Critics That You Simply Can't Listen to Anymore

[JimB]

I don't like raunch comedies, typical action movies, or romantic comedies. I think all three genres are fantastically stupid in their approach to story telling and I don't like them. However, I have a list a mile long of each I think are good movies: not that I like them, but that they are good movies.

Uh...okay. I don't understand the relevance of this, though.

I can separate my feelings from a review.

I think it's a mistake to treat that as a virtue, but alright, you can do it. Good for you, I guess.

I get to be my own source considering you guys are attacking my views on reviews themselves.

So you're speaking only for yourself and your own unique viewpoint, despite your authoritative, declarative statements about what a review is required to be?

If a review uses a film or game as a soapbox then it is subject to change with the wind, thus has no actual worth.

I think you mean it has no worth to you. You don't really get to decide what anyone else thinks has worth.

 

[Darzinth]

TotalBiscuit

His recent review of "Long Live the Queen" was just him bashing the anime-esque art style the entire time. It doesn't help that it's a 30 minute video.

 

[DjinnFor]

Never mind that a critique is nothing more then a detailed opinion based on your own personal teachings and beliefs

Stop. The word "opinion" is virtually meaningless these days. Most of the time, it's used via an equivocation fallacy to paint factual statements as mere preferences. Invariably, a critic attaches a conclusion to the person delivering it by labeling it an opinion, then treats it as a preference, thus equivocating "the conclusion you reached" into "nothing but your preference". It's a form of deliberate self-delusion by those who want to avoid reality.

There is a big difference between a preference and a statement of fact. A preference has premises that specifically apply only to the person expressing the opinion. For example: "My nerves in my tongue and nose send signals of pleasure whenever I eat chocolate ice cream, ergo I like chocolate ice cream". If the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true, but the truth of the conclusion is limited to the person expressing it and doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.

A statement of fact, on the other hand, relies on broader, or universalized premises. For example, the premise "there was an accident on the interstate last week", if true, is as true for me as it is for you. Therefore, any conclusions which necessarily follow from the premises are true whether you want them to be or not, and regardless of your "opinions" to the contrary.

This is why those who disagree with conclusions, invariably equivocate via the use of "opinion", which is a label that can be slapped on any conclusion to reduce it to nothing but a preference. I guess they were brought up on the idea that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" (the stupidity of this claim is addressed below), thus they feel entitled to reach whatever conclusions they feel like without submitting them to the brutal standards of logic, evidence, and rationality. For example:

Bringing this back to The Gaming Brit, he entitled to his opinion that reviews should be "critique and analysis first and foremost" and that "game journalism is shit."

The importance of "critique and analysis" in the role of a reviewer follows necessarily from the definition and purpose of a review. A reviewers job is to help his/her readers determine whether their purchase will be money well spent; this is how a reviewer "adds value" to the consumers of the review, and thus how he/she can justify receiving a paycheck for the work. Granted, some "reviews" are meant for comedic purposes (see Angry Video Game Nerd), while others take a hybrid approach of being funny and also including some analysis (see Zero Punctuation). A consumer may derive value from a review outside its role as a review; perhaps some social reinforcement or an ego boost (e.g. "Oh, you liked the game; so did I! Now my ego has been boosted because my preference has been reinforced by my social group and now appears more universal"). But putting aside the tangential reasons for how a consumer might get value from a review, the central reason behind writing a review is that it talks about a product to informs the reader about said product; this is what makes the review a review and is a direct logical consequence of calling it "a review" in the first place.

Obviously, this puts the reviewer in the precarious and unique position of attempting to predict what his/her audience's preferences will be. The solution to this problem is not to give up and conclude that no useful review is possible (a la Movie Bob) and just spew preferences. At the very least, a reviewer should be able to explore the reasoning behind their own preferences and present them to the audience in the hope that the premises (and therefore, the conclusion) will apply to the audience. If they find they don't like that which they're reviewing, can they mount a reasonable critique of it? If they do like it, can they analyze why? This is the minimum qualification for calling yourself a reviewer: having enough self-knowledge to analyze and explain your own preferences about a topic. Without doing that, you can't possibly add any value through the review qua review. The audience cannot obtain any kind of understanding of whether they'll enjoy the experience unless you give some factual information about the game (that can't be captured merely by looking at game footage) that contributed towards forming your own preferences.

There is a wealth of interesting and useful observations that can be performed simply by exploring your own preferences: did you like it overall, or not? If you liked it overall, does that mean the good outweighed the bad? What kind of standards do you have to judge the weighting of different factors, then? Did these standards come from other, similar games you played? And what of the factors themselves, how did they add or subtract from your impression? Et cetera.

Often it helps to analyze the creators intentions: what experience did the game work to create, what did do to create that experience for you, and was it created competently? How did that experience add value to you as a consumer? This is usually a better approach than "like", because a lot of entertainment is not designed to necessarily be pleasurable (see horror). By analyzing creator intentions and commenting on how well those intentions were met, you can be informative about the nature of your enjoyment of the game (or lack thereof).

Extending this further, what separates the good reviewers from mere minimally competent reviewers is their ability to accurately hypothesize about how factors in the game will impact the preferences of others outside of themselves. The point is to predict what your audiences' preferences are, your own preferences only matter to the extent that analyzing your own may help you understand and guess at how others might take things differently.

As examples: how would differing standards impact a players enjoyment of the game? What might lead an audience to take a different impression from the various factors that impacted (or didn't impact) your enjoyment of the game? What kind of audiences would not take any value from the authors intended experience?

Obviously, all of the above must be clearly expressed, concise, prioritized, et cetera. I'm not saying that identifying the 1000 different ways a given moment might impact various potential players makes you a good reviewer, either (speechwriting is also a key skill, and good speechwriters are concise and clear). You must identify the most important aspects of the game and the most important audiences. Even just identifying the one key audience that might enjoy the game the most for a particularly short review can be enough, because if the reader is not part of that audience they will know their mileage may vary.

So when he says:

"When you become a paid critic you're not allowed to say whatever you want and then hide behind "muh opinion". The idea that "review" = "my opinion and whatever I want to say" is daft and shallow. It's a critique and analysis first and foremost."

He's right. Reviewers who get paid should be able to mount some kind of analysis or critique of the game. Nobody cares about "muh opinions", whether from a game reviewer or in any other situation. What really matters is the reasoning and evidence you used to formulate that opinion, because then the person you're speaking to can evaluate your conclusion on its own merits. When a critic hides behind the defense of "muh opinions", these "opinions" are often nothing more than conclusions that the speaker refuses to qualify or justify in any way and can't or won't explain the reasoning behind. As such, opinions are meaningless, irrelevant, and unimportant to anyone capable of critical thinking, and when spewed in abundance, are the mark of an idiot, not a professional (aka paid) critic. Any critic who hides behind the defense of "muh opinions" is literally admitting that their reviews are patently useless to their prospective audience and they aren't worth being paid, or they aren't prepared to stand by the quality of their work.

Stating that "that's just my opinion" is an admission that you're wrong, or at least not worth paying any mind to because you aren't even intelligent enough to produce any ex facto justifications. Presumably, you work off of emotions and instinct rather than relying on anything resembling thinking, thus resembling more an animal than a human being. Conversely, labeling a well-supported or even partially supported conclusion an "opinion" is intellectually dishonest; more often than not, it's a form of willful self-delusion or a red herring to toss out so you won't actually need to address a position you find contentious or provide a counterargument.

 

[Savagezion]

I don't like raunch comedies, typical action movies, or romantic comedies. I think all three genres are fantastically stupid in their approach to story telling and I don't like them. However, I have a list a mile long of each I think are good movies: not that I like them, but that they are good movies.

Uh...okay. I don't understand the relevance of this, though.

I can separate my feelings from a review.

I think it's a mistake to treat that as a virtue, but alright, you can do it. Good for you, I guess.

I get to be my own source considering you guys are attacking my views on reviews themselves.

So you're speaking only for yourself and your own unique viewpoint, despite your authoritative, declarative statements about what a review is required to be?

If a review uses a film or game as a soapbox then it is subject to change with the wind, thus has no actual worth.

I think you mean it has no worth to you. You don't really get to decide what anyone else thinks has worth.

You really need me to type out "I think", "I feel", "to me", etc. so that you can understand I am expressing myself? Especially, when we are discussing my views? My mistake, I gave you more credit than that. You quoted me and told me my opinion is wrong. I am the one with authority over it.

 

[DjinnFor]

I'm going to do another comment to illustrate my point made in the last post I made and address several posts I've noticed after reading the thread.

But it isn't really possible to deliver an objective judgement regarding a work of art; the reviewer cannot anticipate your intangible and emotional reaction any more than they can control their own.

Any reviewer who can't make semi-reliable hypotheses about how his audience might enjoy the product he's reviewing isn't a very good reviewer. At least, if the space is small or they aren't being paid to write a treatise, the reviewer should give his best guess at the intended audience of the work and how well that audience might receive it or how competently the creators succeeded. That way those outside of the intended audience can take the review with a grain of salt, knowing that they'll be taking a leap when they buy the game based on the recommendation of a reviewer writing for a different audience.

A reviewers job is not necessarily to make the decision for his audience, but to help them make an informed decision. "I liked it" or "da graphicz wuz gud" does not help you make a decision. This is why I completely ignore MovieBob's recommendations, because his recommendations are nothing more than a statement of whether he enjoyed himself, which tells me nothing (and it seems like that perspective is shared by most other people here who have expressed criticism of Bob) and only examine at his analysis of the movie (which is usually quite useful and informing).

I can explain why, say, I thought Bioshock: Infinite was pretty good but not the outstanding masterstroke it is often characterized to be, but that explanation will eventually boil down to affected me personally, which is the essence of great works of art; how does the game make you feel?; did you get connected to the characters?; did the story make you think or explore a theme you found engaging? None of these things can exist without the projection and intimacy afforded by individuality.

Frankly, none of those things are really relevant to a review. Any prospective reader is going to be asking the same question: "Can you help me predict what my preferences might be towards the subject material before I spend any money on it? No? Then why possible value do I get from reading your review?" Sure, it may be hard to do this. The results might not be terribly accurate for any given individual. The reader may have to take some time browsing multiple reviews looking for different takes and more information, depending on the amount of space the reviewer was afforded. But that's presumably why someone is being paid to do it, because it's useful work that's hard to do and requires some amount of talent and experience to perform. If you're reliable enough to get an audience who comes back to you, you can justify your paycheck. If you're just leeching off the rest of the content on the site because your only audience is free page clicks from people who happen to be looking at other stuff, your job is expendable as soon as they find a replacement. This is why Zero Punctuation is still around, because the escapist recognizes that it turns random pageclicks into returning customers.

Objectiveness is bullshit. There I said it. If I was religious I wouldn't like Bioshock Infinite very much.

Any competent reviewer would point it's critique of fundamentalist religion as a central theme. Ergo any non-retarded religious person would very easily be able to decide if they would enjoy their claims about reality being criticized, or parodied, or what have you. Reviewers job accomplished.

It doesn't matter if it looks pretty or if it's wonderfully directed. It would be directly insulting me and my religion.

Not exactly. There's a difference between a critique and an insult. If you were a religious person, your willingness to confront a critique would be a mark of intellectual courage, while your avoidance of baseless insults couldn't be begrudged. Therefore a good reviewer will comment on how competent the critique might be; that way someone prepared to justify their religiousity will relish the challenge (if any), and those who hide behind "muh faith" like others hide behind "muh opinions" can relish in their self-imposed delusions. By noting the prevalence of religious criticism and then commenting on it's effectiveness as a criticism, the reviewer has helped three potential audiences come closer to a purchasing decision: athiests looking for ammunition and ego reinforcement, religious people looking for a challenge, and religious people who want to avoid any challenge and only want ego reinforcement.

If I was conservative I wouldn't like Jon Stewart very much. He constantly insults my political party. It doesn't how well written or how well done the interviews are.

No, see he critiques the political party, by pointing out absurdities. I largely enjoy John Stewart for his commentary even though I disagree considerably with many of his opinions. He doesn't argue the case for the left that much nor does he opine about the rightness of the left as though its case had already been made. He just critiques stupidity in politics; his focus on the right doesn't demean his criticisms, but even so he's got no shortage of criticism for Obama. His competent criticism makes him an important "reviewer", in a sense, even if he can't escape his bias in what he covers, in some cases. But at least his bias is apparent; Bob's left-wing bias came out of left-field at one point, and he's completely incapable of preventing his recommendations or analysis from being colored by his bias, which means I literally close his reviews the instant I recognize that he's doing a movie with any political themes because it's always completely worthless to me. But I am only that forgiving of him after watching numerous videos of his; had I looked into his stuff for the first time and watched a politically-charged review, I would have dismissed him as a crank and never came back.

As an internet-based reviewer you do not want people skipping out on you for being useless to them; it's so easy for a net-based company to determine how much you're worth to them.

And, out of personal taste, I hate puzzle. I like to think of myself as smart, and consistently being shit at something that supposed to test my intelligence doesn't sound fun.

So you don't even need a reviewer to get past his opening remarks before he's already saved you $10-$60, since as soon as he says "puzzle" you know what you're getting into. Job well done.

TotalBiscuit

His recent review of "Long Live the Queen" was just him bashing the anime-esque art style the entire time. It doesn't help that it's a 30 minute video.

You mean that "WTF Is" where he spends exactly 44 seconds near the beginning of his 23 minute video talking about how he's not a fan of the cutesy anime art style and that colored his first impression, and then promptly drops it for the rest of the review to talk about the quality of the gameplay? Or is there some other review you're referring to?

Because that seems like a relevant point to me. He's saying, don't let the art-style color your first impression and try to look past it if you can, because it's still a good indie life-style sim outside of the art style.

I haven't seen this Gaming Brit, but I've got his back here.

"Durrr, it's my opinion!" is a trite and stupid defense for lousy writing.

Your opinion means nothing. The internet is full of opinions, each one stupider and more offensive than the next. I don't need a professional to give me what every half-literate jackass on the web is willing to provide free of charge. Being paid doesn't make your opinion any more valid or relevant to me than any random Sony fanboy's opinion of Halo.

Professional reviewers and critics are supposed to provide what XxxM$ucks112xxX can't: intellectual meat behind their opinions. Non-trite analysis. Insight. Enough justification for their statements to give me a sense of whether I'm reading an opinion I would agree with or not.

Having to hide behind "It's my opinion!" is a sign that a critic isn't up to snuff.

That was pretty concise and well-stated, and I honestly regret writing the tome I wrote earlier.

 

[NSGrendel]

Personally can't enjoy Jim Sterling anymore. He ripped of Yahtzee by being born in Britain. I can't stand that.

Cater to make a Jimquisition about this issue, Mr.Sterling? Funny that it resembles the issue from the last Jimquistion though.

My wife (we're both UK Citizens) plays at a bronze league level and will happily watch any Starcraft stream I care to put on. Unless it's Total Biscuit, in which case she demands we turn it off or turn the sound down. Given that she's married to an arrogant, formerly middle-class English person, I find this rather amusing.

I'll not mention my own perspective as I desperately seek approval from my peers.

 

[Griffolion]

I don't listen to Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/Gaming Brit/Charlie Cade because I don't enjoy listening to a man gripe about how a game doesn't run on his supercomputer. But if he wants to vent about stuff, that's his prerogative, so let him do so, and let people listen to him. Just not my cuppa.

Just to confirm, you're aware that TotalBiscuit is different to The Gaming Brit, right? TotalBiscuit's real name is John Bain. Maybe I read your sentence wrong, and you were lumping the two in the same category in reference to supercomputer complaints.

 

[JimB]

You really need me to type out "I think," "I feel," "to me," etc. so that you can understand I am expressing myself? Especially when we are discussing my views?

Words mean things, Savagezion. You did not phrase your arguments to appear to be discussing your views. You phrased them as absolutes. Given the level of hyperbole and self-involvement a person can easily find on the internet, I had no reason to believe that you meant something more reasonable than what you actually said.

My mistake, I gave you more credit than that.

Oh, please spare me your attempts to paint me as an idiot for thinking you meant what you said. It is tiresome and dishonest. You are the one who chose your wording.

You quoted me and told me my opinion is wrong. I am the one with authority over it.

Yes, I did. Why do you keep insisting that you're the authority over your opinion? Do you think that immunizes you from disagreement, or what? I don't get why you keep bringing it up.

 

[NSGrendel]

**** Html.

 

[sumanoskae]

I'm going to do another comment to illustrate my point made in the last post I made and address several posts I've noticed after reading the thread.

But it isn't really possible to deliver an objective judgement regarding a work of art; the reviewer cannot anticipate your intangible and emotional reaction any more than they can control their own.

Any reviewer who can't make semi-reliable hypotheses about how his audience might enjoy the product he's reviewing isn't a very good reviewer. At least, if the space is small or they aren't being paid to write a treatise, the reviewer should give his best guess at the intended audience of the work and how well that audience might receive it or how competently the creators succeeded. That way those outside of the intended audience can take the review with a grain of salt, knowing that they'll be taking a leap when they buy the game based on the recommendation of a reviewer writing for a different audience.

You speak of an "audience" as if it's a singular entity with clear, strict requirements whose interests never change or deviate.

Do you only play games for which you could be considered the "audience" for? Would that not restrict you form ever leaving your comfort zone?

If you told me that Red Dead Redemption controlled well, had good production values, and generally lived up to the standards of quality of open world games, I would be totally uninterested. Red Dead Redemption is one my favorite games, but none of the aforementioned facts are the reason for this. Red Dead Redemption is more than the sum of it's parts, and it is a more powerful experience than can be expressed with empirical data; it is an experience that engages you as a human being, not just as a player.

One of the major tenants of storytelling is not giving everybody what they want, but rather something they didn't know they wanted, because the latter is far more exciting. If you have a minute, go and find that Jimquisition about the perfect pasta sauce, it illustrates the point nicely, but the gist of the argument is that you can never expand your audience if you refuse to try new things. Somebody may be considered part of the "Military FPS" audience, but that person could also be part of the "Historical turn based strategy" audience, but if they never bother to try and play one, they might never know.

A review that simply states "This game meets the typical standards associated with a modern FPS" may function as a sort of insurance, but if the highest praise a game can be given is that it is adequate, what room is left for the outstanding? The genre defying? The games that are more than the sum of their parts? That can't be said to live up to any standards because they have no true equivalent?; such games cannot be predicted and assigned to an audience because they were not made for any one audience, they were simply made to be played. Games like this can't be discussed objectively, they inspire you to think too deeply and feel too much, and I care a lot more about those games than I do the ones that are just good enough

How can a game be said to have a definitive audience with consistent and simple desires when the desires of human beings are neither consistent nor simple?

A reviewers job is not necessarily to make the decision for his audience, but to help them make an informed decision. "I liked it" or "da graphicz wuz gud" does not help you make a decision. This is why I completely ignore MovieBob's recommendations, because his recommendations are nothing more than a statement of whether he enjoyed himself, which tells me nothing (and it seems like that perspective is shared by most other people here who have expressed criticism of Bob) and only examine at his analysis of the movie (which is usually quite useful and informing).

An emotional reaction can be examined and explored, far more than an empirical breakdown, I would say. "De grafix wuz gud" is a statement I would more readily associate with the objective examination you mentioned earlier; it may be factually true, but it can only be objective because it's a statement devoid of substance and humanity, which are by their nature subjective.

A review could logically dissect every factual detail of game with complete objectivity, and yet offer no meaningful information whatsoever. Objective information is not useful for me, at least, because tangible, physical, and easily quantified facts are not what makes a game engaging; I would go so far as to estimate that they are not why the majority of people play video games.

It seems to me that being cold and emotionless would make a reviewer ill equipped to make a recommendation based on a reaction of passion.

I can explain why, say, I thought Bioshock: Infinite was pretty good but not the outstanding masterstroke it is often characterized to be, but that explanation will eventually boil down to affected me personally, which is the essence of great works of art; how does the game make you feel?; did you get connected to the characters?; did the story make you think or explore a theme you found engaging? None of these things can exist without the projection and intimacy afforded by individuality.

Frankly, none of those things are really relevant to a review. Any prospective reader is going to be asking the same question: "Can you help me predict what my preferences might be towards the subject material before I spend any money on it? No? Then why possible value do I get from reading your review?" Sure, it may be hard to do this. The results might not be terribly accurate for any given individual. The reader may have to take some time browsing multiple reviews looking for different takes and more information, depending on the amount of space the reviewer was afforded. But that's presumably why someone is being paid to do it, because it's useful work that's hard to do and requires some amount of talent and experience to perform. If you're reliable enough to get an audience who comes back to you, you can justify your paycheck. If you're just leeching off the rest of the content on the site because your only audience is free page clicks from people who happen to be looking at other stuff, your job is expendable as soon as they find a replacement. This is why Zero Punctuation is still around, because the escapist recognizes that it turns random pageclicks into returning customers.

These are the very things I want to spend my money on, a reviewer that gives me no information regarding them would not influence my decision to purchase the game. All the information you've just described can be discovered without the use of a review; spend some time looking up gameplay videos, maybe try and find a list of features.

I watch reviews precisely because they offer a human perspective. It is, in my opinion, far easier to gleam an understanding of the true essence of a work by taking in the thoughts and reactions of other people than it is to understand a work based solely on superficial facts. This is especially true of video games, which I find to be decidedly intimate experiences, as they require direct interaction.

I agree that a good review is a thorough one, but a good reviewer should also acknowledge and take advantage of their emotional reaction as a human being and their thoughts as an individual. Simply because an opinion is not my own does not mean I cannot understand or empathize with it.

 

[sanquin]

But it isn't really possible to deliver an objective judgement regarding a work of art; the reviewer cannot anticipate your intangible and emotional reaction any more than they can control their own.

I can explain why, say, I thought Bioshock: Infinite was pretty good but not the outstanding masterstroke it is often characterized to be, but that explanation will eventually boil down to affected me personally, which is the essence of great works of art; how does the game make you feel?; did you get connected to the characters?; did the story make you think or explore a theme you found engaging? None of these things can exist without the projection and intimacy afforded by individuality. You cannot relate to a character if you are not capable of bias.

To be objective is to be free of passion and bias, but the inspiration of passion and bias is the essence of a great work of art.

Sure it's possible. Let's take Bioshock Infinite. (I haven't played the first one.)

-The combat wasn't that great. It was pretty generic, and the options for spells you got were just different versions of the same few effects.
-The UI for inventory and such was...pretty bad. Especially for the PC version.
-There is no actual choice in the game, apart from the ending.
-A lot of characters were undeveloped.

That's what I can think of from memory. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the game. I did, for as long as I played it. But enjoying the game isn't the same as recognizing it's faults.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I don't listen to Total Biscuit/Cynical Brit/Gaming Brit/Charlie Cade because I don't enjoy listening to a man gripe about how a game doesn't run on his supercomputer. But if he wants to vent about stuff, that's his prerogative, so let him do so, and let people listen to him. Just not my cuppa.

Just to confirm, you're aware that TotalBiscuit is different to The Gaming Brit, right? TotalBiscuit's real name is John Bain. Maybe I read your sentence wrong, and you were lumping the two in the same category in reference to supercomputer complaints.

It was my mistake. Someone else already pointed that out, I just hadn't gotten around to editing it.

 

[Chimera242]

If you want objective game reviews, you could always go here: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

 

[ShakerSilver]

I honestly can't stand Jim anymore, and I used to love his videos. He always used to fight for little guy and stand up to the bullshit in the industry. But lately most of his content just blames the community for problems in the industry. Not that most of the issues he brings up don't have any merit to them; they often do; but the way he generalizes everyone and simply places blame on them instead of actually discussing the matter just comes off as mean-spirited rather than constructive. It's especially bad when you realize that most of the people who watch his videos are most likely not going be offenders of whatever subject he is talking about, which kind of alienates those fans who feel like they're getting genuinely attacked.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Stopped reading RPS when their obnoxious pushing of incorrect information and incredibly misplaced anger over various controversial issues in the past few years resulted in their reviews (sorry, "Wot I Think"'s) actually deteriorating in quality. The only things I learned about Skullgirls from their article on it were that cleavage bothers them and it sucks when tutorials don't adequately prepare you for online play

I stopped watching Errant Signal after the politics in video games video and follow up blog post, not because I don't think that these things should be discussed, but because the suggestion for discussion was so one-sided, and felt really disingenuous. I checked out the more recent video on Quake to see if things had picked up and found that disappointing as well

Stopped reading Kotaku ages ago because of all the clickbait.

I've kinda stopped watching TB but that's more because of video length and because I've only ever watched the videos about stuff I was curious about anyway.

Jim Sterling is kinda 50/50. I don't mind his style of explaining things in terms of the character or the jokes, and feel that he's been much less selective in his reporting of controversies (He actually had a video about Phil Fish, for one. Even if I didn't necessarily take the same stance on things), but he still tends to run into many of the same issues I had with the other people that I've stopped bothering with.

 

[Savagezion]

You really need me to type out "I think," "I feel," "to me," etc. so that you can understand I am expressing myself? Especially when we are discussing my views?

Words mean things, Savagezion. You did not phrase your arguments to appear to be discussing your views. You phrased them as absolutes. Given the level of hyperbole and self-involvement a person can easily find on the internet, I had no reason to believe that you meant something more reasonable than what you actually said.

My mistake, I gave you more credit than that.

Oh, please spare me your attempts to paint me as an idiot for thinking you meant what you said. It is tiresome and dishonest. You are the one who chose your wording.

You quoted me and told me my opinion is wrong. I am the one with authority over it.

Yes, I did. Why do you keep insisting that you're the authority over your opinion? Do you think that immunizes you from disagreement, or what? I don't get why you keep bringing it up.

First off, I have only stated authority over my opinion one time. Second, I state my opinions as absolutes for multiple reasons. For instance, if we are discussing my views on things I have to state them as absolutes - because they are absolutely my opinion. Like someone quoting me and telling me they are unrealistic, impossible, or not based in a real foundation as I claim they are. I don't really need to throw out an "IMO" before every sentence do I? As well, it isn't my responsibility to tip toe around anyone else's side of the debate. Especially, when following up statements like:

I do not believe that what you are describing is a solid foundation.
I think that is a completely unrealistic standard to hold to.

Let's face it, someone saying "You are full of shit" vs. "I think you are full of shit" isn't exactly different. One way just uses a couple redundant words. College courses will actually teach you to leave those redundant words out as you wouldn't be stating them if you didn't think that.

You asked me about my opinion because you didn't understand and/or possibly believe it. When I stated it more in-depth you got upset I didn't say "I think" first. That's not my problem.

 

[JimB]

First off, I have only stated authority over my opinion one time.

Twice. Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20595537] is the link to the first, and here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20596656] is the link to the second.

Second, I state my opinions as absolutes for multiple reasons.

Yes, you can. It's when you fail to identify them as opinions that things get wonky.

Let's face it, someone saying "You are full of shit" vs. "I think you are full of shit" isn't exactly different.

No, it isn't. There is a much larger difference between "This is what make a good review" and "This is what I look for in a review."

You asked me about my opinion because you didn't understand and/or possibly believe it. When I stated it more in-depth you got upset I didn't say "I think" first. That's not my problem.

Heh. You and I do not understand the word "upset" to mean the same thing.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I honestly can't stand Jim anymore, and I used to love his videos. He always used to fight for little guy and stand up to the bullshit in the industry. But lately most of his content just blames the community for problems in the industry. Not that most of the issues he brings up don't have any merit to them; they often do; but the way he generalizes everyone and simply places blame on them instead of actually discussing the matter just comes off as mean-spirited rather than constructive. It's especially bad when you realize that most of the people who watch his videos are most likely not going be offenders of whatever subject he is talking about, which kind of alienates those fans who feel like they're getting genuinely attacked.

I feel this is a problem with gaming media in general. The gaming media doesn't police itself. As such its gotten to such a state that widespread corruption and personal bias/feelings are littered in gaming reviews. I think a lot of the problem has to do with lots of reviewer trying to make an opinion article on the side to explain their opinions. I think that aspect of writing has burrowed itself into the reviews. Jim and many others are part of this problem.

OP:
I agree that reviews are subjective, but to a point. People act as if there's no room for objectivity in reviews and that's frankly what pisses me off the most as reviewers will write atrociously uninformed reviews that are mostly opinion on a political viewpoint drawn from the game rather than the game itself.

Greg Tito going on a rant about not liking the generally morally bereft cast of GTA V. We can argue on whether or not people can playing as awful people in games is ok to enjoy, but Greg barely mentioned mechanics in his review. It was a review of a game where someone unfamiliar with the franchise would learn nothing about how the game plays.

Then of course there was the atrocious Dragon Age 2 rating which ignored all of the major flaws of the title. An editorial about how awful the game was months later doesn't remove the fact that the review undoubtedly influenced people into buying DA 2 and didn't inform them of the extremely repetitive nature of the dungeons and the scale of the game world and game features being greatly reduced from its predecessor.

I think we have to stop this idea that reviews are entertainment and go back to what reviews were meant to be.

An informed look at a product for sale. These gaming reviews that don't talk about the game or are written based off of playing very little of a game need to stop.

Lest we game another situation like when Total War Rome II came out, got critically acclaimed by major publications and was released in a nigh unplayable fashion.

 

[Savagezion]

You asked me about my opinion because you didn't understand and/or possibly believe it. When I stated it more in-depth you got upset I didn't say "I think" first. That's not my problem.

Heh. You and I do not understand the word "upset" to mean the same thing.

It could be that you are like me and have nothing better to do this week than pick at semantics as well. However, surely you can understand that many people online resort to petty semantic battles in an effort to grab a victory in an online argument of quote wars. Let's face it, the discussion has reached the pettiness of argument stage at this point. So while any victory is now like winning the Special Olympics, I already knew I was retarded before I started the race. Now, on to the semantics.

First off, I have only stated authority over my opinion one time.

Twice. Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20595537] is the link to the first, and here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.838699-Critics-That-You-Simply-Cant-Listen-to-Anymore?page=6#20596656] is the link to the second.

Really, the first one was just me having to re-clarify that we were talking about my opinion. You asked me what the source of my statement was and the source was always my outlook on reviews. However, going back to your original question, I keep stating authority over my opinion because you keep asking me what I am basing my opinion on which is that I am able to keep my outlook on movie production or game design separate from my feelings and personal views. You know the unrealistic thing you called me out on. I never hold anyone to a standard that I myself can't reach. Which makes me think you are either not paying attention or desperately looking for a hole in my argument.

Let's face it, someone saying "You are full of shit" vs. "I think you are full of shit" isn't exactly different.

No, it isn't. There is a much larger difference between "This is what make a good review" and "This is what I look for in a review."

Not really.

"This is what make a good review"
"This is what I look for in a review."

The underlined part shows where each statement becomes subjective. Why would anyone look for what makes what they see as a bad review? It is just 2 different ways of saying the same thing. Because of the underlined part both statements are bent towards the favor of who is talking. SO the same person saying both statements is essentially saying the same thing.

I was saying both of those statements were the same thing all along anyways. I look for a reviewer to separate their political and personal views from a review of media because that's what makes a good review. Subjective words mean opinion is stated not fact.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

MovieBob, sad to say. With his film reviews, I think it's just a case of having different tastes or criteria a lot of the time. I just don't find that his judgements tally with my own a lot of the time, so it's fairly useless me using his reviews as a guide to which films to see. There are other film critics whose reviews tend to tally with my own opinions fairly consistently, so I use those instead.

Basically, it's nothing personal, I just don't usually have a use for his reviews so I stopped watching them.

And I know they're not reviews per se, but as far as The Big Picture is concerned... again,I stopped watching a while ago. It's a shame, because I think he can be very eloquent and make some really good points, but when I disagree with him it really rubs me up the wrong way for some reason. It's odd, because I'm usually fine with hearing other points of view. I do get that not everyone has the same opinions as me. I guess it's something about his persona that just annoys me. He can be kinda smug and 'holier than thou', but not amusingly or endearingly so like say, Jim or Yahtzee.

I agree, and the problem is his politics get in the way of his reviews a lot. I used to like the guy, but something will be squashed or praised hard on political grounds, and it gets a bit tiring.