Support NeoGAF

[Sword Of Doom]

Of course true objectivity can never be achieved but it is possible to put aside your personal reaction, and strive for some objectivity to give a more rounded and level-headed review - some of you deny this, it isnt what you want, fair enough. Doesn't mean professional reviewers aren't capable of it. To go back yo films for a second - I disagree with Mark Kermode's movie opinions most of the time, but his reviews are usually well-argued and with caveats which welcomes different opinion. He will often say "I didnt like it, but if you are someone who enjoys this then this film may work for you" - I don't think I've ever heard him say "I hated this and you'd have to be desperate to find anything passable in it at all", even the Transformers movies, he hates them and rants but is always self-aware enough to acknowledge there is an audience that enjoys seeing CGI robots blowing up, and even though he thinks the films are bloated and dull on every level.

You guys don't seem to want reviews at all cause you're not making any sense.

Also the more "objective" reviews get the more uninteresting and boring they are. I don't need a reviewer to walk on eggshells and be afraid of the internet just because they don't like a game. Reviews are subjective, get over it.

 

[Protome]

Of course true objectivity can never be achieved but it is possible to put aside your personal reaction, and strive for some objectivity to give a more rounded and level-headed review - some of you deny this, it isnt what you want, fair enough. Doesn't mean professional reviewers aren't capable of it. To go back yo films for a second - I disagree with Mark Kermode's movie opinions most of the time, but his reviews are usually well-argued and with caveats which welcomes different opinion. He will often say "I didnt like it, but if you are someone who enjoys this then this film may work for you" - I don't think I've ever heard him say "I hated this and you'd have to be desperate to find anything passable in it at all", even the Transformers movies, he hates them and rants but is always self-aware enough to acknowledge there is an audience that enjoys seeing CGI robots blowing up, and even though he thinks the films are bloated and dull on every level.

Shockingly, the difference in your comparison is opinions. Mark Kermode is of the opinion that people who like X might like Y, even though he didn't. Jim Sterling is of the opinion that Nobody will ever like Y because he can't see anything redeemable in it.

Both are valid opinions. Neither are objective at all.

 

[Skittles]

I feel like no one is actually discussing anything here and everyone is just talking back and forth to each other.

we've hit the cycle point of the thread. where new people come in to try and argue for some point that was already settled pages ago.

 

[casey_contra]

Reposting because I really want to hear everyone's opinion on this...

_______________________________________

I read the OP and I'm not trying to start anything... but do you think there is a correlation between Laura Kate Dale's review and Jim Sterling's? Not in a sense that they are conspiring or are just trying to get views and clicks, but because they are close.

I know people I'm close too rub off on me and vice versa. Opinions are amplified, and often positives and negatives are pointed out that might not be noticed otherwise. It becomes a shared-type experience. Like if I moderately dislike blueberries and so does my friend, if we start talking about it then at the end of the conversation I might be like "blueberries are the freakin' worst!"

I think both scores (and reviews) are valid and I don't doubt their opinions, I am just wondering from a journalistic perspective if alignment as individuals may sway opinions. I really respect Laura and I hope this doesn't come across as trying to diminish hers or anyone else's opinion. I think as a whole the scores are fine and I'm excited to get the game! And I'm excited to talk about stuff like this with y'all.

 

[Synth]

Game reviews and scores can (and should) contain objective game information. A frame rate of 1 is objectively worse than a frame rate of 30. The presence of game breaking glitches is objectively worse than the lack of such issues. Games aren't 100% art in this sense, and reviews ought to take this into account to some extent.

Yea, a review can (and almost always does) allude to some objective facts. That doesn't make the review itself objective in any way though.

A framerate of 1 is objectively worse than a framerate of 30, but nobody's really reviewing a game low because it has a framerate of 1, they review the game low because what that framerate of 1 does to their subjective experience playing the game. It just so happens that 1 frame a second would be low enough to envelope effectively every reviewer that would ever play the game ever, and so it would then appear to be the much rumored "objective opinion" because 100% of reviewers would likely agree.

But...

30fps is also objectively worse than 60fps. Now does that still hold? Does Forza Motorsport get objective points against Forza Horizon for having double the framerate? Or does this metric simply fall into place alongside all the other objective facts, that the reviewer then weighs subjectively into how they effect the game experience? Some may deem 30fps to be woefully insufficient for a fast-paced racer, whilst others may not even notice whether they're even playing a 30fps game or a 60fps game until it's pointed out to them... so at the end of the day, even objective elements of a game are used subjectively in a review.

There is no real objectivity in a review.

 

[fwpx]

Neogaf:

Metacritic 9x: YES GOTY GOTG SO HYPE ALL IN
Metacritic 7x: Yes but WHAT IS A REVIEW REALLY?

 

[joecanada]

Yeah, you're real objective.

Fuck me, are we doomed to the same shit arguments forever about how the word objective isn't flexible like some of you fucks seem to be trying to make it.

There is no such thing as an objective game review. To rate a game you must impart your opinion. You can have metrics but everyone will differ in how to apply them. That's the very definition of subjectivity.

I disagree with Jim on this score but he has got there honestly and with his own integrity intact. It's not wrong because you disagree, it's just different.

I can make an objective game review:

Game X is 1080p
Game X has 143 collectibles and 52 story missions
Game X has 3 million colors
Game X has 2 main characters with 10 costumes....

Game X is in the top 99 percentile of measures for these categories = 10/10 - don't you want to buy this game?? cmon guys !

 

[Heyt]

All opinions are subjective.

Game reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews are a curator, customer-guiding service.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

Jimquisition does not try to do that. That is pretty common, actually.

The outlet shields itself in "opinions being subjective" while producing arguably outlandish observations and scores, probably motivated for the traffic the reaction will generante.

Worst of all, it is taken seriously by aggregators like Open Critic.

That is not OK.

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taken seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

 

[Protome]

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews area curator, customer-guiding services.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

You're objectively wrong about all of this.

Reviews are useless if they aren't conveying the opinion of the writer. Reviewers guessing how people might feel about it a game is useful to literally nobody.

 

[Skittles]

so the maim problem with the game (I'll use an analogy) seems to be that it's like Pong but it should be more like Shatter

 

[JayWood2010]

The reason you were repeating yourself was because you weren't making sense, and it seems that was because you don't understand what objective means. Objective does not just mean stating the obvious and being polite about it.

No i think it is you who does not understand what we are saying. You can continue to argue that. Im not trying to change you mind on how you feel a review should be.

I 100% believe people can be objective while having an opinion at the same time. That isnt a fact sheet like some people are portraying.

My favorite game of all time is Gears of War. Id love to sit here, give it a 10/10 and tell you its a perfect game, because in my head its perfect for the type of game i love. If im being honest about it though, it has flaws and i can point them out to you.

 

[Dragner]

All this because someone uses the 0-10 scale instead of the usual 6(unplayable) to 10(GOTY).

 

[Glass Shark]

Neogaf:

Metacritic 9x: YES GOTY GOTG SO HYPE ALL IN
Metacritic 7x: Yes but WHAT IS A REVIEW REALLY?

Best post

Most of these threads are pointless because people have already decided what they want to think about the game before they go in.

 

[Synth]

My favorite game of all time is Gears of War. Id love to sit here, give it a 10/10 and tell you its a perfect game, because in my head its perfect for the type of game i love. If im being honest about it though, it has flaws and i can point them out to you.

Actually... please do. That would probably help illustrate what you believe would encompass objectivity in a game review.

 

[Heyt]

Reviews are useless if they aren't conveying the opinion of the writer.

It is literally impossible for the writer not to convey subjetive stances when talking about a game.

Reviewers guessing how people might feel about it a game is useful to literally nobody.

You are wrong about this. Reviews are for people who have not tried a product to gain knowledge about how it will affect them if they use it. That is the most useful a review can be.

 

[Protome]

No i think it is you who does not understand what we are saying. You can continue to argue that. Im not trying to change you mind on how you feel a review should be.

I 100% believe people can be objective while having an opinion at the same time. That isnt a fact sheet like some people are portraying.

My favorite game of all time is Gears of War. Id love to sit here, give it a 10/10 and tell you its a perfect game, because in my head its perfect for the type of game i love. If im being honest about it though, it has flaws and i can point them out to you.

That's not an example of objectivity. That's an example of your opinion about Gears of War. Even taking into account its flaws is still your opinion.

You are wrong about this. Reviews are for people who have not tried a product to gain knowledge about how it will affect them if they use it. That is the most useful a review can be.

Making guesses about what other people may or may not like helps nobody and in fact is more likely to mislead people.

 

[groansey]

All opinions are subjective.

Game reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews area curator, customer-guiding services.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

Jimquisition does not try to do that. That is pretty common, actually.

The outlet shields itself in "opinions being subjective" while producing arguably outlandish observations and scores, probably motivated for the traffic the reaction will generante.

Worst of all, it is taken seriously by aggregators like Open Critic.

That is not OK.

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taking seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

Perfect post. Spot on.

 

[MisterR]

Review threads here are toxic as fuck my Lord

They've gotten awful. People used to get banned for shit posting about review scores but now it's kind of nothing but shit posting about low scores.

 

[Glass Shark]

Jim's definition of a 2/10 might be totally different from yours. And that's fine, because it's his opinion.

Y'all, someone didn't like the game as much as you think you might, and you haven't even played it yet to confirm that belief. Just... stop embarrassing yourselves.

 

[whalleywhat]

It's me. I'm the one who knows what everybody else likes and will like, and must inform them. I wish I could personally have a response to anything, but this is both my gift and curse.

 

[ramparter]

All this because someone uses the 0-10 scale instead of the usual 6(unplayable) to 10(GOTY).

Show me a site where they use 6 for unplayable...

Gamespot 6

Ultimately, Yooka-Laylee's best and worst aspects come directly from its predecessor. Despite attempts at modernizing the formula, its style of gameplay is still outdated, and it doesn't stay challenging or interesting for long as a result. But if you're looking for a faithful return to the Banjo-Kazooie formula, Yooka-Laylee certainly delivers--from the font to the music to the wealth of collectibles, it's worthy of the title of spiritual successor.

Polygon 5.5

Yooka-Laylee looks the part of an updated platformer, but some of its mechanics should have stayed back in the era it came from. There was a reason we haven't seen more games like Banjo-Kazooie on modern platforms, and it wasn't just because Rare as we knew it was gone; its ideas were very specific to a gameplay era that we've evolved past. Fourth-wall-breaking dialogue, shiny characters and lush graphics can't save Yooka-Laylee from the dated framework that it's built on.

I don't get the idea of unplayable in these summaries. Though the polygon one is embarrassing, the reviewer is basically attacking the genre as a whole.

 

[Camjo-Z]

Jim's video output is great but his written reviews can be a bit strange. I remember the infamous Sonic Colors review being a particularly big headscratcher, as he derided that game for being filled with cheap pitfall deaths (even though the game features giant warning signs before every bottomless pit) while he gave Sonic 4: Episode 1 an 8/10 despite arguably being one of the worst ever examples of Sonic level design.

 

[Gravy Boat]

No i think it is you who does not understand what we are saying. You can continue to argue that. Im not trying to change you mind on how you feel a review should be.

I 100% believe people can be objective while having an opinion at the same time. That isnt a fact sheet like some people are portraying.

My favorite game of all time is Gears of War. Id love to sit here, give it a 10/10 and tell you its a perfect game, because in my head its perfect for the type of game i love. If im being honest about it though, it has flaws and i can point them out to you.

That's still not being objective though because what you see as flaws may not even register as issues to other people. You actually don't understand what objectivity is. That's still your opinion.

If I wanted to, I could write a 2 word review that just said 'shit sandwich'. Someone could read that and think 'well that's all the information I need, I'll pass on this game' and someone else could think 'this is nowhere near enough information. I'll check out another review'. Both are 100% totally fine responses.

Likewise I could give a game a 2/10 because I don't find it fun. This could be the best performing and most bug-free graphical showcase of all time and still get a 2/10 if I see 10 as 'the most fun ever' and 0 as 'absolutely no fun was had'. Someone else could play the same game and get the exact same level of enjoyment but score it higher because things like graphics and performance matter on their personal scale.

Objectivity has nothing to do with it outside of listing facts. Saying 'I didn't enjoy it but others might' isn't a requirement of a review, nor is it an objective opinion. I'd argue it's redundant and a waste of time stating something so obvious. What you value in a review is not what others value. If you want a reviewer who is diplomatic and wastes time with obvious statements like that, then cool, find them and subscribe to them. They're not objectively better though, or more professional. They just cater to your style more, which is fine.

By calling out people for not writing reviews they way you like, you're saying that all reviews need to be the same when they don't. People can review things however they want and on whatever scale they want. It's up to the reader to decide what they agree with. It's all subjective.

 

[AdanVC]

I always thought this game was going to be nothing extraordinary to begin with. Just a game to homage those 3D retro platformers with clunky and messy controls and it seems Playtonic delivered on that department. I'm still interested on the game anyways. Too bad who knows when it'll launch on Switch : / and probably at full price while the other versions will be half the price or lower by that time...

 

[JayWood2010]

That's not an example of objectivity. That's an example of your opinion about Gears of War. Even taking into account its flaws is still your opinion.



Making guesses about what other people may or may not like helps nobody and in fact is more likely to mislead people.

The game had like 3 second lag delay with bullets if you werent host, host powers, glitches such as crabwalking, ninja flips that put you outside of the map, weapon slide, etc As much as i loved the game, and it is my all time favorite multiplayer it had flaws. I would describe the multiplayer as brokenly beautiful. Anybody who played Gears back then knows what im talking about. Game was a ton of fun despite of its flaws.

 

[Heyt]

Likewise I could give a game a 2/10 because I don't find it fun.

You could. It happens all the time.

The question a review has to answer is not wether the reviewer finds a game fun, though. It has to provide the readership an orientaion about how much fun they may have.

Reviewing is not an excercise in opinion. Is one of empathy and perspective. That's why most reviews are often so bad.

 

[Glass Shark]

That's still not being objective though because what you see as flaws may not even register as issues to other people. You actually don't understand what objectivity is. That's still your opinion.

If I wanted to, I could write a 2 word review that just said 'shit sandwich'. Someone could read that and think 'well that's all the information I need, I'll pass on this game' and someone else could think 'this is nowhere near enough information. I'll check out another review'. Both are 100% totally fine responses.

Likewise I could give a game a 2/10 because I don't find it fun. This could be the best performing and most bug-free graphical showcase of all time and still get a 2/10 if I see 10 as 'the most fun ever' and 0 as 'absolutely no fun was had'. Someone else could play the same game and get the exact same level of enjoyment but score it higher because things like graphics and performance matter on their personal scale.

Objectivity has nothing to do with it outside of listing facts. Saying 'I didn't enjoy it but others might' isn't a requirement of a review, nor is it an objective opinion. I'd argue it's redundant and a waste of time stating something so obvious. What you value in a review is not what others value. If you want a reviewer who is diplomatic and wastes time with obvious statements like that, then cool, find them and subscribe to them. They're not objectively better though, or more professional. They just cater to your style more, which is fine.

By calling out people for not writing reviews they way you like, you're saying that all reviews need to be the same when they don't. People can review things however they want and on whatever scale they want. It's up to the reader to decide what they agree with. It's all subjective.

It's actually shocking that any of this even needs to be said, but it's 100% true. When I write reviews, it's absolutely pointless for me to try to get inside the head of another person and guess what they might think about the game. All I can do is explain how I felt and why. If that resonates with someone, good. Anyone looking for "objective reviews" is chasing a false ideal that does not exist and literally cannot exist.

 

[Ansatz]

You're objectively wrong about all of this.

Reviews are useless if they aren't conveying the opinion of the writer. Reviewers guessing how people might feel about it a game is useful to literally nobody.

You establish definitions: 1/10 means unplayable, this is the big rigs category. 2/10 means this etc.

The score you give it follows this guideline set up by the site so that scores are consistent across the site. Yes, there will always be room for intepretation of rules and definitions, in the same way sometimes it's up to the referee to make an evaluation in a sports game because the exact situation that occured isn't covered explicitly in the rulebook. In games that's more like "hmm, I'm not sure if this is a 6 or 7, can't decide, what do you guys think? Should lack of SP impact the score negatively for a MP centric game, thoughs?"

This system actually makes it much easier and useful for readers. If GTA VI scores 8.9 on IGN, I know it means that Rockstar did their job, but the game isn't a landmark title or the next revolution in gaming. If GTA VI scores a 10 on IGN, that will tell me well damn, I should check it out because it's doing something crazy even though I haven't been a fan for over a decade. I can immediately gain this info purely based on the score. This is what the numerical values mean per definition according to consensus.

 

[samn]

All opinions are subjective.

Game reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews are a curator, customer-guiding service.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

Jimquisition does not try to do that. That is pretty common, actually.

The outlet shields itself in "opinions being subjective" while producing arguably outlandish observations and scores, probably motivated for the traffic the reaction will generante.

Worst of all, it is taken seriously by aggregators like Open Critic.

That is not OK.

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taken seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

So all reviews should only be targeted at the reviewer's (potentially mistaken) viewpoint of what the 'average consumer' wants? What about everyone else? Is Jim Sterling really the only person on the planet who would really hate Yooka Laylee?

 

[Gravy Boat]

You could. It happens all the time.

The question a review has to answer is not wether the reviewer finds a game fun, though. It has to provide the readership an orientaion about how much fun they may have.

Reviewing is not an excercise in opinion. Is one of empathy and perspective. That's why most reviews are often so bad.

A review doesn't need to be anything other than what the reviewer wants it to be.

 

[Chubzdoomer]

Jesus, what a flop. This is depressing.

 

[Glass Shark]

You could. It happens all the time.

The question a review has to answer is not wether the reviewer finds a game fun, though. It has to provide the readership an orientaion about how much fun they may have.

Reviewing is not an excercise in opinion. Is one of empathy and perspective. That's why most reviews are often so bad.

I hate to break it to you, but I have written freelance reviews for several outlets, and what you're describing simply doesn't exist in this climate. If it does, it's hiding somewhere that I don't know about. No one is adhering to this false standard that you've seemingly made up out of whole cloth, so you should just stop caring about reviews and review scores altogether.

 

[tkscz]

Jesus, what a flop. This is depressing.

Most scores are 6,7 or 8. How is this a flop?

When did only 9 or 10 mean it's worth playing? I remember when games use to get 6 or 7 and people would agree it's worth picking up. When did we get so perfectionist?

 

[Synth]

The game had like 3 second lag delay with bullets, host powers, glitches such as crabwalking, ninja flips that put you outside of the map, weapon slide, etc As much as i loved the game, and it is my all time favorite multiplayer it had flaws. I would describe the multiplayer as brokenly beautiful. Anybody who played Gears back then knows what im talking about. Game was a ton of fun despite of its flaws.

The only one of those aspects that I'd say even approaches being an objective flaw is host powers.

Bunny-hopping was a glitch in the movement code for Quake, and is now considered a key element of why Quake became one of the greatest shooters ever. Many games will purposely add delays to weapon firing, in order to prevent hitscan options from overpowering other weapons (Quake 2's railgun for example will fire after a short delay to make landing hits with it consistently more difficult). These things whether intentional or not, are not things that are objectively wrong with the game, and many people would likely enjoy the game less were they to be removed/altered.

What you're describing in pretty much every post you've made in this topic isn't objectivity.. it's an attempt to predict other people's subjectivity.

 

[Heyt]

All I can do is explain how I felt and why.

That's very easy. That's why most people think reviewing is easy. That's why most reviews are not very useful.

Anyone looking for "objective reviews" is chasing a false ideal that does not exist and literally cannot exist.

I do agree that "pure objetivity" is a dumb ideal to aspire in terms of not being achievable.

But the question is not if a writer can do an "objective" text. The professional, ethical thing is try to be the the most objective (call it "the most fair for everyone, if you like).

It is very comfortable to just write whatever crosses your mind and when asked just answer "well, I can never try to be totally emphatic with everyone so why try to be even fair?".

I hate to break it to you, but I have written freelance reviews for several outlets, and what you're describing simply doesn't exist in this climate.

I actively contribute to one outlet with reviews as well.

What I described is the standard I use for my reviews, so I am pretty sure it exists.

you should just stop caring about reviews and review scores altogether.

Interesting proposal, I will think about it. Thanks.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taken seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

His score is fine, then. He gave it a 2/10 because it was barely playable to him. A 2/10 is the score he gives games he thinks are so bad it's extremely difficult to get any enjoyment out of them, and that's the experience he describes in his review. He quite clearly explains why he thought it was bad - because it seems to ignore the improvements made to the genre and ends up being repetitive, dull and overall something he didn't find fun to play at all despite liking the genre and backing this on kickstarter.

How is that score not justified to him when what he says of his experience of the game meets the criteria he sets for a 2/10 game? Other critics don't usually use the full 1 - 10 scale and focus on 5 -10.

 

[joecanada]

All opinions are subjective.

Game reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews are a curator, customer-guiding service.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

Jimquisition does not try to do that. That is pretty common, actually.

The outlet shields itself in "opinions being subjective" while producing arguably outlandish observations and scores, probably motivated for the traffic the reaction will generante.

Worst of all, it is taken seriously by aggregators like Open Critic.

That is not OK.

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taken seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

oh I see we are back at the point of the thread where reviewers are only giving X score because it's clickbait and "we should make our own meta which ignores reviewers I don't like".

its pretty clear now that we need review thread bingo.

 

[fargofallout]

Good god, is this really turning into a "reviews should be objective" argument? What year is it? My phone says it's 2017, but this thread leads me to believe it's 2007 or something.

 

[Skittles]

You could. It happens all the time.

The question a review has to answer is not wether the reviewer finds a game fun, though. It has to provide the readership an orientaion about how much fun they may have.

nope, this is a worthless addition to any review. anyone can enjoy anything so trying to appeal to the general populace is impossible;there are people out there who probably enkoy Black tiger, E.T., Action 52, etc

 

[tkscz]

That's very easy. That's why most people think reviewing is easy. That's why most reviews are not very useful.



I do agree that "pure objetivity" is a dumb ideal to aspire in terms of not being achievable.

But the question is not if a writer can do an "objective" text. The professional, ethical thing is try to be the the most objective (call it "the most fair for everyone, if you like).

It is very comfortable to just write whatever crosses your mind and when asked just answer "well, I can never try to be totally emphatic with everyone so why try to be even fair?".

To me, reviews should be read/listened to and the reader/listen should be able to determine whether or not something that bothered the reviewer bothered them.

For example, Breath of the Wild has frame rate issues, that's an objective fact pointed out by all reviewers. Where it gets subjective is whether those frame drops bothered the reviewer/reader(listener) or not. For me, from rate issues don't have an effect. I get over them. They are annoying but I can play past them with no sweat off my brow. For others, they are a big issue, even if it's a single frame drop that happens every now and again (look at Mario Kart 8).

I get what you're saying as it aligns with what I'm saying. A review should try adding little of their own opinion as possible. Tell about what you played, and what you experienced, but what you think about it should be reduced as much as possible. It's not really possible to do, as you don't get as many details without it, but it should be tried.

 

[Cloukyo]

All opinions are subjective.

Game reviews are based on the reviewer's opinions.

Game reviews exist to inform others about games, not merely for exposing opinions. Opinion pieces are great for that. Reviews are a curator, customer-guiding service.

That kind of work requires empathy, not only the hability to portray opinion on text or video.

Because it is based on opinion, a review is never going to be objective, but for a review to be able to fulfill the purpose it has to try.

It's not about "what I think of this game" but more of "having played this game I can estimate how other people will react to it and recommend it or not".

Jimquisition does not try to do that. That is pretty common, actually.

The outlet shields itself in "opinions being subjective" while producing arguably outlandish observations and scores, probably motivated for the traffic the reaction will generante.

Worst of all, it is taken seriously by aggregators like Open Critic.

That is not OK.

Clearly Y-L is a very polarizing game, but a 2/10 is for a game that is barely playable. Other critics have been able to find it playable to the point of giving it at least a 6. I think Jimquisition's judgement is not very trustworthy and should not be taken seriously. If reviews are only useful for the author there is no point in making them.

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

 

[Ansatz]

His score is fine, then. He gave it a 2/10 because it was nearly unplayable to him.A 2/10 is the score he gives games he thinks are so bad it's extremely difficult to get any enjoyment out of them, which is what he said about it in his review. He quite clearly explains why he thought it was bad, because it seems to ignore the improvements made to the genre and ends up being repetitive, dull and overall something he didn't find fun to play at all despite liking the genre and backing this on kickstarter.

How is that score not justified when what he says of his experience meets the critera he sets for a 2/10 game?

Bolded is the fundamental problem and precisely why his reviews are useless.

His criteria are not aligned with consensus of what constitutes a 2/10. That's the issue here. I disagree with his criteria and thus will never visit his site, and he's free to keep doing what he's doing. Simple as that!

 

[Gravy Boat]

Good god, is this really turning into a "reviews should be objective" argument? What year is it? My phone says it's 2017, but this thread leads me to believe it's 2007 or something.

No no no. No one is saying that reviews need to be objective, just that reviewers need to be objective in their opinion.

...

Spoiler

So far no one has clarified what 'being objective in your opinion' actually means.

 

[JonnyKong]

I often wonder where the infamous Gaf review thread reputation comes from.

This one has enlightened me enitrely.

 

[Glass Shark]

It is very comfortable to just write whatever crosses your mind and when asked just answer "well, I can never try to be totally emphatic with everyone so why try to be even fair?".

"Fair" is a meaningless ideal.

I'd love to read one of your reviews some time. I really have no idea how what you're suggesting could make for a compelling or interesting review.

 

[Synth]

oh I see we are back at the point of the thread where reviewers are only giving X score because it's clickbait and "we should make our own meta which ignores reviewers I don't like".

its pretty clear now that we need review thread bingo.

I love the way the poster throws around the word empathy, whilst simultaneously attempting to dictate a scale, and calling someone untrustworthy and that they shouldn't be taken seriously because their reviewing methods don't adhere to it.

 

[JayWood2010]

The only one of those aspects that I'd say even approaches being an objective flaw is host powers.

[/I].

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Jim's definition of a 2/10 might be totally different from yours. And that's fine, because it's his opinion.

Y'all, someone didn't like the game as much as you think you might, and you haven't even played it yet to confirm that belief. Just... stop embarrassing yourselves.

Yep. These review threads are almost always an embarrassment.

2/10 is harsh but he backed it up. For those saying it's reserved for games with technical issues, did you read the review? Part of his issues with the game are with how it plays and the core part of the game. If you can't play or don't like how the game handles is that not a technical issue?

 

[Gravy Boat]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense.

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

You have it backwards. The consumer needs to consider the taste of the reviewer. Don't listen to reviewers who have different tastes than you.

Of course a review is an opinion piece, otherwise every review would a digital foundry analysis and a list of features.

How can you say that there's no such thing as a professional opinion piece? For centuries people have been making money off their opinion, which is the very definition of a professional.

 

[Synth]

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

All of these things have happened in a review, and neither the world ended, or the metascores plummeted into negative values. I think we're doing ok.

And... LOL at letting reviewers give their opinions is ridiculous... God forbid someone who's tastes are actually quite likely in line with the majority of the western market not appreciate the insane humor of Yakuza 0. No, they should completely disregard that, and think about how much you may like it, score the game a 9/10 at least, and then when the average Witcher 3 fan buys it on the back of these reviews, they should just be like ¯\_(&#12484_/¯