Subjective reviews are the future

It was a lot different back then when gaming was young and on the turn to 3D.  A paragraph explaining the controls was necessary.  And they were graded by graphics and sound, as things like detailed profound stories, emotional moments, character connections, conveyance of grand themes/beliefs were much less common.

I do miss the nostalgia of the "entirely objective" review era, but it's time to move on and adapt.

For example, Carolyn Petit's GTA5 review has caused a rage.  I have my own reservations regarding it, but in the end, I'd rather have an honest opinion than just a copy-paste of what everyone else is writing.  There are 50+ different reviewing sites and magazines.  What a waste would they be if they were all objective.  They'd all be almost entirely the same and that would be redundant.

Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|drekula2

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|drekula2

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

There is no crime for what she did. She came up with her opinion and that's all. The gaming community on the web did **** and moan but they always do this and will always do it. 

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|drekula2

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

For those who want 'objective' reviews, I strongly urge you to check this out.

charizard1605

Oh! Not that garbage again. Of course nothing can be completely objective, but even as an example of that, the "review" you posted is so stuck on trying to prove its point that it pads itself out to make it more annoying-- to make you hate it.

You can certainly try to have an objective review, which is much better than a reviewer saying, "Well, reviews are suggestive so who cares if it is full of bias. Why bother?"

Then again, I have a bias against Jim, so what can I say?

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

For those who want 'objective' reviews, I strongly urge you to check this out.

TilxWLOC

Oh! Not that garbage again. Of course nothing can be completely objective, but even as an example of that, the "review" you posted is so stuck on trying to prove its point that it pads itself out to make it more annoying-- to make you hate it.

You can certainly try to have an objective review, which is much better than a reviewer saying, "Well, reviews are suggestive so who cares if it is full of bias. Why bother?"

Then again, I have a bias against Jim, so what can I say?

[QUOTE="TilxWLOC"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

For those who want 'objective' reviews, I strongly urge you to check this out.

charizard1605

Oh! Not that garbage again. Of course nothing can be completely objective, but even as an example of that, the "review" you posted is so stuck on trying to prove its point that it pads itself out to make it more annoying-- to make you hate it.

You can certainly try to have an objective review, which is much better than a reviewer saying, "Well, reviews are suggestive so who cares if it is full of bias. Why bother?"

Then again, I have a bias against Jim, so what can I say?

Clearly, you are not being objective in your analysis of Jim or his review.

I'm honestly not sure how serious you are with that post.

past, present, and future.

Reviews have always been subjective :|. That, however, doesn't shield a shit reviewer from criticism.

I really dont understand the crying over Petit's review of GTAV.  It's not as if she deducted points from the review.  Gamespot changed its raiting scale to a 10 point scale.  You are acting as if her opinion detracted from the score of the game. Although most of us (me inclulded) dissagree with the mysogyny stuff, she is entitled to her opinion.

She gave the damn game the HIGHEST possible raiting the game could recieve from this site (with the sites new rating system), short of giving it a 10.   WTF else do you want from her? :?

reviews are and always will be subjective if not they would be just a general description. A reviewer telling you what's good, what's bad, what's wrong with a game is just his opinion and you might or migh not agree with it. But people don't care about opinions or reviews, they just want a score to brag about or get butthurt when is not what they were hyping.

There's a difference between subjectivity in reviews, and shoehorning opinions in reviews where they do not belong. Icharizard1605

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

There's a difference between subjectivity in reviews, and shoehorning opinions in reviews where they do not belong. Ijg4xchamp

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]

There's a difference between subjectivity in reviews, and shoehorning opinions in reviews where they do not belong. IAllicrombie

A review should always convey a personal point of view rooted in objective observations and information. The pseudo-objective buyer's guide ideal is terribly outdated.

The problem is that the video game audience isn't exactly mature, so upholding this idea of useless hype reviews that only function as contributions to Metacritic scores. Most gamers do not want reflective reviews, but rather a high or a low score (depending where they stand in the fanboy spectrum). It is also rather difficult to write profound analyses of video games without coming across as terribly pretentious, seeing as video games tend to be rather superficial in terms of story, social commentary and whatnot (which is not necessarily a bad thing, mind). It's one of the reasons why I personally switched to mostly doing music reviews.

Bullshit, if you're going to argue gaming is art(which these "critics" and "journalists" do) or take the story aspect of the game seriously, then that kind of reflective criticism is fair game. It is totally justified for someone to be offended by a piece of fiction. jg4xchamp

I agree, but in the case of Petit it was selective indignation that reeks of a personal social/political agenda. There is also a difference between misogyny and sexism, as you pointed out. So all in all it was rather embarassing.

 

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Bullshit, if you're going to argue gaming is art(which these "critics" and "journalists" do) or take the story aspect of the game seriously, then that kind of reflective criticism is fair game. It is totally justified for someone to be offended by a piece of fiction. DraugenCP

I agree, but in the case of Petit it was selective indignation that reeks of a personal social/political agenda. There is also a differnce between misogyny and sexism, as you pointed out. So all in all it was rather embarassing.

Oh no, I agree. Her complaint never comes off sincere, as much as it comes off "well Anita on youtube called out our industry, so we gotta fight the struggle, and yada yada". There is a certain sleezyness to it.

Which frankly I think is a shame, because as Patrick Klepik pointed out on Giant Bomb. This is the type of stuff games journalists, media, and critics should talk about more, and address when it comes to games. There should be conversations about diversity(or a lack thereof) in gaming. Problem is entirely execution.

Either way it's still not the most offensive review of GTA 5.jg4xchamp

As it stands now this seems to be a bridge too far for the gaming audience, so I doubt major publications will be successful in making this approach the standards in the next, say, 3 years. It may eventually find its way into the mainstream, though, seeing as gaming is (albeit very slowly) losing the stigma of solely being a teenage ordeal.

I agree that there should be a more intelligent discourse surrounding video games, but so far I've seen very few people pull this approach off successfully. Attempts at societal reflection seem to be limited to intellectually dire feminists who use video games solely as a vehicle for their own agendas. And frankly, one thing I find more annoying than superficiality in writing about any medium (be it games, music, or film) is a pretentious 'outsider-looking-in' perspective. If you lack the passion, stick to research papers.

Boy, I feel another article coming up. :oops:

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"] more intelligent discourse surrounding video games, Allicrombie

shutup diablo 3 sux such a flop lol noob

Better?

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"][QUOTE="DraugenCP"] more intelligent discourse surrounding video games, DraugenCP

shutup diablo 3 sux such a flop lol noob

Better?

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

Or you mean giving it a 9 because you are pro gun control, in the GTA V controversy's case.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="drekula2"]

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

drekula2

Or you mean giving it a 9 because you are pro gun control, in the GTA V controversy's case.

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|edidili

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

There is no crime for what she did. She came up with her opinion and that's all. The gaming community on the web did **** and moan but they always do this and will always do it. 

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|hiphops_savior

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

From Gamespot's review guidelines:

Your time and your money are on the line when you're deciding whether or not you should purchase (or rent) a game. Our editorial staff consists of discerning, value-conscious game players, and it's been our mission since 1996 to provide all the information you need to decide whether a given game is right for you...

...Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend. Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while.

Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

From Gamespot's review guidelines:

Your time and your money are on the line when you're deciding whether or not you should purchase (or rent) a game. Our editorial staff consists of discerning, value-conscious game players, and it's been our mission since 1996 to provide all the information you need to decide whether a given game is right for you...

...Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend. Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while.SciFiRPGfan

As long as Gamespot and other gaming sites will at least pretend that they are here to "advise us" on what games should "we" as gamers and prospective customers look into, I don't want them to be completely subjective and I want them to have "our" preferences and tastes in mind when reviewing games.

Now, that may be a difficult and sometimes probably downright impossible thing to do (since sometimes the opinions among gamers themselves vary so much that there is no prevailing outlook on how some elements in videogames should be handled...), but I have no doubts, that there are instances when it is possible to figure out what the majority of Gamespot's / some other gaming site's audience is looking for. After all, there's always a ton of feedback for reviews, GoTYs, polls,... 

E.g. (I might be making this up, I didn't pay that much attention, so sorry in advance), if a reviewer criticizes GTA 5 for being "too misogynistic" and there's overhelming feedback for the review from people saying that it's O.K. for game being that misogynistic and that reviewer shouldn't put that much emphasis on it (at least while reviewing the game), then the next time I would logically expect that reviewer (or any other) to not put that much emphasis on whether the game is too misogynistic or not.

It's just a common sense to me. If somebody asks me to suggest him some good games to play, the first thing I would do would not be name my favourite ones, but to ask him what kind of games he likes / what is he looking for in games and then adjust my answer accordingly.

Like I said, it's much harder to do it when the one being advised is not a single guy but an entire audience which may consist of tens of thousands of people, but I still believe that there are instances when the reviewers could do a bit better job at taking the preferences of (majority of) their audience into account when reviewing games.

Reviews should be first and foremost useful to as many people as possible. For more refined and opinionated discussions, the writers could easily use editorials, blogs and such.

I agree that the reviewer can shape themselves to public demand (by changing the writing style, not overly harsh or attempting to hit fishing) and try to be as objective as possible (by mentioning which types of audience will be attracted to the game)., but ONLY to some extent. I have no respect to reviewers who just bend over to the whiny fanboys and write whatever the fanboys wanna read instead of stating his or her own opinion, that MIGHT be important to certain people who are serious in their purchase.

Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

/thread.

Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|charizard1605

Reviews weren't already Subjective?

It may be good in some cases; however, you should also consider the fact that fans always want their game to score as high as possible. The more popular the game is, the higher expectation the fans will have. Sure there are fans who agree with the score and understand where the reviewer comes from, but the vast majority of them are ready to butcher every criticism of the game from the reviewer. Therefore, if you don't want to upset the majority of a fanbase, just give the game a 10. rjdofu

The reviewers should NOT say what we want to hear, they must say what we NEED to hear, that's why criticism is so important.

 I agree that the reviewer can shape themselves to public demand (by changing the writing style, not overly harsh or attempting to hit fishing) and try to be as objective as possible (by mentioning which types of audience will be attracted to the game)., but ONLY to some extent. I have no respect to reviewers who just bend over to the whiny fanboys and write whatever the fanboys wanna read instead of stating his or her own opinion, that MIGHT be important to certain people who are serious in their purchase.

Well, as a reviewer you would be "trading" interests of an already known part of your audience (fans / fanboys), who you have better idea about what they are looking for, for an uknown (potentially non-existing) part of your audience who just "might" find your different approach more useful? I dunno. That sounds like a quite risky trade off to say the least.

On a principle, I could agree with it as I would not like to see the dictate of the fanboys to be the norm either. However, such approach would have to turn out to be useful to some signifficant part of the audience eventually. Otherwise it would be just reviewers completely misunderstanding the needs of their audience and it that case it would probably be better if they changed their minds.

I agree that more culturally/socially oriented criticism is not entirely in line with Gamespot's review guidelines. But rather than discarding reviews that do this, I would say that the review guidelines are simply outdated. The 'buyers guide' ideal, i.e. the idea of a review as nothing more but a 'professional' informing 'consumers' emerged in a time when console demos were scarce; when there was no YouTube; when the internet was far less saturated with information; when user reviews and opinions were much more of a niche: in short, in a time when the professional reviewer still derived a considerable amount of authority from the lack of alternative 'see-before-you-buy' options. It was a time when magazines and later websites were basically the only source of information on gameplay other than word-to-mouth.

When I was a kid and I had about 15-20 euros of pocket money to spend per month, I would check reviews zealously to make sure the game I bought was a dead cert in terms of quality, replayability, etc. Now, I can just buy a game based on the recommendation of a friend, or based on gameplay footage on YouTube. The only time that reviews come into play in this decision is when I might check Metacritic just to make sure it's not absolutely abysmal (40-35 rating or lower). But in this situation it's solely about the average and not about what a review says.

So is the review useless? Far from it. I often find myself reading reviews not to see if I want a game/CD/film/whatever, but rather to compare my thoughts and observations to those of other people, which might help me view it in a different light. The review, in its essence, has the potential of being the ideal medium of digesting certain thoughts on a game (or other piece), much in the fashion of an editorial but rather focused on one piece. Provocative, unconventional observations can spark an interesting discussion among the audience, which I think is much more valuable than becoming yet another link in the chain of scores that make up the Metacritic tally. In this sense, I would applaud Petit's inclusion of external topic material, were it not for the fact that her argument is redundant, poorly made and in total dissonance with the rest of the review. But the alternative that is proposed by some - to return to the worn-out buyers guide mold - appears to me as equally disheartening.

Damn, I should lurk more on SW to get with da game.

[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]

From Gamespot's review guidelines:

Your time and your money are on the line when you're deciding whether or not you should purchase (or rent) a game. Our editorial staff consists of discerning, value-conscious game players, and it's been our mission since 1996 to provide all the information you need to decide whether a given game is right for you...

...Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend. Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while.rjdofu

As long as Gamespot and other gaming sites will at least pretend that they are here to "advise us" on what games should "we" as gamers and prospective customers look into, I don't want them to be completely subjective and I want them to have "our" preferences and tastes in mind when reviewing games.

Now, that may be a difficult and sometimes probably downright impossible thing to do (since sometimes the opinions among gamers themselves vary so much that there is no prevailing outlook on how some elements in videogames should be handled...), but I have no doubts, that there are instances when it is possible to figure out what the majority of Gamespot's / some other gaming site's audience is looking for. After all, there's always a ton of feedback for reviews, GoTYs, polls,...

E.g. (I might be making this up, I didn't pay that much attention, so sorry in advance), if a reviewer criticizes GTA 5 for being "too misogynistic" and there's overhelming feedback for the review from people saying that it's O.K. for game being that misogynistic and that reviewer shouldn't put that much emphasis on it (at least while reviewing the game), then the next time I would logically expect that reviewer (or any other) to not put that much emphasis on whether the game is too misogynistic or not.

It's just a common sense to me. If somebody asks me to suggest him some good games to play, the first thing I would do would not be name my favourite ones, but to ask him what kind of games he likes / what is he looking for in games and then adjust my answer accordingly.

Like I said, it's much harder to do it when the one being advised is not a single guy but an entire audience which may consist of tens of thousands of people, but I still believe that there are instances when the reviewers could do a bit better job at taking the preferences of (majority of) their audience into account when reviewing games.

Reviews should be first and foremost useful to as many people as possible. For more refined and opinionated discussions, the writers could easily use editorials, blogs and such.

I agree that the reviewer can shape themselves to public demand (by changing the writing style, not overly harsh or attempting to hit fishing) and try to be as objective as possible (by mentioning which types of audience will be attracted to the game)., but ONLY to some extent. I have no respect to reviewers who just bend over to the whiny fanboys and write whatever the fanboys wanna read instead of stating his or her own opinion, that MIGHT be important to certain people who are serious in their purchase.

Reviews have always been subjective.

I agree that more culturally/socially oriented criticism is not entirely in line with Gamespot's review guidelines. But rather than discarding reviews that do this, I would say that the review guidelines are simply outdated. The 'buyers guide' ideal, i.e. the idea of a review as nothing more but a 'professional' informing 'consumers' emerged in a time when console demos were scarce; when there was no YouTube; when the internet was far less saturated with information; when user reviews and opinions were much more of a niche: in short, in a time when the professional reviewer still derived a considerable amount of authority from the lack of alternative 'see-before-you-buy' options. It was a time when magazines and later websites were basically the only source of information on gameplay other than word-to-mouth.

When I was a kid and I had about 15-20 euros of pocket money to spend per month, I would check reviews zealously to make sure the game I bought was a dead cert in terms of quality, replayability, etc. Now, I can just buy a game based on the recommendation of a friend, or based on gameplay footage on YouTube. The only time that reviews come into play in this decision is when I might check Metacritic just to make sure it's not absolutely abysmal (40-35 rating or lower). But in this situation it's solely about the average and not about what a review says.

So is the review useless? Far from it. I often find myself reading reviews not to see if I want a game/CD/film/whatever, but rather to compare my thoughts and observations to those of other people, which might help me view it in a different light. The review, in its essence, has the potential of being the ideal medium of digesting certain thoughts on a game (or other piece), much in the fashion of an editorial but rather focused on one piece. Provocative, unconventional observations can spark an interesting discussion among the audience, which I think is much more valuable than becoming yet another link in the chain of scores that make up the Metacritic tally. In this sense, I would applaud Petit's inclusion of external topic material, were it not for the fact that her argument is redundant, poorly made and in total dissonance with the rest of the review. But the alternative that is proposed by some - to return to the worn-out buyers guide mold - appears to me as equally disheartening.

Damn, I should lurk more on SW to get with da game.

DraugenCP

Man, you should lurk more, you are adding nothing to this thread.

Anyway, that is why I used to watch CGR, it was kind of a blend of the two styles and it never really took itself very seriously, unless you are talking Undertow, they kind of suck. I don't know if they are still like that, but when I used to watch them it was an entertaining buyer's guide, free of spoilers, with opinions thrown in to give you something to compare your thoughts with. I like that.

I don't think I've followed any review maker for that long, or even at all. Now, I don't even read/watch reviews.

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

I agree that more culturally/socially oriented criticism is not entirely in line with Gamespot's review guidelines. But rather than discarding reviews that do this, I would say that the review guidelines are simply outdated. The 'buyers guide' ideal, i.e. the idea of a review as nothing more but a 'professional' informing 'consumers' emerged in a time when console demos were scarce; when there was no YouTube; when the internet was far less saturated with information; when user reviews and opinions were much more of a niche: in short, in a time when the professional reviewer still derived a considerable amount of authority from the lack of alternative 'see-before-you-buy' options. It was a time when magazines and later websites were basically the only source of information on gameplay other than word-to-mouth.

When I was a kid and I had about 15-20 euros of pocket money to spend per month, I would check reviews zealously to make sure the game I bought was a dead cert in terms of quality, replayability, etc. Now, I can just buy a game based on the recommendation of a friend, or based on gameplay footage on YouTube. The only time that reviews come into play in this decision is when I might check Metacritic just to make sure it's not absolutely abysmal (40-35 rating or lower). But in this situation it's solely about the average and not about what a review says.

So is the review useless? Far from it. I often find myself reading reviews not to see if I want a game/CD/film/whatever, but rather to compare my thoughts and observations to those of other people, which might help me view it in a different light. The review, in its essence, has the potential of being the ideal medium of digesting certain thoughts on a game (or other piece), much in the fashion of an editorial but rather focused on one piece. Provocative, unconventional observations can spark an interesting discussion among the audience, which I think is much more valuable than becoming yet another link in the chain of scores that make up the Metacritic tally. In this sense, I would applaud Petit's inclusion of external topic material, were it not for the fact that her argument is redundant, poorly made and in total dissonance with the rest of the review. But the alternative that is proposed by some - to return to the worn-out buyers guide mold - appears to me as equally disheartening.

Damn, I should lurk more on SW to get with da game.

TilxWLOC

Man, you should lurk more, you are adding nothing to this thread.

Anyway, reviews don't interest me much anymore like before, since I now have other, far superior, means of deciding if I want a game or not. If I'm going tor ead a review now, I want it to provide commentary of stuff about the game, what they thought about that particular aspect. If they are simply objective reviews, they are completely useless to someone who already bought or is going to buy a game. The true value for a review for me begins after I finish the game and want to discuss it and see what other people thought about the game/TV episode/movie.

Reviews can only ever be someones opinion of a game.

There is only one opinion that matters to me..............and thats mine.:)

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Reviews are, by definition, subjective :|drekula2

Then there should be no crime in Petit being honest she finds a game sexist and confused in its message or McShea just really never cared for the characters in TLOU.

They have a right to their review opinions, but no one has to like them or accept them.

Anyway, reviews don't interest me much anymore like before, since I now have other, far superior, means of deciding if I want a game or not. If I'm going tor ead a review now, I want it to provide commentary of stuff about the game, what they thought about that particular aspect. If they are simply objective reviews, they are completely useless to someone who already bought or is going to buy a game. The true value for a review for me begins after I finish the game and want to discuss it and see what other people thought about the game/TV episode/movie.Willy105

Well, as a reviewer you would be "trading" interests of an already known part of your audience (fans / fanboys), who you have better idea about what they are looking for, for an uknown (potentially non-existing) part of your audience who just "might" find your different approach more useful? I dunno. That sounds like a quite risky trade off to say the least.