=LL_YLKB-BdjHJj1uA7ANrndQ

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

For example: If you hate Chicken Noodle Soup, you wouldn't review Chicken Noodle Soup. Why? Because you hate it and your review about it wouldn't be fair nor balanced. If you hate fighting games, you wouldn't review a fighting game, because you do not like them. On the contrary, if you loved fighting games, then you'd be the perfect person to review it, since you'd give a more insightful view than someone who doesn't. Why? Because, chances are, you know more about fighting games than a person who hates them, so you may pick up on more of what the game has to offer as opposed to a person who does not like fighting games. The same goes for Chicken Noodle Soup.

On the other hand, if you love fighting games you might be more willing to excuse problems inherent to fighting games* because you have a preconcieved set of ideas based on your familiarity with the format, in other words because you are biased.

Your argument is "Bias X bad, bias Y good".

* Like crap tutorials and single player modes, endemic to fighting games but solved in other predominantly multiplayer competitive genres.

That's a very extreme example. In the fighting game genre, it's hard for a fighting game fan to ignore inherent problems in a fighting game, because those problems determine whether they win or lose. A long time Tekken fan can detect even the smallest change in gameplay upon the next iteration of Tekken. This is something they could pick up as opposed to someone who does not like fighting games at all, but I digress.