Support NeoGAF

[Kouichi]

I don't know if "objectivity" is the word, but I do think a review should just be more than "Did I like it or not?"

Of course, that should be part of it, but I think analysis should be a part of it too. What were the developers attempting to accomplish? To what extent did they accomplish it? I may not enjoy this for X reasons, but is it possible that a fan of this style of game could enjoy it, or is it just so poorly done that I don't think anyone could?

There's no such thing as an objective review. But I also think a reviewer should be able to think outside their own personal likes and dislikes to analyze the subject a bit. I don't think that's asking so much.

(Note that I'm not referring to Sterling's review here, even though I know that's part of what set this conversation off. I haven't read Sterling's review yet, so I can't speak on it.)

This is how I see it as well. It's not about being objective, but attempting to aim towards a sense of objectivity. A person's own bias and views will always have an influence on critique and that's okay, even preferable at times. But I still think it's possible to aim towards a degree of objectivity through a more analytical approach, then just completely letting one's own feelings and views completely influence their critique.

However, I see this as simply what I believe to be the preferable way to critique and not the so-called "right" way. Like, I think it's the best way, but critics should be allowed to articulate their opinions in whatever way they see fit. Just as consumers are allowed to choose what kind of critiques they find valuable and which critics they find trustworthy.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I know think so, because people act like a 6/10 is a 1/5 - its trash and not worth their time.

Sad too, I played many 6/10 games, even 5/10 games, and I have some good times with them. For example, I fairly enjoyed Dr. Muto on the GameCube. It was okay, but I thought the concept of transforming into different alien creatures was pretty neat. A 6/10, it's alright.

 

[Lynd7]

A 2 to me implies a barely working game, that obviously isn't the case here. But I don't care really. A 7 is kinda where I felt this would fall overall, so a average to good game.

 

[Petrae]

Reviews are an opinion. By definition, an opinion is always subjective. The objective review does not exist and neither should it.

The outcry for the "objective review" only rears its ugly head when people disagree with a review score. "Objective reviews" are fact sheets. Stereo instructions. Boring as fuck to read and devoid of any and all criticism.

Then again, that's exactly what review whiners want: Zero criticism. They just want to hear the positives and the praise, so that their decision to buy the game being reviewed is justified and that they can lord it over others as if to twist their arms and convince them to buy said game. Criticism and/or negative observations/experiences are barriers to this.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I feel like that based on Jim Sterlings two previous reviews I officially can't take his critical mind on the quality of games seriously.

But ultimately a 70s average isn't half bad. I'll play it happily

 

[SomedayTheFire]

A 2 to me implies a barely working game, that obviously isn't the case here. But I don't care really. A 7 is kinda where I felt this would fall overall, so a average to good game.

Your scale is different to Jim's, then.

 

[Sponge]

I feel like that based on Jim Sterlings two previous reviews I officially can't take his critical mind on the quality of games seriously.

But ultimately a 70s average isn't half bad. I'll play it happily

That's where I stand on the matter. If I had listened to Jim's review of Sonic Colors, I wouldn't have enjoyed a Sonic game for the first time in years.

 

[Aaron D.]

The complaints about the 2/10 score Jim game it don't make that much sense to me. It seems people are just saying it doesn't deserve a 2/10 based on the usual 5 - 10 scale other sites use and not actually looking at what Jim says about the game and how he scores games.

He says he got pretty much no enjoyment out of it at all due to the poor camera, repetitive gameplay, bad jokes etc and he can't really see how anyone other than people who really, really like the genre and all the negative aspects of the original games could like it; it doesn't do anything to improve on previous games and keeps the negative aspects of them. To him that is a bad game, not average or just below average (which would be a 6 - 7 on the usual scale), he found it almost unplayable and based on his score system that is a 2/10.

2 (Bad): A 2 represents a straight-up bad game. A thorough disaster, there is no hope of a positive experience ever shining through all the broken features and atrocious ideas. Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable.

He explains why he gave it a 2/10 and what he said in the review lines up with his criteria for a 2/10 game. It doesn't seem like it's a case of him playing a game in a genre he never liked either, he mentions quite a few other similar games and then says that this decided to basically ignore the improvements those made to the genre. On the usual scale i don't think it would be a 2/10 but on the scale Jim uses it lines up with what he said in his review.

You could wipe away 30+ pages in this thread simply by considering this post in good faith.

Shame it will go completely ignored in favor of putting Sterling's credibility and competence on trial.

 

[Doomshine]

I feel like that based on Jim Sterlings two previous reviews I officially can't take his critical mind on the quality of games seriously.

But ultimately a 70s average isn't half bad. I'll play it happily

That's where I stand on the matter. If I had listened to Jim's review of Sonic Colors, I wouldn't have enjoyed a Sonic game for the first time in years.

and this is how it should work in my opinion. You've realized that Jim's opinions don't line up with yours and you can take that into account when reading his reviews, "problem" solved.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

and this is how it should work in my opinion. You've realized that Jim's opinions don't line up with yours and you can take that into account when reading his reviews, "problem" solved.

This is how I do it. I agree with Jim with some of his reviews, like his Dynasty Warriors reviews which are the most in depth than most others, and because he's a fan of the series, I feel like he has good opinions on what works or doesn't work in it. Because of him, I became a fan of Dynasty Warriors and I'm excited by the new Fire Emblem Warriors coming out on Switch. Same time, I don't agree with him on Sonic Colors, and I do agree with him on somethings with Zelda and not in others. To me, he's middle on my list of reviewers' opinions I consider most, sometimes higher depending on the game.

 

[Stop It]

It's one of the best games ever made. Anyone who hated Resident Evil 2 is damn wrong and shouldn't be getting paid to review videogames.

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.

 

[JayWood2010]

Reviews are an opinion. By definition, an opinion is always subjective. The objective review does not exist and neither should it.

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective. It is about being professional.

 

[Real Hero]

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective.

Reviews are an opinion, sure, but can also be professional, or unprofessional.

But the closest comparison would be the after game talk show stuff for sports which are subjective reviews

 

[Modoru]

so, have any new reviews come out, guys?

no?
just jim sterling? ......ok

i'll go back to my corner again

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective.

Reviews are an opinion, sure, but can also be professional, or unprofessional.

As I said before, define what a profession review is? Because my definition and your definition are not the same here. What you think is "objective" and what I think is "objective" are two different degrees of objectivity.

 

[JayWood2010]

But the closest comparison would be the after game talk show stuff for sports which are subjective reviews

Even then they try to remain objective. Players become analyst often times after their careers, and they try not to put their old team on a pedastool above everybody else. They remain professional most of the time and report on what is happening.

 

[Skellig Gra]

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective. It is about being professional.

Its a matter of taste as well. Some people just don't like certain gameplay mechanics no matter who well executed they are.

 

[Shiggy]

I'm not quite sure what people were expecting. Banjo-Kazooie doesn't hold up too well either by today's standards. If you wanted a game just like that, even with all its flaws, then the reviews shouldn't stop you. But that doesn't mean others should simply ignore these issues as reviews aren't just written for nostalgic Banjo-Kazooie fans.

I for one think I won't play this game for now due to these low scores. The reviews gave me warning enough that the game shares many of the past flaws for which I didn't like BK when I first played it on X360. Games have advanced since 1998.

 

[JayWood2010]

As I said before, define what a profession review is? Because my definition and your definition are not the same here. What you think is "objective" and what I think is "objective" are two different degrees of objectivity.

Being honest. Again as i said. I dislike God of War, but I wouldnt give it a 1/10 because I dislike it. I realize the reason why others would like it. Sure it may hurt its score, after all it is an opinion, but not so much that Im going to tell everybody else that it is the worst thing ever. Reviews you point out the good, and bad. Not just the good, or just the bad. Be honest about it, and dont let your emotions run you.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective. It is about being professional.

nope. sports commentator's are not reviewing the game or either team.

 

[Harmen]

So you are telling me that people are incapable of being objective with their opinions? That is rather false. Go listen to sports commentators that like one team more than the other. They at least try to be objective.

Reviews are an opinion, sure, but can also be professional, or unprofessional.

A review can contain a lot of objective remarks, but as soon as you are giving something a rating based on a personal scale, you are being subjective. Ultimately most reviews of media products are opinion pieces.

And what exactly entails professional and unprofessional? Jim is a professional as it is his job, that would be objective. Subjective would be to call him unprofessional because you don't agree with his work.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Being honest. Again as i said. I dislike God of War, but I wouldnt give it a 1/10 because I dislike it. I realize the reason why others would like it. Sure it may hurt its score, after all it is an opinion, but not so much that Im going to tell everybody else that it is the worst thing ever. Reviews you point out the good, and bad. Not just the good, or just the bad. Be honest about it, and dont let your emotions run you.

Do you not see how that's actually being dishonest? You are literally saying you hate the game but yet you raise the score because others might like it. You are being dishonest to yourself and others in that remark, and you are undermining your own opinion.

A review is about what you thought of the game, not what other's might, and I'd like to empathize that, MIGHT, like, because you don't know if other might like it, you might even be surprised that in general people might think you're already being too fair towards the game. See the problem. You can't be objective, it doesn't work, and the most honest way to review a game is to tell them what you thought of it.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Even then they try to remain objective. Players become analyst often times after their careers, and they try not to put their old team on a pedastool above everybody else. They remain professional most of the time and report on what is happening.

Reporting on what is happening isn't the same as reporting on what you do/don't enjoy.

 

[Malio]

Dem rose-colored glasses. People still cling to them.

I'm ready for that $9.99 Steam Fall Sale !

 

[Spehornoob]

Do you not see how that's actually being dishonest? You are literally saying you hate the game but yet you raise the score because others might like it. You are being dishonest to yourself and others in that remark, and you are undermining your own opinion.

I'm not sure that's entirely dishonest either.

Is "I personally dislike this game greatly but I think it succeeds in certain ways that may appeal to others" not a valid opinion?

 

[SomedayTheFire]

I'm not sure that's entirely dishonest either.

Is "I personally dislike this game greatly but I think it succeeds in certain ways that may appeal to others" not a valid opinion?

it's fine, if that's what you think, sure. but not every single review has to do that. it's also not objective. at least one person out there will like a game. if you're reviewing something and think "well this is shit but the consensus is higher, so I'll give it a higher score" that's dishonest.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I'm not sure that's entirely dishonest either.

Is "I personally dislike this game greatly but I think it succeeds in certain ways that may appeal to others" not a valid opinion?

It is, but like you just said, an opinion. It's not an objective truth, and that opinion applies to almost every game ever. Example, I might not like Sonic 06, but there's some that might.

 

[Stop It]

Even then they try to remain objective. Players become analyst often times after their careers, and they try not to put their old team on a pedastool above everybody else. They remain professional most of the time and report on what is happening.

Objective: Man Utd won 3 nil against Hull last night.

Subjective: Hull didn't turn up! They defended poorly and it was men against boys.

Facts are objective, you discuss the circumstances using subjective opinions. You can't be more or less objective in your judgement but you can use objectivity (so in sports, statistics, which don't lie but can be open to interpretation) to further your own argument.

Again, if a review was a statement of facts there would be no need for journalists to exist, because they would be self explanatory and unchangeable.

 

[Camjo-Z]

I'm not quite sure what people were expecting. Banjo-Kazooie doesn't hold up too well either by today's standards. If you wanted a game just like that, even with all its flaws, then the reviews shouldn't stop you. But that doesn't mean others should simply ignore these issues as reviews aren't just written for nostalgic Banjo-Kazooie fans.

I for one think I won't play this game for now due to these low scores. The reviews gave me warning enough that the game shares many of the past flaws for which I didn't like BK when I first played it on X360. Games have advanced since 1998.

I genuinely can't see what aspects of Banjo-Kazooie don't hold up. It's as close as I've ever seen a platformer come to perfection.

 

[Shiggy]

I genuinely can't see what aspects of Banjo-Kazooie don't hold up. It's as close as I've ever seen a platformer come to perfection.

May I ask when you first played it? Wonder if that has an effect on your opinion.

 

[Gestault]

Pro-tip: Think of reviews as being a scale of if the game is worth your time. You'll know that if you like a genre/series/style, you'll enjoy deeper into the "not worth it" territory.

 

[Spehornoob]

it's fine, if that's what you think, sure. but not every single review has to do that. it's also not objective. at least one person out there will like a game. if you're reviewing something and think "well this is shit but the consensus is higher, so I'll give it a higher score" that's dishonest.

Of course! But, I find that I tend to appreciate reviewers that put a little more analysis into a review rather than "I like it or I don't". And I agree, raising a score just to bring it inline with the consensus would absolutely be dishonest.

It is, but like you just said, an opinion. It's not an objective truth, and that opinion applies to almost every game ever. Example, I might not like Sonic 06, but there's some that might.

Absolutely. I don't like using the term "objective" for reviews because the concept of a review is antithetical to the concept of objectivity. But that doesn't mean reviewers shouldn't look at game from different perspectives either.

I know not everyone here likes Red Letter Media, but I appreciate their Half In The Bag series of film reviews. They can be caustic, but at the end of each episode the two reviewers ask each other "Would you recommend X film". Sometimes it's just a straight "no", but pretty often you get something like "I didn't like it, but if this kind of movie is your thing, you'll probably enjoy it".

I dunno, I just always appreciate the attempts to not just give your gut reaction to it, but to actually analyze the choices, positives, and failings of the subject of the review. I don't want to speak for anyone, of course, but I think that's what most people mean when they say they want an "objective" review. Even so, that's still an opinion and opinions by their nature are not "objective".

 

[Synth]

I don't think so, because people act like a 6/10 is a 1/5 - its trash and not worth their time.

Yea, but that's only because 1-5/10 exist in the scale.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

This doesn't seem to be a case of "Jim reviewed a game in a genre he didn't like in the first place" like some people seem to be suggesting. He very clearly likes/liked this sort of genre - he mentions a few others in his review without any negativity towards them and says he thinks those made improvements on the gameplay, camera etc when compared to games like Banjo Kazooie. He even backed this on Kickstarter and had high hopes for it in the videos he made of it a while back.

He gave the game such a low score because it keeps the negative aspects of the original games in the genre and ignores what the games after those did to improve things, and says it's repetitive, has a bad camera, poor quality jokes etc. On the scale he uses to review games, his score matches what he said about it.

 

[TheDinoman]

Confession: I played Banjo-Kazooie a little bit as a young lad, but I actually never fully played through it and got invested in it like I did with Banjo-Tooie until last year through XBLA. It's still a good game. I even just replayed it again through Project 64 a few days ago and had a blast.

Getting a bit fed up with all these "well, banjo-kazooie was never that good and it's all nostalgia" posts that keep popping up.

 

[Camjo-Z]

May I ask when you first played it? Wonder if that has an effect on your opinion.

I think it was around 2007 when I was 12? I liked it but definitely didn't fully appreciate it until I got to play the XBLA version, which must have been 2010 at least.

 

[ramparter]

First time I change avatar! Fuck the critics, let's do this!

 

[Gestault]

I very much associated the humor from the original Banjo-Kazooie games with something like classic Rocky and Bullwinkle, in the sense that things sound "dumb," but it's mostly a veneer over more clever meta-humor. If Yooka-Laylee only managed the dumb veneer without a clever foundation (or just relies too much on self-referential humor), that would feel like a total waste for me.

 

[Shiggy]

I think it was around 2007 when I was 12? I liked it but definitely didn't fully appreciate it until I got to play the XBLA version, which must have been 2010 at least.

Interesting. I certainly disagree though, but it's great you still liked it. The general opinion based on the standards around the time of the re-release was that it didn't quite hold up and that it was just an OK game, which is more in line with my thoughts.

Then again, some people also think Mario Kart 64 and 1080 are holding up well. #opinions

But when you guys read negative or mixed reviews about this game, why do you get fed up so much when you also liked BK and BT, which scored about the same by today's standards? If you liked those games despite their flaws, you should also be able to overlook them here. That doesn't mean the wider audience is fine with those flaws.


Edit: Not really referring to the 2/10, more to the 6 or 7 reviews. 2/10 means for me it's absolutely shovelware like The Kore Gang, a Wii platformer.

 

[JayWood2010]

Do you not see how that's actually being dishonest? You are literally saying you hate the game but yet you raise the score because others might like it. You are being dishonest to yourself and others in that remark, and you are undermining your own opinion.

A review is about what you thought of the game, not what other's might, and I'd like to empathize that, MIGHT, like, because you don't know if other might like it, you might even be surprised that in general people might think you're already being too fair towards the game. See the problem. You can't be objective, it doesn't work, and the most honest way to review a game is to tell them what you thought of it.

...That seems very narrow minded. Im not going to lie and say a game is unplayable garbage because I do not like it. I will tell you what I think is good about it, and what isnt. God of War's story in my opinion isnt good. The combat is good, though not of my taste. The puzzles are interesting, and the graphics are good. the game as a whole i do not like, from the camera angle, to the story. However there is a good in the game too, and i recognize that. Hell i dont like Mario Bros U because i think the game is a cakewalk, and i would rather have a challenging platformer. Im not going to give the game a 1/10 because I dont like it. I recognize that it is aimed at a different demographic. Just as somebody who has a hard time with Dark Souls shouldnt give it a 1/10 because its too hard. Different demographic. If you dont understand demographics then you shouldnt even be reviewing games. If you hate JRPG games, then you probably shouldnt be reviewing them.

Im not defending Yooka-Laylee. I have yet to even play the game, but i do believe in professionalism in which i see reviewers doing a poor job at often.

You all talk about commentators as being different, or even analysts, but my point is that you CAN be objective while also being opinionated. If you cant admit that is possible then i have no further words on the topic.

 

[Gravy Boat]

...That seems very narrow minded. Im not going to lie and say a game is unplayable garbage because I do not like it. I will tell you what I think is good about it, and what isnt. God of War's story in my opinion isnt good. The combat is good, though not of my taste. The puzzles are interesting, and the graphics are good. the game as a whole i do not like, from the camera angle, to the story. However there is a good in the game too, and i recognize that. Hell i dont like Mario Bros U because i think the game is a cakewalk, and i would rather have a challenging platformer. Im not going to give the game a 1/10 because I dont like it. I recognize that it is aimed at a different demographic. Just as somebody who has a hard time with Dark Souls shouldnt give it a 1/10 because its too hard. Different demographic. If you dont understand demographics then you shouldnt even be reviewing games. If you hate JRPG games, then you probably shouldnt be reviewing them.

Im not defending Yooka-Laylee. I have yet to even play the game, but i do believe in professionalism in which i see reviewers doing a poor job at often.

You all talk about commentators as being different, or even analysts, but my point is that you CAN be objective while also being opinionated. If you cant admit that is possible then i have no further words on the topic.

You're confusing two seperate things. What if someone DOES think the game is unplayable garbage? What if that is their genuine opinion? You're post assumes that either

1. Anyone who dislikes a game automatically calls it unplayable garbage
or
2. Anyone who thinks that a game is unplayable garbage isn't being objective

Nobody is giving a game 1/10 just because they don't like it, but they may give it a 1/10 if they really, really, really don't like it. Like I really can't stand Just Cause 3 despite loving the previous game. If I had to review it, I'd give it a 2/10 at most beause I really did not enjoy my time with it. Nothing about that game was fun to me, I actually felt annoyed when I thought about the money I wasted on it. I'm not going to sit there and go 'Well I guess it looks nice, and it's just not for me so 5/10 it is' because then no game would ever score lower than a 5/10. My review is my opinion. If I think a game was worth 2/10 to me, then I don't need to care about what other people may think about it.

Being objective and opinionated are two seperate things by definition. You can not have an objective opinion, and you cannot be objective when talking about your opinion. It's an oxymoron.

 

[Camjo-Z]

Interesting. I certainly disagree though, but it's great you still liked it. The general opinion based on the standards around the time of the re-release was that it didn't quite hold up and that it was just an OK game, which is more in line with my thoughts.

Then again, some people also think Mario Kart 64 and 1080 are holding up well. #opinions

But when you guys read negative or mixed reviews about this game, why do you get fed up so much when you also liked BK and BT, which scored about the same by today's standards? If you liked those games despite their flaws, you should also be able to overlook them here. That doesn't mean the wider audience is fine with those flaws.

Oh I'm not annoyed by the scores, reviews are always subjective. I'm sure I'll like the game much more than the average gamer who might see some wonky or strange aspects and go "screw this i'm going back to zelda" instead of "NOW THIS IS 3D PLATFORMING!!"

Spoiler

also mario kart 64 sucks

 

[Aquova]

While I like how Sterling feels he can use the entire 10 pt scale, instead of sticking to just 5-6 or above, he might as well use a "Above/below average" system. If he gave the game a "below average" score, that's fine, but giving it a 2/10 just seems click-baity.

 

[Synth]

While I like how Sterling feels he can use the entire 10 pt scale, instead of sticking to just 5-6 or above, he might as well use a "Above/below average" system. If he gave the game a "below average" score, that's fine, but giving it a 2/10 just seems click-baity.

But if you read the content of his review, you can clearly see that he doesn't consider the game to simply be "below average". Read this:

I initially decided to run my review of Yooka-Laylee without a score because I found it so utterly unbearable to play. This would have been the third time in twelve years I’ve ever done this, putting Yooka-Laylee in the same bracket as Velvet Assassin and Knights Contract, two other games so archaic and poorly designed I refused to put up with their shit.

Does that read as "below average" 6/10 to you?

 

[JayWood2010]

You're confusing two seperate things. What if someone DOES think the game is unplayable garbage? What if that is their genuine opinion? You're post assumes that either

Would you say that Forza Horizon 2, Uncharted 4, or Halo 4 is unplayable garbage? Thing they all have in common is scoring 4 or below by a reviewer. Would we call that professional, even though it appears to be click bait?

You can continue to debate this point as your argument continues to change, but my entire point is you can be objective while also having your own opinion, so do not act like you cant.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Would you say that Forza Horizon 2, Uncharted 4, or Halo 4 is unplayable garbage? Thing they all have in common is scoring 4 or below by a reviewer. Would we call that professional, even though it appears to be click bait?

You can continue to debate this point as your argument continues to change, but my entire point is you can be objective while also having your own opinion, so do not act like you cant.

If I thought any of those games were so bad that I simply could not force myself to play them, then yes, I would say that I think these games are unplayable. That's not an objective statement. Who cares if it's professional or not, it's my opinion. What does a professional opinion even mean or look like when talking about games criticism? (Note that I don't actually hold that opinion on any of those games). I would call Just Cause 3 unplayably bad, because it was so bad that playing it made me unhappy.

An opinion is not objective by definition. You cannot be objective about an opinion no matter how much you claim you can. I can say 'I think this game is bad, but others may enjoy it' or I can say 'This game is god awful, the worst thing I've ever played', but neither of those statements are objective.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

While I like how Sterling feels he can use the entire 10 pt scale, instead of sticking to just 5-6 or above, he might as well use a "Above/below average" system. If he gave the game a "below average" score, that's fine, but giving it a 2/10 just seems click-baity.

Read what he says about the game, though. The 2/10 score seems justified on the scale he uses; he didn't think it was average or just below average, he thought it was bad to the point it was nearly unplayable due to it ignoring the improvements to the genre since Banjo Kazooie. He found it so difficult to play because it kept all the negative aspects of the genre that he almost didn't give it a score at all. How is that not justified as a 2/10 when this is the criteria for a 2/10 to him?

2 (Bad): A 2 represents a straight-up bad game. A thorough disaster, there is no hope of a positive experience ever shining through all the broken features and atrocious ideas. Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable.

To me it doesn't come across as giving it a low score just to get attention or anything like that, what he says lines up with with giving it that score on his scale. He backed the game on kickstarter, posted positive pre-release videos about it, likes other games in the genre and he still found it nearly unplayable due to it keeping all the bad parts of the early games in this genre. He gave it such a low score because it does nothing to learn from the mistakes of the original few games in the genre despite games after that solving those problems.

Many solutions arose in the decades since Gex and Croc were relevant reptiles, yet sadly an all-new lizard (with his racist bat friend) is here with a game that decided none of those solutions should be implemented.

With its dated mechanics, horrific camera, and awful platforming controls, Yooka-Laylee is the very embodiment of nostalgia gone wrong – a faithful recreation of a 1998 experience without any consideration or concessions made for the many advances in gameplay that have occurred since then.

 

[Skittles]

While I like how Sterling feels he can use the entire 10 pt scale, instead of sticking to just 5-6 or above, he might as well use a "Above/below average" system. If he gave the game a "below average" score, that's fine, but giving it a 2/10 just seems click-baity.

I see

Would you say that Forza Horizon 2, Uncharted 4, or Halo 4 is unplayable garbage? Thing they all have in common is scoring 4 or below by a reviewer. Would we call that professional, even though it appears to be click bait?

You can continue to debate this point as your argument continues to change, but my entire point is you can be objective while also having your own opinion, so do not act like you cant.

Why not just link to several reviews that you find to be objective?

 

[MorshuTheTrader]

I don't see the big problem with the reviews. I'm a backer, and I'm happy that I got exactly what they promised in the beginning, a Rare style platformer/collectathon.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion. It sucks that there may be bugs or control issues, but I'm still going to love every minute of it because I played these games growing up.

 

[groansey]

Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable

And yet YL has an inoffensive 7/10 aggregate score.