Game reviews are NOT subjective opinion

[funguy2121]

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.

How are their no objective points on which to grade this? There are reviewers who specialize in JRPS and reviewers who will be upfront about the fact that they could give a damn about multiplayer. You're suggesting that because different genres exist that there are no universal criteria for measuring quality of art, and that is patently false.

Is it immersive? Doese it provide a unique experience? If it's not wholly original, does it at least get creative in building upon what others have already done in the genre? Is it challenging in a way that is engaging and not infuriating? Did it change my perspective on games in general, particularly what it could be? Was the story any good? Did I end up skipping the cut scenes? Did if feel patronizing, like the game was built around the marketing and the developers think we're all stupid?

Every one of these is a fair question, a question of the sort that reviews are based on, and the answers to these questions define the quality of a game. It really is just a bunch of opinions, but that's the beauty of it. Hell, maybe you're lacking enough in taste to think Linkin Park has artistic merit, or maybe you cry at Michael Bay films. Then you should review crap that's as simplistic as that, and be upfront about your biases.

If what you said is true, then somebody better call Gene Shalit right now.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Reviews aren't supposed to be some guys opinion. If you want to read some guys opinon, read the user reviews, that is what they are for.

Ther is a reason IGN did not let Greg Miller review InFamous 2 for them, he could bring bias (his opinion) into it and the score would not reflect the criteria that they follow when reviewing a game.

Here is Gametrailers review of InFamous 2. How many tmes did the reviewer use his opinon to judge the game? That is not to say that the review will be 100% non opinionated, but for the most part, NO professional reviews are NOT just the reviewers opinion of the game.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I refer you to the relevant Dude jpeg:

I wouldn't like a review that didn't at least aspire towards some level of criticism, and that type of higher-level analysis will always bring subjective opinion into it. Of course the reviewer should do his or her best to inform us of any biases he or she may have (for instance: if I hate JRPGs, I would let you know that before I review one, and try to keep the things that JRPG fans would be looking for in mind.) But a perfectly objective review would be: "this is a consumer product. This consumer product may meet or fail to meet your specifications."

 

[OutforEC]

As long as the individual reviewer is holding him/herself to a set of standards that don't fluctuate from review to review then all is well.

 

[DustyDrB]

Most games come with an at least acceptable amount of objective flaws (bugs, etc). Reviewers can and should point those out. How much those affect their enjoyment of the game, however, is subjective. Their opinion on the story is subjective. Their opinion of the mechanics of the game are even subjective (beyond the question "are they responsive?"). It doesn't make their review worthless by any means, though.

So, OP, I disagree. Reviews are mostly opinions. I see that as an inescapable truth, and I also have no problem with it. I just find reviewers who tend to have the same biases that I have and give their reviews considerably more weight than all the others.

Do people use "opinions" as an excuse? Probably some, more I'm more willing to think they use it more as a legitimate reason.

In summary:

 

[Griff Morivan]

Am I the only one who stopped reading in any sense of seriousness when the word 'scoring' came up?

No one reviews games with scores. I'm not talking about IGN and Metacritic and other websites that less review games and more take it up their chocolate starfish for money. I'm talking about PEOPLE. PEOPLE review games with subjective opinions. You listen to specific reviewers and not others because their views match yours, or you understand their position in proxy to yourself, and it's easy to judge how they like games and, through some extrapolation, how YOU would enjoy it based on their reaction.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

So because they put a score on it, its no longer an opinion? Lets ignore the 2 page report typed up on what the person believes are faults and focus solely on the fact that he gave it a number. Its number formed on opinion. If someone said "On a scale of 1 to 10," and then asked what you thought of something, they'd be asking you to rate something based on your opinion.

 

[Living Contradiction]

As long as the individual reviewer is holding him/herself to a set of standards that don't fluctuate from review to review then all is well.

Well, no. Standards change as reality changes. A game that would have been considered stupendous twenty years ago can get panned today. If standards stay constant, once you find a way of satisfying them completely, you've rendered them useless. A perfect 10 on any scale is something that can be duplicated and after a while, duplication becomes tired and dull.

Regarding the whole objective/subjective good/bad thing, I handled this in first year journalism: True objective judgment does not, and cannot, exist. The all-seeing eye that judges fairly without bias or prejudice is a myth. Always has been. Always will be. Why? Because observation, which is what reviewing is, is made by people and all people have been formed by what they've experienced up to the point of the observation. And since all people have different experiences, they will all have different observations. There may be similarities in those observations, common points that can be found and compared, but just because those points are common observations doesn't mean they're objective.

And it doesn't mean those common points are good or bad either. That's another set of values being brought into the equation from, surprise, a subjective point-of-view. Critics look for what they consider to be flaws to point them out to their audiences. They do this because it's fun and because they feel obliged to let folks know when something sucks to prevent further creation of suckage. We, the audience, know what critics consider good and bad after watching them work for a little while and use that knowledge to find critics whose values match our own so that we can find what we like and laugh at what we dislike.

Don't kid yourself into believing that by having a set of standards that you're being objective and thus somehow better than those who are subjective. Standards, whether shared or solitary, are subjective too.

 

[Chefodeath]

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.

Excellent, totally agree. Reviews should be based on objective standards of gaming. Let me just ask one simple question and you've sold me.

What are these "objective standards of gaming" we should go by? What is the template, the Platonic form of game that we should be judging our standards against?

What is the objective level of difficulty? We all want a reasonably challenging game, and of course, we all have the same standards of what is challenging so it should be simple to define what is just the right level of difficulty that a game should go by. Also, I suppose we should define the appropriate right level of dialogue and cut scenes because obviously everyone's in agreement that the right amount of dialogue in a game is somewhere between Dragon Age and Pac-Man.

You know, lets stop beating around the bush and just say that all games should aspire for the completely objective standard of "good." Its just a simple manner of breaking out your fun-o-meter and measuring the game for good. Shit, we shouldn't even need reviewers really.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

How are their no objective points on which to grade this? There are reviewers who specialize in JRPS and reviewers who will be upfront about the fact that they could give a damn about multiplayer. You're suggesting that because different genres exist that there are no universal criteria for measuring quality of art, and that is patently false.

Is it immersive? Doese it provide a unique experience? If it's not wholly original, does it at least get creative in building upon what others have already done in the genre? Is it challenging in a way that is engaging and not infuriating? Did it change my perspective on games in general, particularly what it could be? Was the story any good? Did I end up skipping the cut scenes? Did if feel patronizing, like the game was built around the marketing and the developers think we're all stupid?

Every one of these is a fair question, a question of the sort that reviews are based on, and the answers to these questions define the quality of a game. It really is just a bunch of opinions, but that's the beauty of it. Hell, maybe you're lacking enough in taste to think Linkin Park has artistic merit, or maybe you cry at Michael Bay films. Then you should review crap that's as simplistic as that, and be upfront about your biases.

If what you said is true, then somebody better call Gene Shalit right now.

Every one of those is a subjective question. It's not like, "was their body straight when they hit the water?" or "did they have the correct answer?" There is no objective answer to those questions because they are based on your subjective experience.

 

[OutforEC]

As long as the individual reviewer is holding him/herself to a set of standards that don't fluctuate from review to review then all is well.

Well, no. Standards change as reality changes. A game that would have been considered stupendous twenty years ago can get panned today. If standards stay constant, once you find a way of satisfying them completely, you've rendered them useless. A perfect 10 on any scale is something that can be duplicated and after a while, duplication becomes tired and dull.

Regarding the whole objective/subjective good/bad thing, I handled this in first year journalism: True objective judgment does not, and cannot, exist. The all-seeing eye that judges fairly without bias or prejudice is a myth. Always has been. Always will be. Why? Because observation, which is what reviewing is, is made by people and all people have been formed by what they've experienced up to the point of the observation. And since all people have different experiences, they will all have different observations. There may be similarities in those observations, common points that can be found and compared, but just because those points are common observations doesn't mean they're objective.

And it doesn't mean those common points are good or bad either. That's another set of values being brought into the equation from, surprise, a subjective point-of-view. Critics look for what they consider to be flaws to point them out to their audiences. They do this because it's fun and because they feel obliged to let folks know when something sucks to prevent further creation of suckage. We, the audience, know what critics consider good and bad after watching them work for a little while and use that knowledge to find critics whose values match our own so that we can find what we like and laugh at what we dislike.

Don't kid yourself into believing that by having a set of standards that you're being objective and thus somehow better than those who are subjective. Standards, whether shared or solitary, are subjective too.

Not sure who you're referring to as you quote me, but I in no way, shape, or form indicated that I believe a set of standards equals objectivity, no matter how much you want to belabor the point. My point is that a single reviewer sets his/her own standards and sticks with those, and those that agree with those standards pays attention to those reviews.

We, the audience, know what critics consider good and bad after watching them work for a little while and use that knowledge to find critics whose values match our own so that we can find what we like and laugh at what we dislike.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If a single critic swung around wildly in his reviewing standards, there'd be no way for us to know from one review to the next if we're going to agree with any given review. There has to be a baseline, but it's up to each individual reviewer to set and stick to this baseline, or else explain to the audience what has changed.

 

[Fearzone]

Thanks for the critiques, too many to answer each one but two patterns I see:

1. "So, OP, exactly what are the standards we should use? Particularly in games where one hopes developers should aspire to be creative and different." We see general standards in reviews all the time: graphics, sound, story, polish, lack of bugs, multiplayer features, whatever. They are out there bouncing around, they do not have to be set, different publishers can pick different criteria, but it has to be something other than a reviewers personal feelings.

2. "Games are about fun, how do you rate that since it is so subjective?" You can't write a review that promises a game will be fun for the individual player, so obviously that cannot be the intention of reviews, and just because the reviewer had fun doesn't mean I will, and vice versa. But if a game deviates so far from acceptable standards, terrible graphics, grinding sound, buggy, narrative that makes no sense--that all erodes into the fun, and if a game fails on basic standards, even if it's gameplay might otherwise be okay, it still wouldn't be enjoyable.

Thanks for pictures of The Dude, yes this post was inspired by reactions to DNF reviews, and I read Jim Sterling's FFXIII "objective" review when it first came out and thought it was silly.

 

[Durananrananrananran]

Thanks for the critiques, too many to answer each one but two patterns I see:

1. "So, OP, exactly what are the standards we should use? Particularly in games where one hopes developers should aspire to be creative and different." We see general standards in reviews all the time: graphics, sound, story, polish, lack of bugs, multiplayer features, whatever. They are out there bouncing around, they do not have to be set, different publishers can pick different criteria, but it has to be something other than a reviewers personal feelings.

2. "Games are about fun, how do you rate that since it is so subjective?" You can't write a review that promises a game will be fun for the individual player, so obviously that cannot be the intention of reviews, and just because the reviewer had fun doesn't mean I will, and vice versa. But if a game deviates so far from acceptable standards, terrible graphics, grinding sound, buggy, narrative that makes no sense--that all erodes into the fun, and if a game fails on basic standards, even if it's gameplay might otherwise be okay, it still wouldn't be enjoyable.

Thanks for pictures of The Dude, yes this post was inspired by reactions to DNF reviews, and I read Jim Sterling's FFXIII "objective" review when it first came out and thought it was silly.

Thanks for answering my question. I guess I want something different to you from game reviews. So many games released now have perfectly 'textbook' sound, graphics, lack of bugs, stories without plot-holes, but I want to get a sense of whether a game will excite me. I want a review to give me more than the ISO checklist, as someone called it. I also want to be entertained by the review.

Reviews like this, for example

 

[FalloutJack]

I have a job which, in game reviews, will require me to give it some sort of rating because it probably won't allow me to publish until then. The good fortune is that I decide what to review, so I could do all awesome ones and give all high scores if I wanted to. The point is that this may be a fact for all people who review on a site, and that they may have gotten a bit jaded because of it.

 

[Living Contradiction]

*snip*

*snippity snip*

*snip*

*snippity snip*

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If a single critic swung around wildly in his reviewing standards, there'd be no way for us to know from one review to the next if we're going to agree with any given review. There has to be a baseline, but it's up to each individual reviewer to set and stick to this baseline, or else explain to the audience what has changed.

Ah, I thought you were assigning a static set of standards that couldn't change as the reviewer changes. That's what I was taking issue with. And I agree with you that the change has to have some basis that can be explained to the audience, otherwise the audience will say, "This person has gone insane" and go away.

The rest of my blurb was directed to the thread as a whole and not at your point specifically. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

How are their no objective points on which to grade this? There are reviewers who specialize in JRPS and reviewers who will be upfront about the fact that they could give a damn about multiplayer. You're suggesting that because different genres exist that there are no universal criteria for measuring quality of art, and that is patently false.

Is it immersive? Doese it provide a unique experience? If it's not wholly original, does it at least get creative in building upon what others have already done in the genre? Is it challenging in a way that is engaging and not infuriating? Did it change my perspective on games in general, particularly what it could be? Was the story any good? Did I end up skipping the cut scenes? Did if feel patronizing, like the game was built around the marketing and the developers think we're all stupid?

Every one of these is a fair question, a question of the sort that reviews are based on, and the answers to these questions define the quality of a game. It really is just a bunch of opinions, but that's the beauty of it. Hell, maybe you're lacking enough in taste to think Linkin Park has artistic merit, or maybe you cry at Michael Bay films. Then you should review crap that's as simplistic as that, and be upfront about your biases.

If what you said is true, then somebody better call Gene Shalit right now.

Every one of those is a subjective question. It's not like, "was their body straight when they hit the water?" or "did they have the correct answer?" There is no objective answer to those questions because they are based on your subjective experience.

Um, yeah, that's kind of what I was saying. But upon reflection, I wouldn't say that's 100% true. Is a game truly immersive? Is the idea that Bioshock is more immersive than Angry Birds just an opinion? No. Going by dictionary definition, it's true. Also, "I found this to be a quality game" is a statement of fact and not an opinion, and if that statement is supported by why the reviewer felt that way (and they almost always do), then they have done their job. Also, I don't think it's a matter of opinion at all to say that There Will Be Blood had a better story than Halo. Since literary criticism has all but eclipsed English Lit, I'd better be right, or there's gonna be a Helluvah lot of angry Lit majors.