Game reviews are NOT subjective opinion

[Fearzone]

So, whenever a reviewer pans a game, then gets slapped around by the fan boys, we hear the same thing every time: "hey, it's my opinion, it's only my opinion, and my opinion is my opinion, so that that, and I can write whatever I want."

I beg to differ.

Scoring, or rating, is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of judging according to standards. There is some subjectivity in this, but it needs to strive for objectivity. If you are scoring a diving competition, and on one dive, instead of a double flip swan dive, a guy wearing a clown suit grabs his ankles and does a belly flop, well one of the judges might think that is the funniest thing in the world, but he would be wrong to give the dive a 10/10 just because he likes it. Likewise, if someone executes the dive perfectly, he cannot give it a 5/10 because the last four divers did the same thing and the diver who went last time was better looking.

Likewise, if a student in English class hands in a term paper with impeccable grammar and defends the thesis with flawless logic, the teacher cannot give it a D if he has disagreements with the conclusion. Well he could, but it would be wrong, and the teacher cannot say "hey, it's just my opinion, deal with it." One can't expect a person to alway be 100% objective in their scores, but it is unprofessional to hand out easy A's because a student hands in garbage that happens to agree with ones political views.

If Internet game reviewers want respect, they need to hold themselves to some level of objective critique. This is a matter of basic professionalism.

I have news for game reviewers: nobody cares what YOU subjectively think about a game. What readers care about is what WE think of the game. We read these to come to an informed conclusion about a game before we spend money on it. We want to know if it would be our cup of tea if we were to play it. Not whether it is yours.

I support people freely expressing their opinions about any production, but I wouldn't call that a review. So, when companies get mad over really bad reviews, I think they might have a point. I think it is self-defeating for them to boycott the review site, and they should probably just roll with the punches--but I'm also tired of the weak comeback from reviewers that this is all just a matter of subjective opinion.

 

[Jiefu]

If we agreed on standards, those would be subjective, thus rendering our reviews once again subjective. What's too hard for me is not necessarily too hard for another player. These things are always going to be subjective.

 

[Palademon]

It's funny because that's your opinion.

Yes, people judge on standards, but standards are different and different people will enjoy different things.

Merely an example from somebody who doesn't even play Minecraft:
Minecraft has bad graphics and isn't even finished yet, but people will still enjoy it far more than other things, and it's premise and gameplay will outweigh anything else as making it a great game. What are these standards we all hold? Can a game be good on gameplay alone? Does Minecraft deserve two stars because it just has that, even if its a great game?

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

I'd like to think that game reviews share more with movie reviews than a teacher grading a test, but that's just me.

scores aren't the heart of a review, it's just the (vain) attempt at conveying a complex opinion using numbers (yes that's from ZP, but it's a pretty good argument against numerical scoring for video games)

anyway, I think game reviews do their job just fine, in that they are a description of the author's experience with the game, and how it compares with other such experiences.

So reviews shouldn't be completely subjective nor objective, some nice line between the two

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

I pretty much agree. Even though Riven and Silent Hill 2 are my two favorite games of all time, if I were to write a review of them I'd give them each more like a 7 or 8 out of 10 objectively (mostly for gameplay issues). Just because I can look past the flaws doesn't mean they're perfect. And they are definitely flawed.

Similarly, Portal is the only game I've played that I feel I can give a perfect 10/10 to, but even though I enjoyed it a lot, it's not really one of my favorite games in the same way as the others I mentioned are.

There are some objective truths (issues like lag, bugs, and tricky controls) and some more subjective things (atmosphere and generally whether or not the game just "works" for you), and some things which are more in the middle (art design, music, etc.), which can be graded both objectively and subjectively.

It's all pretty tricky, honestly.

 

[Pandabearparade]

You're completely right, OP. "That's just subjective!" is the last, desperate defense of someone trying to defend a bad position.

 

[JMeganSnow]

If we agreed on standards, those would be subjective, thus rendering our reviews once again subjective. What's too hard for me is not necessarily too hard for another player. These things are always going to be subjective.

You can be reasonably objective if you don't rate things by piling up a big heap of adjectives, and instead focus on describing the *nature* of the game. If you say "It's too hard" that's a subjective opinion and pretty well worthless. If you say "I found it too hard because there are a lot of QTE's with unusually small indicators and very precise timing and a lot of jumping puzzles where my character would mysteriously not grab the ledge four or five times in a row", that's objective because you're describing actual features of the game. Then, someone who loves QTE's and frustrating jumping puzzles can still come along and say, hey, maybe this is the game for me!

But if you just pile up adjectives and say "this game is a buggy, unbalanced, poorly-written pile of crap!" there's no way for anyone to form judgments about how valid your judgment is.

 

[DEAD34345]

You *could* theoretically make a review system based on some kind of arbitrary rule system like they do with diving competitions, but they would be useless in the context of games. You would get games that "score" terribly despite being genuinely great games because they were good at something new, and thus not anticipated by the rules in the review system. Likewise you would end up with 1 "perfect" game that fit the rules precisely and thus got the top score, whether it was fun or not.

As a creative medium, you cannot anticipate what is going to make a game good or bad, so subjective opinions are the only ones that are worth anything at all.

 

[spartan231490]

So, whenever a reviewer pans a game, then gets slapped around by the fan boys, we hear the same thing every time: "hey, it's my opinion, it's only my opinion, and my opinion is my opinion, so that that, and I can write whatever I want."

I beg to differ.

Scoring, or rating, is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of judging according to standards. There is some subjectivity in this, but it needs to strive for objectivity. If you are scoring a diving competition, and on one dive, instead of a double flip swan dive, a guy wearing a clown suit grabs his ankles and does a belly flop, well one of the judges might think that is the funniest thing in the world, but he would be wrong to give the dive a 10/10 just because he likes it. Likewise, if someone executes the dive perfectly, he cannot give it a 5/10 because the last four divers did the same thing and the diver who went last time was better looking.

Likewise, if a student in English class hands in a term paper with impeccable grammar and defends the thesis with flawless logic, the teacher cannot give it a D if he has disagreements with the conclusion. Well he could, but it would be wrong, and the teacher cannot say "hey, it's just my opinion, deal with it." One can't expect a person to alway be 100% objective in their scores, but it is unprofessional to hand out easy A's because a student hands in garbage that happens to agree with ones political views.

If Internet game reviewers want respect, they need to hold themselves to some level of objective critique. This is a matter of basic professionalism.

I have news for game reviewers: nobody cares what YOU subjectively think about a game. What readers care about is what WE think of the game. We read these to come to an informed conclusion about a game before we spend money on it. We want to know if it would be our cup of tea if we were to play it. Not whether it is yours.

I support people freely expressing their opinions about any production, but I wouldn't call that a review. So, when companies get mad over really bad reviews, I think they might have a point. I think it is self-defeating for them to boycott the review site, and they should probably just roll with the punches--but I'm also tired of the weak comeback from reviewers that this is all just a matter of subjective opinion.

You're analogies are flawed. In diving and grading, there are set correct standards that the performer is striving towards. In video games, the purpose is to create an engaging, entertaining, interactive experience. There are no objective points for this to be graded on. some people like JRPGs, some people like shooters, the point of a game is to entertain, not meet certain criteria on a checklist. A game review is a subjective matter of opinion on how well that game entertains and engages the reviewer, and nothing else. game reviews are subjective.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Considering arbitrary ranking is the arguable backbone of the reviewing industry, I doubt it would change any time soon.

 

[Woodsey]

Or people could just find a review site whose views they frequently agree with and stick with them.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

Well of course they're subjective. An opinion, by definition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion], is a subjective belief. It is pointless for anyone to argue otherwise.

 

[shaedok]

Video game reviews are subjective unless the company that made the game pays for sponsor links on the game review site. Then they're both objective and mercenary.

 

[Durananrananrananran]

It's funny because that's your opinion.

I LOLed at this.

OP, I profoundly disagree with you. What you appear to be saying is that games should be judged in the same way as competitive diving or school exams. For me, a key criteria of a game is not the technical production value (although I do appreciate when any such shortcomings are pointed out), but how fun the game is.

How do you suggest fun is objectively measured? How would you design such a scorecard? Would you care to suggest a 'marking scheme'?

When I read or watch a review, I want an opinion on the game. I want a subjective opinion, from someone who is articulate and witty. What I don't want is a dry list of scores for different 'disiplines' within the game ("Ooh, an 8 for sound design, how interesting").

A reviewer not only can, but should write what they want. I don't think that giving an honest opinion is in any way unprofessional.

 

[viking97]

critique and review are different

 

[Falseprophet]

Have you read David Wong's recent piece in Cracked [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games_p2/]. The whole thing's worth a read, but for now just refer to trend #1: We Still Don't Know What a "Game" Is.

How can we establish the same consistent reviewing standards that can be applied to Modern Warfare, Street Fighter IV, Heavy Rain, WoW, Mount & Blade, The Witcher 2, Wii Sports Resort, Madden 2012, Mafia Wars and Angry Birds? We can't. Not until we recognize these experiences shouldn't be shoved together under the same tent, but evaluated within their own contexts.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If I have a set of criteria on how to judge a game doesn't my review boil down to whether or not I think a game has X, Y and Z. If X is not "has 3000 lines of dialogue" or something that can be quantifiable judged then isn't weither or not it has it a subjective judgement? "Has interesting characters" is a subjective judgment "is fun" is subjective "worth buying" is subjective. Everything about a review is subjective. Even in your own examples these are subjective assessments they just happen to be based on things that people have similar opinions over. On top of that, the Escapist for years didn't have a rating system because it believed (and still does) that games should be described by the experience that you (or the reviewer I guess) has while playing them not on some arbitrary number and judge system that may not reflect what thew game really looks like. This is a highly subjective system and one that is still used on the Escapist. Your very post attacks the website you posted it on and conflicts with its ideology.

 

[MightyRabbit]

A review of anything is not a matter of mathematical or scientific fact, ergo it must be subjective. Say you don't like Ace Attorney for being too wordy with cartoony graphics. I love it for those same qualities. There's no objective perfect blend of mechanics or devices. When I hear people say these things, I often wonder if they know what the word 'objective' means. A game may be great, but that doesn't stop a person or group of people from disliking it for perfectly viable reasons. Just because critics have been bashing something you love does not make it necessarily bad. Ultimately, every critic and reviewer is somebody well acquainted with the medium pitching in their personal comments and speculations. Ergo, they are personal and subjective, not an objective be-all-and-end-all badge of merit or lack thereof.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I like to know the opinions of reviewers that I've followed for a longer period of time, because you get a sense of what reviewers like what you like and don't like what you don't like, and you can somewhat extrapolate their opinion into what your own will likely be. That said, a strict review with a rating given should have standards that are preset and the rating should be based on those items of quality. The best reviews, for my money, are the ones that give a clear idea of where a game is relating to standards of play (described or given as a general idea we can all grasp) as well as providing the personal opinion of the reviewer and why they formed those opinions. To me, that set up gives the widest picture of a game and then interpretation is up to the reader.