Game reviews are NOT subjective opinion

[Lilani]

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.

I'm not following. If the gamemaker has sponsored links on the web site, that would (if anything) make it even MORE biased, and as such MORE subjective.

The definition of objectivity is this: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. If the gamemaker is selling ads to a reviewer, that would cultivate a situation in which the reviewer might be obligated to give the game a more favorable review in order to attain more ad revenue. That is not objective at all.

In any case, opinions can never be objective. Never. They are opinions, and the definition of an opinion is a subjective belief.

 

[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.

I'm not following. If the gamemaker has sponsored links on the web site, that would (if anything) make it even MORE biased, and as such MORE subjective.

The definition of objectivity is this: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. If the gamemaker is selling ads to a reviewer, that would cultivate a situation in which the reviewer might be obligated to give the game a more favorable review in order to attain more ad revenue. That is not objective at all.

In any case, opinions can never be objective. Never. They are opinions, and the definition of an opinion is a subjective belief.

It was a play on words. Another definition of Objective: ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/ Noun: A thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

As in, to make money.

 

[Aeokirr]

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.

Me and my roommate frequently disagree about what games we think are good and bad. If both of us were to become critics, according to your rules, we would have to give the same review for games one of us hated and one of us loved.

No. You are not thinking of a review. A review IS a subjective thing. Since you cannot hold many games to the same standards. You could not use the same scoring method for say, Limbo and Final fantasy 12 and world of warcraft.

The thing about video games is that there are not set standards. And I do not appreciate your logical fallacies attempting to take other things out of context. Divers are trying to do a certain thing. A specific certain thing. Form can be compared without any concessions or excuses. DIFFERENT THING.

And while you make a good point about the teacher thing, It is a red herring. Unrelated to the issue. Reviewers hardly have the same shaping power of a single person's life than a teacher or professor does. And the student/their parents can go above the teacher and get them shat on.

The only standard by which a review can hold a game is: Did it entertain him long enough to be worth the time one would spend on it? And that answer will be different for every person. It is fundamentally subjective. And you may call it unprofessional, but since what you want is every critic giving the exact same review, I would rather keep it the way it is.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You're right, to a point. When reviewing, you must do your best to keep in mind at all times that personal preference does not equate to Truth. I, for example, hate backtracking, and therefore tend to dislike Metroid games. Does that mean Metroid Prime is a bad game? Nope, it just means it's a game I won't like. I don't enjoy games set in real-world settings. Does that mean you shouldn't go play GTA or Modern Warfare? Of course not, nor would I suggest that it does in a review.

That said, there is always going to be a certain amount of inescapable bias when it comes to reviewing. I really like story, characterization, and role playing, so I'll tend to enjoy games that favor those elements and will have a different playing experience than someone who couldn't care less about those elements. The best thing I can do as a reviewer is be transparent about those kinds of biases so that you, as the reader, can take that into consideration when regarding my review.

There are certainly standards when it comes to reviewing - we know what's a good camera by now and what isn't, for example - but I can still have a laundry list of reasons that I give a game a certain score, and you might disagree with me on each and every point. There will always be a certain amount of subjectivity involved on both sides. You're absolutely right, that nobody cares what Susan's experience with a game is like, except in how her observations might help you better decide what your experience with the game might be like. That's the core philosophy of how we review games here at The Escapist - giving you the information you need so that ultimately, you can make an educated decision on whether or not a game is worth your time and/or money.

 

[Blazing Steel]

What if you're forced to review a game genre you don't like. I don't like fighting games, that's my opinion that I can't help. I can view it as objectively as I like and for me I'll still find it crap. You say a review isn't an opinion so if I did a review of a fighting game what would that be?

Opinion or Not?

 

[shaedok]

What if you're forced to review a game genre you don't like. I don't like fighting games, that's my opinion that I can't help. I can view it as objectively as I like and for me I'll still find it crap. You say a review isn't an opinion so if I did a review of a fighting game what would that be?

Opinion or Not?

Horribly company making horrible executive decisions leading to horrible reviews. Like every time Adam Sessler reviews a jRPG that doesn't have Final Fantasy in the title or Yahtzee reviews anything that isn't a survival horror made 10 years ago.

 

[scnj]

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.

Bullshit. There are some reviewers who I specifically look at the opinions of, either because my opinions align very well or hardly ever with theirs. To call reviews out as being too subjective is ridiculous. Granted there has to be objectivity when it comes to things like glitches or bad textures, but when reviewing a game's story, the only way to effectively do that is tell the reader how you felt about it, giving a subjective opinion.

 

[Littaly]

I don't think you can write a 100% objective review. Nor do I think you should, you'd end up rating functionality, basically giving a report on whether or not the game works as advertised as opposed to reviewing it. There needs to be some opinion in there, and opinion is never entirely objective.

But I agree with you. "It's just my opinion" doesn't defend a badly written review. It's true that you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it relevant or thought through by default.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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

http://www.videogamessuck.com/review446.html

I enjoy the 'reviews' on this site a lot... and I think you'll get a chuckle or two out of that particular one.

 

[JPArbiter]

in the Case of DNF, which is where this controversy is stemming from (and it is a good thing)I am pretty conviced that Reviewers are refusing to let go of the 3D Realms baggage. Yes the game has been "In Development" for fifteen years, but the assets have only been in the hands of Gearbox for three years.

how long did any given Halo sequel take? about three years. so rate it as though it had been in development for three, not fifteen. when 3D Realms drowned, DNF Ceased to exist. DNF as it is now is only related by (a very tainted) Name.

it is amazing to me that the best most honest review of DNF comes from CNN http://newsstream.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/is-duke-nukem-worth-the-wait/?hpt=te_bn2

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Standards are different for each individual

 

[Virgil]

Scoring, or rating, is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of judging according to standards.

If reviewing a game were as simple as grading a math paper, you'd be right, but it's a little bit more complicated than that.

Reviewing a game is more like reviewing music, or a movie, or a book, or even a painting. Sure, there are some basic mechanics in all of these that can be objectively measured (audio/video clarity, paper/binding quality) but the actual appreciation of what makes any of these things worth your time is something that cannot be boiled down into an objective rating. Hence, "art".

Yes, games can have more objective things called out that those other artsy things. Resolution, framerate, visual effect bulletpoints, feature lists, bugs, and a dozen other things can be benchmarked, measured, and placed on a linear scale. But none of those will tell you if a game is worth playing. For that, the opinion is going to be - and needs to be - completely subjective, because your preferences as a gamer are also completely subjective.

Even the most theoretically cut-and-dry measurement, bugs, can't even be objective. Some people will think a certain bug is a "gamebreaker", while others won't notice it at all. These bugs are going to influence what the reviewer says, but there's no telling whether or not they're going to impact you - particularly for PC games, where bugs can frequently be limited to certain hardware of configurations.

The fact of the matter is that people are weird and varied, and they all like different things. Some people really love games that "everyone knows" are terrible games. I'm sure there are people out there who have extremely fond memories of playing E.T. on their Atari as a child. Whatever you think an objective rating scale is is really only "objective" when balanced against your own personal preferences - the things that I would care about are probably vastly different.

I have news for game reviewers: nobody cares what YOU subjectively think about a game.

There are some reviewers who I specifically look at the opinions of, either because my opinions align very well or hardly ever with theirs.

That's the way you should treat game reviews. If you aren't going to spend any time understanding the reviewer and how their opinions line up with your own, you aren't going to get anything out of them.

 

[Inkidu]

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 wrong. A ranking might be some form of objective criteria, but when someone says:

Rank the following game you played on a scale of 1 to five with five being the best and one the worst. The things the person puts down are subjective opinions.

The only thing a score provides is an average of a reviewer.

Game Informer for example. They rank their stuff from 1 to 10. However, any long reader of Game Informer will tell you that the middle ground is not five. It's seven. Games that rank in the sevens from G.I. are typically mediocre and anything below that should be swiftly discarded no matter what the reviewer actually writes because the general consensus of the magazine's reviewers pans out that an okay game hits a seven. It's not anything but an objectively achieved average because the criteria used in making the choice is subjective.

 

[FoolKiller]

I get what you are trying to say but your title doesn't make sense.

Opinion, by definition, is a subjective thing. Reviews are just the opinion of the person lucky (or unlucky) enough to have to write it. You can hold all the standards you want but at the end of the day it is not possible to have an objective opinion.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I was going to ask for specifics since OP didn't really offer any support for his assertions, until I saw this. Never mind that the following sentence is an exercise in contradiction. I just focused on this and laughed. If you only care what you think about a game, then your only means of assessing its quality is to play it yourself and shut out all outside opinions. Believe it or not, reviewers like Moviebob (who does game reviews on another site) qualify their statements. Many of them don't even offer a thumbs up/down or a scoring system, instead making qualified recommendations to check it out or not based on your tastes. For example, while reviewing utter piece of shit I am Number Four, Bob said that if you just want to watch a bunch of super-humans fuckin' each other up for a half and hour and don't mind an hour of wasted celluloid leading up to it, you may well enjoy that movie. He also said it was totally artistically limp (my words).

Game reviewers (or any critics) trying to attain the mythical objectivity is like journalists being unbiased. It's all an elaborate ruse, in the case of journalism started by those early pioneers of yellow journalism, Hearse. Before that, editors would start out their article explaining what their biases were, then go into their views.

If you don't agree with a critic's reviews, try out another site. Or use him as a litmus test. If you loved everything he ever shat on, then you know that the next game he shits on will likely be just the wonderful game for you.

This is about Duke, isn't it?

 

[Okysho]

Did someone get mad at the newest ZP review? -trollface-

In all seriousness, this is why I DON'T go to IGN or look at the critic score on gamespot. I agree with most of the reviews on the escapist and that's why I trust these guys.

This is also why Extra Credits would be incredible if they reviewed games, but I like them even better where they are now