The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review

[Erttheking]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

I've explained before. Fair and balanced is simply being objective, or at the very least, consistent. This is just for writing reviews. For everything else, theres is a journalistic code of ethics you can read:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://wdet.org/media/_versions_/raw_feed_images/objective_definition_fb_big.png

The definition of objective is to not let personal feelings get in the way of FACTS! FACTS! A game being good is not a fact. Objectivity has no place in determining how much a reviewer enjoyed a game. In fact the only place a review would be unobjective is when the reviewer downright lied about the game to prove his point. And I've seen no one claim that.

And like I said, human beings are not so simple that they can be classified as "Always hates sexism" and "Never hates sexism". Our opinions are fluid, and reviews reflect opinions. The only way to be consistent is to inform people when you like or dislike a game and explain why. That's all. There is no objectivity to it.

You seem pretty hung up on the word "objective", which is why I said, "At the very least, consistent."

I don't like it when people misuse words, and I feel like people constantly misuse objective.

And I already explained that being consistent isn't as black and white as you're making it out to be. I'll grant you that the reviewer should probably explain why he thinks a way he does, and if it seems to contradict a previous review he should probably explain why he feels this is different (Moviebob explaining why he didn't like Tusk but liked the films he mentioned in shlocktober is a good example) but that's all.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Snip
[/b]

Games don't exist in a vacuum. Everyone has things that will bug them in some cases and not in others. For example, the sexualization of women in Metro Last Light bugged the shit out of me. But it didn't bother me at all in Kill La Kill even though it was even more present there. Because Kill La Kill handled it better. People aren't either "I never mind sexualization" or "I always hate it"

Do you know why they didn't deduct points for not liking Bayonetta? Because they actually liked her. The other reviewer didn't. Really when you get down to it, whether you admit it or not, you're advocating for reviewers to alter their reviews to match what other reviewers are saying.

But now you're comparing an action anime to a video game. Apples and oranges, my friend.

You completely missed the point of my post. You can like sexualization in some cases and not in others. I like the sexualization in Bayonetta. I didn't like it in Last Light.

I got your point, but you are now talking about your own personal opinions on a game. You're not writing a review on a publication designed to give fair and balanced reporting.

What is fair and balanced? If I didn't like the shooting mechanics in Last Light but everyone else did am I wrong? If I didn't like the stealth and everyone else did am I wrong? No I am not. Because I don't care what everyone else thinks and I'm telling you what I think. Fair and balanced just makes it sound like all reviews should score around the same area, or someone did it wrong. Which is wrong on so many degrees. There's a reason we have multiple reviewers instead of just one almighty reviewer with an infallible opinion. You don't need to agree with the guy who didn't like Bayonetta, I don't, but I don't want to shut him up or call him wrong.

Fair and balanced? A review is a person telling you if he liked the game or not. Nothing more.

I've explained before. Fair and balanced is simply being objective, or at the very least, consistent. This is just for writing reviews. For everything else, theres is a journalistic code of ethics you can read:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

http://wdet.org/media/_versions_/raw_feed_images/objective_definition_fb_big.png

The definition of objective is to not let personal feelings get in the way of FACTS! FACTS! A game being good is not a fact. Objectivity has no place in determining how much a reviewer enjoyed a game. In fact the only place a review would be unobjective is when the reviewer downright lied about the game to prove his point. And I've seen no one claim that.

And like I said, human beings are not so simple that they can be classified as "Always hates sexism" and "Never hates sexism". Our opinions are fluid, and reviews reflect opinions. The only way to be consistent is to inform people when you like or dislike a game and explain why. That's all. There is no objectivity to it.

You seem pretty hung up on the word "objective", which is why I said, "At the very least, consistent."

I don't like it when people misuse words, and I feel like people constantly misuse objective.

And I already explained that being consistent isn't as black and white as you're making it out to be. I'll grant you that the reviewer should probably explain why he thinks a way he does, and if it seems to contradict a previous review he should probably explain why he feels this is different (Moviebob explaining why he didn't like Tusk but liked the films he mentioned in shlocktober is a good example) but that's all.

You did ask what it meant to be fair and balanced. I told you. You can't complain if I simply answered your question. Its like if I asked you what does delicious taste like, and you mention a bunch of foods. Then I turn around and say I don't like those foods. You can't use a definition I've provided you and then use that you further your argument by complaining of the details provided in the definition you yourself asked for.

 

[hermes]

I have no interest in "objective reviews". Even when I don't think a 100% objective, bias free review is plausible, what I imagine as closer to it is so dull and uninvested to make the whole writing and reading it completely useless. What I want in reviews is well informed and properly expressed bias. If its point is poorly thought out and expressed, I have no use for it, even when I may agree with it; if its point is well expressed, even when I may not agree with it, I can see what lead the reviewer to that point and how sore I could be with it, having not known beforehand.

And to all those people that like production values as an objective measure of the quality of the game, you should really love every AAA game ever released... because that is what production value actually means: "Call Sam Worthington to be the main american protagonist of Black Ops, Christopher Walken to act on True Crimes, and Kiefer Sutherland to be the next Big Boss; call a famous scriptwriter to make the script of Call of Duty Ghost; pay a lot of money to licence a band so that we can release Guitar Hero Aerosmith and Guitar Hero Van Halen; tell Ricky Gervais to prepare a sketch so we can show it on GTA 4; and get the 30 feet tall signs ready to hang in Times Square... maybe if we throw enough money to it, people will be distracted by the glitter". Unless the game has to be creative because of extremely poor budget, I have no interest in production values. It tells me nothing. If fact, the top 10 games with more production values (another words for most expensive games to produce) include gems like Destiny, GTA 4 and 5, The Old Republic, Disney Infinity and Deadpool... none of those I would include in any of my "best games (period)" list...

 

[veloper]

I wonder how this thread would have gone if the OP and subject title had read "preferences" instead of "unbiased" and the word objectivity had never been uttered.

Ultimately it's all about preferences.
With one side preferring the personal like-o-meter (a la Destructoid, although their reviewers also appear to me as gameplay orientated) and others preferring something closer to the oldskool scorecard method.

I reckon the first method can be more informative when your preferences closely align with the critic already.
The second method, if used consistently and honestly, with the usual variant on "gameplay, gfx, story and sound", is more likely to align with a bigger audience, because any special needs or highly personal requirements should be removed from the equation.

 

[EternallyBored]

1) No need to provide context. You can just type his name in Google and get all the context you need. As far as games and sexualization is concerned, you are conveniently neglecting a great number of games. Dragon's Crown ring any bells?

Nope, still going to have to provide context, the author who did the Dragon's crown review is different from the one who did the Bayonetta 2 review on Polygon, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here, especially since Dragon's Crown had its supposedly sexist depictions called out by the author and scored lower than Bayonetta 2. And no, I would still call Bayonetta more sexualized that Dragon's crown, so I'm not forgetting it, Dragon's crown is certainly close with the gropeable female NPC's, but I would still consider it less sexualized than Bayonetta, especially if you play really any character other than the sorceress.

2) I've owned Bayonetta on the PS3 (and beaten it). I've also played the Bayonetta 2 demo on the Wii U and currently plan to buy the full game this week. However, if you read his review, a great majority of his complaints stem from the cutscenes.

They really don't, the majority of the complaints don't seem to involve the cutscenes at all, and I'm not sure where you are getting that from, let's break it down.

His first specific criticism in the review is against her outfit, and the "underbutt cleavage.
Next, he complains about her standing animation.
The next complaint is about the ingame camera that zooms in on her, this complaint could also be about cutscenes, but he doesn't specifically call them out, he seems to be complaining about the camera both in and out of the story cutscenes.
Next, is a complaint about the hair bodysuit and how it flies off for moves, and whilst those supermoves are largely pre-scripted, they aren't actual cutscenes outside of the boss finishers as they are often just results of gameplay, and can even happen completely as part of the regular combat, so again, a complaint that is only partially related to the cutscenes.
His last specific complaint is a final shot at the subweapon that turns into a stripper pole, another complaint that has zero to do with cutscenes at all.

Those are the specific complaints, and while some can be construed as being a part of cutscenes, none of these complaints are limited only to cutscenes, and really all of them are issues that take place during the combat and gameplay as well, he does not specifically call out the cutscenes as particularly egregious at all, he never even mentions them specifically. I disagree with his overall assessment, but cutscenes are not the issue he seems to be primarily taking with the game so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

You brought up Bayonetta 1, which is good, because it proves my point further. If you are playing a sequel to a game that clearly had sexualization present, why would you suddenly have more of an issue with it's sequel? This is where consistency comes into play. I'm not saying Bayonetta isn't sexualized. It most certainly is! However, to suddenly have an issue with it in a sequel and not with its original is simply disingenuous.

As far as I can see, Polygon wasn't around to review the original game, so we don't know how they would have scored it. You seem to be taking this massive issue with a presumed implication that is in no way guaranteed, the author mentioned enjoying the combat in both Bayonetta games, and calls them both out for what he sees as oversexualization.

In fact, the author specifically mentions having a problem with the sexualization in the first game so where are you getting this idea that he would have given the game a higher score from. Hell, he mentions specifically in the podcast that he had issues with the first game for the exact same reason.

 

[Fishyash]

Quite a number of critics find the whole scoring system to be idiotic and only do it because it's demanded of them. Siskel & Ebert rather liked the Thumbs Up/Down, since it put more focus on what they said about the movie.... although they would occasionally qualify the final decision with "an enthusiastic thumb up" or a "thumb way down", when they particularly liked or disliked a film.

George Lucas probably said it best, movies are binary. You either like it or you don't. The specifics don't matter too much. A movie can have all the things you say you like... and you dislike it. Or a movie can be a cluster-fuck... and you do. If I described to you my experience with Transformers 2, you'd assume I didn't like it; but I loved it. Saw it two times in IMax. Everything is absolutely horrible about the movie except for it being totally awesome.

Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/down is a number based scoring system. Especially when you bring in the "enthusiastic thumbs up" and "thumbs way down" into it. All they are doing is hiding the numbers from you (which is fine because they are serving the exact same purpose). Basically they are rating out of 4, if I am to take your description literally.

I also disagree with George Lucas' idea that movies are binary. He is close though. The problem with the binary statement is that ambivalence is also a very valid opinion, sometimes you're just on the fence and the overall experience leads to a conflict in whether you like it or not. Even then, Lucas' "binary" statement is also representative of a scoring system out of 2.

As I said though, the problem is going any higher than 5. I'd say 3 is the minimum (dislike, ambivalent, like) and 5 is the maximum (same 3 as before but add a strongly dislike and strongly like). Anything more is, as you say, idiotic, and that includes things like decimals and half-stars.

But the problem really is people pay too damn much attention to the average score on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. It's far more interesting to dig in and see which films/games people are passionate about. I don't care if 90% of the critics hated something if the other 10% absolutely loved it. If it sounds like something you'd enjoy, then go see it. Meanwhile, the latest action mediocrity might technically get a passing mark, but if virtually all the critics are lukewarm about it, it's probably something very skippable.

And Armond White has proven the Total Crank Review is an artform all its own. His stuff is just hilarious to read, despite making a mockery of "objective" reviews.

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I agree that it's just generally better to write a review with a positive bias towards it. As you say, it's due to the passion behind their statements, but also it generally means they are likely going to understand the film/game better.

I haven't mentioned objectivity at all though, and going back to the subject of review scores, I feel scores have nothing to do with objectivity, in fact, they most certainly should NOT represent objectivity.

On the other hand, objectivity CAN be put into a review. Referring to previous (or sometimes future) works to support your opinions (aka using facts) is an important part of a review.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

I'm not a fighting game fan. The closest comparative I have in terms of a systemically complex and mechanically deep experience is DOTA 2. My introduction to the game did not come through Purge's excellent "Welcome to DOTA, You Suck" guide, because it was loaded with impenetrable genre jargon and presented the game as a colossally intimidating undertaking. Rather, my introduction came through Total Biscuit's "Singe Draft Disaster" series. In which TB, with only a beginner's comprehension of the game play and mechanics, fumbled his way through a lot of low MMR games whilst playing badly and making mistakes. I could relate to that MUCH more easily. Many games later, I could read Purge's guide and be properly informed by it.

Right, but from the perspective of someone looking to potentially start playing DotA, would you want to get an overview from someone who has, at least a basic understanding of the mechanics of the game (and maybe even the mechanics of a few other similar titles) or someone who played for an hour, got frustrated and then rambled about how they don't like the game?
Teaching tools are not the same as reviews. I wouldn't look at a CS guide to tell me whether or not CS is a good shooter overall, because it's likely going to reference features I haven't seen yet and assume I have a basic understanding of what exists in the game

As you say, there is a middle ground, and the middle ground I occupy is that different people are going to come to reviews wanting different things.

And what, do you feel, should be the target of a mainstream gaming site? Should it be to take political stances and offer reviews that betray a poor understanding of the title and its genre? I'm not saying reviewers need to be experts on a particular game. Nor do they have to review a game using genre-appropriate jargon. I wouldn't, for instance, recommend the GyP article 'Why I won't be buying Smash 4" in terms of finding a review for the game because it references specific mechanics that will confuse the reader unless they have a deeper understanding of the mechanics of the smash series. On the flip side though, if a reviewer becomes convinced that Street Fighter is just punches and kicks because they never bothered to learn combos, their review will be similarly confusing, and flat-out misleading

You won't, no. But if there was, say, a statistically significant portion of the audience that WAS deeply invested in PETA's policies, that information would be rather germane to them, and that review might be all they needed. I have a friend with two young kids. Sometimes I've recommended animated films to him, and his first step is to check a review site that breaks down whether or not they're suitable for young kids. He trusts it. If the site suggests Spirited Away might frighten his daughter, he's not going to show it to her. To me, it's one of the best films ever made. To him, it's a complete non-starter, because we're both coming at it from completely different perspectives.

Do you feel that a statistically significant portion of the audience of a Tropico 5 review is going to be deeply affected by the fact that the game has you play a dictator? Is the purpose of the game going to be enough of a surprise that the reviewer feeling bad about being a dictator should take up a significant portion of said review?
Additionally, that review site is specializing in a particular type of review. This is not an instance of mainstream critics suddenly rating down horror movies on the basis of a children's movie "scariness scale"

What the central portion of the medium is will differ from person to person, will it not? Those seeking or primarily drawn to narrative experiences won't necessarily give a fig that the game play in To the Moon or The Walking Dead is poor to non-existent.

Interactivity is central to a medium characterized by interactivity. You may like some other portion of a game more, but the ability to take part in the events within a game is central to video games as media and to the definition of "game" itself. The Walking Dead can arguably fit the "not a game" label, but there are definitely instances of game-like sections. What is important to note, however, is that the branching narrative of the title and the potential for interaction with characters is there specifically for the player to utilize and manage

To pursue an example, I went back looking for a particular review on RPS, and lo and behold it was penned by the loathed John Walker. It is here:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/03/wot-i-think-to-the-moon/

This review doesn't devote even a single paragraph to hammering the game for its non-existent play mechanics. Based on this strong review, I bought the game, and it was one of if not my favorite gaming experience from that year, and a candidate for high placement among my favorite games of all time...a list stretching back thirty years. This review is exactly the kind of problem review you are identifying, and yet it was invaluable to me. And if I don't qualify as part of the core gamer demographic, I have no idea who does.

It doesn't need to "hammer" the game for them, but it is helpful for the consumer to know of their non-existence. In contrast to your reaction to the game, I "played" it after seeing it praised on multiple sites, and after probably about half an hour I stopped.
The review avoids admitting that the user's interaction basically boils down to "walk to obvious key item or person, press interact key, read dialogue" with jarringly out of place puzzles forming the only point at which the monotony of "walk to object, read typical RPGMaker title dialogue" is broken. I have no issue with a product like this getting the spotlight, but it needs to be clear to the consumer what exactly it is.

I think you can certainly make a cogent argument that the review "missed the point", but there are likely audiences out there who would similarly miss the point. If Johnny GameReview docks 5 points off Titfighter 3 for overly judicious employment of jiggle physics, it's quite probably that there is a demographic out there who would share his distaste. Naturally, Johnny's opinion will not appeal to Titfighter 3's core audience, so they will likely dismiss his review as irrelevant. I intend no umbrage with "Titfighter 3", by the way, I'm just trying to paint a broad analogy.

The difference between the audience of a review and the reviewer is that one has been given a responsibility to analyze games for a living, and thus should be held to at least a slightly higher standard. I don't see the point in assisting in the financial support of an individual or group of individuals whose expertise in a genre I don't play is somehow less than my own.

Sure. I'm all for allowing a maximum number of perspectives on an issue. However, if a writer on a website is the only one to cover a game, and that writer is incapable of separating his or her distaste for a game's aesthetic or expressed ideology from the soundness of its mechanics, then I anticipate their review will reflect that.

Might there be a better method of reviewing a product then? There was an article on Kotaku back when Revengeance came out where one of the writers openly admitted to not knowing how to appropriately dodge. I actually beat most of the game without this function, mostly from stubbornness, but the reviewer was not aware that the function even existed. It's an ability that is one of the first that you can purchase, and is clearly labeled. Several of the writers did not appear to be able to get past the first boss. Rather than have someone like that write a whole review for a game, might it not be better to have two or more people with varying levels of experience look at and discuss a title? Additionally, if you can't comfortably play a game to the point where most of your review will involve how uncomfortable you are, might it not be a better idea to hand the review off to someone who is more impartial? A piece can still be written about the uncomfortability of feature X, but if a game does what it sets out to do well, why should it be rated down, on a mainstream gaming site, for not being (insert political affiliation here) enough? From a business standpoint, it only really seems to make sense from a "clickbait" angle, and even that appears to be having an adverse affect on the willingness for people to visit those sites. If you posted that RPS link on a number of other sites, people would insist that you use an archive link instead, such is their desire to not contribute whatsoever to the ad revenue or search engine prominence of the website.

Notably, in my longer history of consuming game reviews, this has almost never happened.

On the flip side, I've dropped a number of reviewers. Perhaps your lack of dropping them is due to the fact that, on the basis of at least a few of your interests, you are being pandered to

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Right, but from the perspective of someone looking to potentially start playing DotA, would you want to get an overview from someone who has, at least a basic understanding of the mechanics of the game (and maybe even the mechanics of a few other similar titles) or someone who played for an hour, got frustrated and then rambled about how they don't like the game?

Myself? I'd want to get both perspectives. As someone also going in with no experience, I'd want to hear about the things that put them off and see if they sounded like things that would also put me off.

Teaching tools are not the same as reviews. I wouldn't look at a CS guide to tell me whether or not CS is a good shooter overall, because it's likely going to reference features I haven't seen yet and assume I have a basic understanding of what exists in the game.

They can serve a similar function. I actually prefer Let's Plays and instructional guides to more conventional reviews a lot of the time. Purge's guide also mimics a review in many respects, and is often linked as the first reference point to anyone showing even a cursory interest in the game.

Spoiler: This is Review Language

You are going to be constantly reminded of how much you suck for about 1-3 months (if you learn). If you read this guide and use your brain and be actively aware of how bad you suck, you can easily shave time off of your complete noob status. You could even make some kids think that you?re really good, but only if they are bad.

Unfortunately, Dota 2 has a massive learning curve.

You need to play each of the 110 heroes at least once each to have basic understanding of the power levels of each hero.

Each game takes on average 30-50 minutes. Prepare to play a lot of DotA. If you want to cut this down, go to websites and read hero skills and guides, and from there you should get basic ideas of how to play these heroes.

You are going to have to learn items, strategies, laning combos, abbreviations, and MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF TEAMWORK.

However, I promise that once you get the basics down, and you start playing casually with your friends, that you are going to have a TON of fun.

There is no grinding for weeks to get that gear you want like in an MMO. Rolling a new hero is as easy as playing one game, and each game you can go different skill/item builds with different team setups.

Basically, it is going to take a really long time to get bored with this game. Every game is different. I?ve spent about 3+ years of my full gaming time focused on DotA and Dota 2, and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon.

You may be interested in playing Heroes of Newerth(HoN) or League of Legends(LoL), but we arguably have the best developer, Icefrog. He has been working on DotA since 2005 with no income(until getting hired by valve to make Dota 2) and no release of his real name. DotA and Dota 2 are both considered to be extremely balanced games at the professional level, and new hero and item additions always add new flavor and slight nudges to any heroes that are considered overpowered.

I see no reason to pick HoN or LoL, and please, never mention Storm of the Imperial Sanctum ever again, unless you want to try playing DotA circa 2004 with good graphics and a tiny map.

...right down to a qualitative summary of the game (You are going to have a ton of fun).

And what, do you feel, should be the target of a mainstream gaming site?

If it was my site? The widest number of views possible. However if I only had one person doing a review on a particular game, I'd have no problem with that individual taking a "political stance" on a title if that was their takeaway from it, unless it was so outrageous as to cause widespread censure or break a bunch of laws.

Do you feel that a statistically significant portion of the audience of a Tropico 5 review is going to be deeply affected by the fact that the game has you play a dictator? Is the purpose of the game going to be enough of a surprise that the reviewer feeling bad about being a dictator should take up a significant portion of said review?

I have no idea what portion of their audience would find that information relevant. Having not read the review you're alluding to, I also have no idea whether or not your paraphrasing of the reviewer's material represents an accurate picture of what they were getting at. Throw me a link and I'll see what I think.

This is not an instance of mainstream critics suddenly rating down horror movies on the basis of a children's movie "scariness scale"

It was an analogy meant to demonstrate that not everyone approaches reviews the same way you might, or I might. Our personal preferences should not represent the default setting for the industry.

Interactivity is central to a medium characterized by interactivity.

Meh. I disagree. This is the "Games/not games" argument seeping in, and that's a whole other bag of worms. Some people prize game play over everything, others do not, and for still others it will vary from title to title. I don't want to play No True Scotsman on the subject of video games and we've got a long enough chain of replies going without wading into those murky waters.

I have no issue with a product like this getting the spotlight, but it needs to be clear to the consumer what exactly it is.

I felt it WAS made clear to me exactly what it was. I went in with a certain set of expectations based on that review, and those expectations were met. For me, that was an ENTIRELY useful review. For you, it was next to worthless. So is it a good review or a bad review?

I don't see the point in assisting in the financial support of an individual or group of individuals whose expertise in a genre I don't play is somehow less than my own.

I'm honestly not clear on what you're responding to here. Who said you had to? If you don't like a reviewer, don't read them.

Might there be a better method of reviewing a product then?

How "good" or useful a review is going to vary from person to person. Just because I like a review doesn't mean it was perfect, and just because I hate a review doesn't mean it was bad. The world doesn't revolve around me and my tastes. I'm capable of finding reviews and reviewers that work for me. You could surely stump for more populist reviews that are generic enough to suit the purposes of as wide an audience as possible, or for reviews that more specifically suit the things you want to see. I never got the feeling you were arguing for "more reviews of the type I like", though. Moreso "This is why the reviews we presently have are bad".

A piece can still be written about the uncomfortability of feature X, but if a game does what it sets out to do well, why should it be rated down, on a mainstream gaming site, for not being (insert political affiliation here) enough?

Because ratings are subjective and entirely the purview of the person reviewing the game?

On the flip side, I've dropped a number of reviewers. Perhaps your lack of dropping them is due to the fact that, on the basis of at least a few of your interests, you are being pandered to

Sure, you could argue that. You could also argue that I value a wide variety of insights, and can usually mine something of worth out of even hysterical reviews that barely touch on core concepts. It all helps me get a broader picture of the game or movie or book in question and whether or not I'd like to buy it. Hell even directly manipulative score-bombs can be worthwhile, as they give me a picture of what the audience is inflamed about, so I can decide if that's something that inflames me too.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Myself? I'd want to get both perspectives. As someone also going in with no experience, I'd want to hear about the things that put them off and see if they sounded like things that would also put me off.

Right, but there's currently only one perspective

They can serve a similar function. I actually prefer Let's Plays and instructional guides to more conventional reviews a lot of the time. Purge's guide also mimics a review in many respects, and is often linked as the first reference point to anyone showing even a cursory interest in the game.

They can, but they aren't responsible for that function

If it was my site? The widest number of views possible. However if I only had one person doing a review on a particular game, I'd have no problem with that individual taking a "political stance" on a title if that was their takeaway from it, unless it was so outrageous as to cause widespread censure or break a bunch of laws.

It would appear that Polygon/Kotaku/RPS/Gamasutra have failed to prevent a widespread boycott of their websites on the basis of their writing and professional conduct.

I have no idea what portion of their audience would find that information relevant. Having not read the review you're alluding to, I also have no idea whether or not your paraphrasing of the reviewer's material represents an accurate picture of what they were getting at. Throw me a link and I'll see what I think.

https://archive.today/tGdYo the archive link is mostly because that's how I came across it in the first place. Feel free to un-archive it if you'd prefer

Apparently the game is unaware of its own internal ironies, but simultaneously doesn't hold the reviewer's hand enough to make him not feel bad about being a dictator. The reviewer was unable to understand the fact that accomplishing tasks via the most brutal and quick methods possible is supposed to make the user "feel bad" and reconsider the way they look at the people they're meant to govern and protect- people they've very quickly and easily allowed to turn into numbers in a game

It was an analogy meant to demonstrate that not everyone approaches reviews the same way you might, or I might. Our personal preferences should not represent the default setting for the industry.

I understand that. My point was that while taking these sorts of looks at games is fine for an editorial or specialized review site, the sites in question have a responsibility to a much larger group of readers. If they don't want that responsibility, that's obviously their call. My statements are dependent on their desire to keep their current status, however

Meh. I disagree. This is the "Games/not games" argument seeping in, and that's a whole other bag of worms. Some people prize game play over everything, others do not, and for still others it will vary from title to title. I don't want to play No True Scotsman on the subject of video games and we've got a long enough chain of replies going without wading into those murky waters.

The defining feature of games is the interactive portion. It doesn't have to be the biggest portion, and its arguable to what extent it must exist for a game to be a game, but if I hand you a story that plays itself, you're probably going to call it a movie
Additionally, it's important to let the audience know to what degree this portion exists. If I say something is a narrative driven game, do you know if I'm talking about Planescape Torment, Spec Ops: The Line, or Dear Esther? There's a very different audience for all three of those, and part of the distinction between them is going to be the type and "quantity" of gameplay

I felt it WAS made clear to me exactly what it was. I went in with a certain set of expectations based on that review, and those expectations were met. For me, that was an ENTIRELY useful review. For you, it was next to worthless. So is it a good review or a bad review?

Is the quality of the review lowered by them explaining what the gameplay portion is accurately? The review suggests that "clicking on things" is a facile description of the level of interactivity present, but that's basically what I ended up doing the entire time I played. There was no further decision making, only a set of "no progress" responses until I hit a "progress" response

I'm honestly not clear on what you're responding to here. Who said you had to? If you don't like a reviewer, don't read them.

I'm simply voicing my incredulity at the lack of even basic knowledge of particular games and genres on the part of people who claim some level of expertise, and leverage that to write about games

How "good" or useful a review is going to vary from person to person. Just because I like a review doesn't mean it was perfect, and just because I hate a review doesn't mean it was bad. The world doesn't revolve around me and my tastes. I'm capable of finding reviews and reviewers that work for me. You could surely stump for more populist reviews that are generic enough to suit the purposes of as wide an audience as possible, or for reviews that more specifically suit the things you want to see. I never got the feeling you were arguing for "more reviews of the type I like", though. Moreso "This is why the reviews we presently have are bad".

I'm referring purely to the ability to inform the audience, not whether or not people like what a review has to say.

Because ratings are subjective and entirely the purview of the person reviewing the game?

See the above response. If I write a review that is purely based around my emotional baggage, I've failed to convey what portions of the game might be worthwhile or worthless to the end user. This is fine for a blogger, but that's not who we're discussing

Sure, you could argue that. You could also argue that I value a wide variety of insights, and can usually mine something of worth out of even hysterical reviews that barely touch on core concepts. It all helps me get a broader picture of the game or movie or book in question and whether or not I'd like to buy it. Hell even directly manipulative score-bombs can be worthwhile, as they give me a picture of what the audience is inflamed about, so I can decide if that's something that inflames me too.

Again, not saying these things can't exist, but hysteria is best kept to editorials and niche sites. You're going to get a lot of flack and former-customers if you end up putting hysteria before information on a mainstream news source, even for a hobby

 

[DoPo]

Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/down is a number based scoring system. Especially when you bring in the "enthusiastic thumbs up" and "thumbs way down" into it. All they are doing is hiding the numbers from you (which is fine because they are serving the exact same purpose). Basically they are rating out of 4, if I am to take your description literally.

No, it's called a nominal scale and it's used to avoid giving numbers. Yes, in theory, you can call the labels whatever you want, including numbers, but that's defeating the purpose of the nominal scale which is to remove the confusion between it and interval scales.

An "x out of 10" is interval - you should be able to quantify and measure the difference between items that fall onto it, e.g., an item A which has 5 and item B which has a 7 would have two degrees of difference, however you define that. So if you have item C with two degrees of difference after B, it'll get a 9. If item D has a 7, it would possess the same qualities as item B. This is why you have an interval scale.

Nominal scales group items by labels without showing much of a relationship between them. A "Very good" and "good" are two labels, for example, but you don't measure the distance between them. Also you don't do stuff like averaging them (which you could with an interval scale) or performing any other inappropriate analysis on them.

So, no, it's not a rating out of 4, as that's stupid. Actually, I am pretty sure that giving numbers for whether you liked something is stupid, too. Star ratings in (for example) many online shops are so fundamentally broken, it's actually funny. That's before even factoring in how bad they are actually used. And even more funny is the fact that the only good use for them, doesn't need them. Or rather, doesn't need them to be stars.

 

[QuintonMcLeod]

Here is my point, in case you haven't realized it yet. My point is that the reviewer of Bayonetta 2 from Polygon wrote the review as click-bait. That is my point. My replying to you is a way for me to provide examples as to why I believe it's click-bait

1) No need to provide context. You can just type his name in Google and get all the context you need. As far as games and sexualization is concerned, you are conveniently neglecting a great number of games. Dragon's Crown ring any bells?

Nope, still going to have to provide context, the author who did the Dragon's crown review is different from the one who did the Bayonetta 2 review on Polygon, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here, especially since Dragon's Crown had its supposedly sexist depictions called out by the author and scored lower than Bayonetta 2. And no, I would still call Bayonetta more sexualized that Dragon's crown, so I'm not forgetting it, Dragon's crown is certainly close with the gropeable female NPC's, but I would still consider it less sexualized than Bayonetta, especially if you play really any character other than the sorceress.

No, I'm not going to do the research for you. If you want to see what all the hubbub is about with this particular reviewer, you're going to need to do the research on your own. I told you he's got a pretty shady and controversial history. If you want to find out more, do it yourself.

If you want to call Bayonetta more sexualized than any other game out there, then that is your business. I know Bayonetta is not, but it becomes completely subjective at this point.

2) I've owned Bayonetta on the PS3 (and beaten it). I've also played the Bayonetta 2 demo on the Wii U and currently plan to buy the full game this week. However, if you read his review, a great majority of his complaints stem from the cutscenes.

They really don't, the majority of the complaints don't seem to involve the cutscenes at all, and I'm not sure where you are getting that from, let's break it down.

His first specific criticism in the review is against her outfit, and the "underbutt cleavage.
Next, he complains about her standing animation.
The next complaint is about the ingame camera that zooms in on her, this complaint could also be about cutscenes, but he doesn't specifically call them out, he seems to be complaining about the camera both in and out of the story cutscenes.
Next, is a complaint about the hair bodysuit and how it flies off for moves, and whilst those supermoves are largely pre-scripted, they aren't actual cutscenes outside of the boss finishers as they are often just results of gameplay, and can even happen completely as part of the regular combat, so again, a complaint that is only partially related to the cutscenes.
His last specific complaint is a final shot at the subweapon that turns into a stripper pole, another complaint that has zero to do with cutscenes at all.

Those are the specific complaints, and while some can be construed as being a part of cutscenes, none of these complaints are limited only to cutscenes, and really all of them are issues that take place during the combat and gameplay as well, he does not specifically call out the cutscenes as particularly egregious at all, he never even mentions them specifically. I disagree with his overall assessment, but cutscenes are not the issue he seems to be primarily taking with the game so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

You seem rather confused.
1) Her "body suit" and her "outfit" are the same thing. This includes the "underbutt cleavage". So, that's just one complaint.

2) The in-game camera doesn't zoom in on her. The only "zooming" that happens, is during her combat finisher, and those in-game camera angles do not highlight any particular part on her body. If anything, it highlights the torture devices she conjures up. What the reviewer is complaining about here are the cutscenes.

3) The only other complaint I could see would be the stripper pole "Attack", which is specific to one weapon. I'll give him this one, but it's not like she's dancing around a pole through the entire game. This is just one weapon, and even if it's one weapon and he doesn't like it, no one is really debating that Bayonetta isn't sexual. It is!

Go into Google and type in "Bayonetta 2 Stripper Pole" and see how many complaints you see. You'll notice you'll only see Polygon's reviewer complaining about it - and I mean he's the _only_ one complaining.

What am I getting at here? His review is click-bait. It's dishonest and it's only there to attract clicks. He's never had an issue with sexuality in games. Ever. His record proves this. He's reviewed other games that featured some questionable and over-sexualized females in them, but he didn't ever mention them.

You brought up Bayonetta 1, which is good, because it proves my point further. If you are playing a sequel to a game that clearly had sexualization present, why would you suddenly have more of an issue with it's sequel? This is where consistency comes into play. I'm not saying Bayonetta isn't sexualized. It most certainly is! However, to suddenly have an issue with it in a sequel and not with its original is simply disingenuous.

As far as I can see, Polygon wasn't around to review the original game, so we don't know how they would have scored it. You seem to be taking this massive issue with a presumed implication that is in no way guaranteed, the author mentioned enjoying the combat in both Bayonetta games, and calls them both out for what he sees as oversexualization.

In fact, the author specifically mentions having a problem with the sexualization in the first game so where are you getting this idea that he would have given the game a higher score from. Hell, he mentions specifically in the podcast that he had issues with the first game for the exact same reason.

You do realize that we're not talking about Polygon, but rather, Arthur Gies. Arthur worked at, not only IGN prior to working at Polygon, but he's also worked at Joystiq.

However, Polygon is indeed guilty of many crimes to good journalism. Arthur is of no exception, but for this point, I'm really only talking about Arthur Gies.

In any case, you've done absolutely no research on the topic, but you're more than willing to argue in defense of it. I think we're done here. No disrespect, but if you refuse to research the basics of what you're trying to defend, then you're no different than someone attempting to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Fishyash]

No, it's called a nominal scale and it's used to avoid giving numbers. Yes, in theory, you can call the labels whatever you want, including numbers, but that's defeating the purpose of the nominal scale which is to remove the confusion between it and interval scales.
...
Nominal scales group items by labels without showing much of a relationship between them. A "Very good" and "good" are two labels, for example, but you don't measure the distance between them. Also you don't do stuff like averaging them (which you could with an interval scale) or performing any other inappropriate analysis on them.

Review scores ARE nominal scales, and should be treated as such. Before anything else, a review score is first and foremost a judgement. You can put it in any way you like, numbers, stars, colours or even clever adjectives! (pic is from Caddicarus' Tinker Time series)

But it all means the same thing. So why numbers (or stars)? It's due to practicality. Here's just one example.

Let's say I'm new to RTS games, and want to get into them. I (purely for example's sake) go on IGN and go to their review search engine and sort their reviews by genre and rating (they have a weird minimum rating filter but whatever). I can now find reviews of the "best" games in the RTS genre, all up to date, without having to resort to endless browsing, picking a random game or asking a friend or a forum for the same result: valid alternatives (except maybe browsing) but on IGN I can just search it up and it's there.

However, the important bit is that you treat each number as a seperate opinion, and you cannot measure them against each other equally, and an important part of that is by scoring within a small scale.
It's like I said in my previous post: There's no point rating out of anything more than of 5 (1=strong dislike, 2=dislike, 3=ambivalent, 4=like and 5=strongly like). Most people will rate a game out of 3 (simply ask someone whether they liked it or not). You're not supposed to measure the numbers against each other, each one represents a different opinion.

I've already said how averaging several review scores destroys them. If metacritic gave an average score of 60, it mistakenly gives the impression that everyone rated the game at around 60. Its saving grace is that you can see the amount of positive, mixed and negative reviews, which far more accurately describes the critic's opinions of a game.

I can understand why the confusion is there though, since people don't have the sense to understand what review scores are for, but the concept of review scores is perfectly fine and in fact helpful. It has been ruined by poor implementation (as lots of people in this thread as well as I have provided examples of). However, removing review scores (in actuality you're not removing them, you're merely hiding them) or criticizing the concept of them (aka, misunderstanding them) will only make the confusion worse. Mostly because you cannot get rid of them, scoring (aka judging) something is something all human beings do, whether they disclose their judgements or not.

The real solution would be to just to use them as they're meant to be used , and ignore the stupid metrics, equations and averaging sites. Plenty of sites already do it properly, The Escapist is close going by this, although I wish they'd get rid of the half stars.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Right, but there's currently only one perspective.

Oh I disagree with that ENTIRELY. If there were only a single polarized perspective in gaming reviews we'd see it widely reflected in scores. I've heard a lot lately about "Bayonetta 2" and how it was skewered by an unfair review. It's got a 91 for the WiiU and 90 for the XBOX 360. 83 positive and 3 mixed reviews for the latter. 51 positive and 2 mixed for the former. Skullgirls got an 83 on PC...higher than the user score for the same game. Of the six critical reviews listed, all were positive.

Mind you, I might be disagreeing on what the one perspective is. If the one perspective is "puff reviews for games that constantly highlight their strengths and wave away their weaknesses" you might be right. But when someone DOES highlight a weakness in a popular game, they tend to get pilloried for it.

https://archive.today/tGdYo the archive link is mostly because that's how I came across it in the first place. Feel free to un-archive it if you'd prefer

While I found that to be a comically hand-wringing review, particularly this part...

Spoiler

It was hard for me to get perspective on all the charming quirks of Kim Jong Il, Envar Hoxha and Nicolae Ceaușescu ? people who I was imitating in the game ? when I knew that they were responsible for the rape, murder and enslavement of many thousands, perhaps even millions of real people. Instead of making me chuckle, Tropico 5 constantly reminded me of all the blood staining my hands.

...it seems to meet your general criteria for a balanced review. He discusses and even praises the game play, and touches on various elements, from graphics to how it functions in multiplayer. The review as a whole isn't particularly robust in terms of providing information, but I don't find that an inordinate amount of print space was given over to discussing tone. I agree with you that the reviewer in question "doesn't get the point", but that just makes him a reviewer I wouldn't choose to read again. I'm sure there are people who would agree with him.

I understand that. My point was that while taking these sorts of looks at games is fine for an editorial or specialized review site, the sites in question have a responsibility to a much larger group of readers. If they don't want that responsibility, that's obviously their call. My statements are dependent on their desire to keep their current status, however

Well, I think the responsibility any given reviewer has is to be HONEST. It's why I keep referencing Tom Chick. Tom is an extremely idiosyncratic reviewer. His one star review of Deus Ex wasn't going to reflect the views of a majority of his audience, but that was the review he delivered because it was the review he believed in. I want that from my reviewers. That is what I would consider "ethical gaming journalism". Even if I hate the final score awarded and disagree with it powerfully, as I did in that case.

The defining feature of games is the interactive portion. It doesn't have to be the biggest portion, and its arguable to what extent it must exist for a game to be a game, but if I hand you a story that plays itself, you're probably going to call it a movie.

Interactivity has to exist for it to be a game, yes, but I see people who want to measure how MUCH there was, or to what degree they liked the TYPE of interactivity, or Total Biscuit's argument that there must be a failure state, etc, etc, and all of it amounts to an effort to disallow certain games from even claiming the title, often because the person imposing that definition on them doesn't care for that type of game. While I agree there can be room for confusion if you're employing a numeric scoring system and you give "The Walking Dead" and "XCOM" identical scores, given how wildly different they are as experiences, but seriously...people just need to learn to read to figure out WTF it is they're buying.

Additionally, it's important to let the audience know to what degree this portion exists. If I say something is a narrative driven game, do you know if I'm talking about Planescape Torment, Spec Ops: The Line, or Dear Esther? There's a very different audience for all three of those, and part of the distinction between them is going to be the type and "quantity" of gameplay

Yeah I agree with that. If you've completely obfuscated the nature of the experience in your review, you've left out some pretty crucial information. That said, I really do question how many people are, say, seeing a 9/10 for Gone Home and rushing out to buy it expecting an 80 hour RPG epic or something. At some point personal responsibility for uninformed decisions has to be taken into account. If a review didn't give me all the information I considered necessary for making an informed decision I would just visit a second, and a third, and a fourth. I have never been left in the dark about what kind of game I'm buying.

I'm simply voicing my incredulity at the lack of even basic knowledge of particular games and genres on the part of people who claim some level of expertise, and leverage that to write about games

I think it's quite possible that some people get hired due to their ability to write rather than their gaming expertise. I also think it doesn't need saying that in any industry there will be people who run the gamut from very good at their jobs to very bad at their jobs. I've encountered many of the latter in many types of industry. I've never gone out of my way to try and get them fired, however. And a few of them have been significantly more disruptive to my day to day life than writing a sloppy game review or calling my hobby a name in an angry screed.

See the above response. If I write a review that is purely based around my emotional baggage, I've failed to convey what portions of the game might be worthwhile or worthless to the end user. This is fine for a blogger, but that's not who we're discussing

I don't know that this is true, although I suppose it depends on what the nature of your baggage is. If you write a review of "Hatred" carrying the baggage of "Hates violence porn" into it, your review...whilst polarizing to fans of violence porn...will be extremely informative to the statistically significant body of people who don't like it. As I said, the more specific to you a review is, the less useful it is to a wide audience, but the more useful it becomes to those who share your predilections. Whether or not having too many of those kinds of reviews on-board is a problem is down to the people running the sites. As a reader, I'm not bound to any one place for my information.

Again, not saying these things can't exist, but hysteria is best kept to editorials and niche sites.

Aside from "Gamer is dead", I haven't seen much I'd qualify as "hysteria", and in all honesty as poorly as some of those articles were written I know EXACTLY what they were criticizing, and it's nothing that the average gamer doesn't complain about almost hourly. We all know how toxic anonymity can make people.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Oh I disagree with that ENTIRELY. If there were only a single polarized perspective in gaming reviews we'd see it widely reflected in scores. I've heard a lot lately about "Bayonetta 2" and how it was skewered by an unfair review. It's got a 91 for the WiiU and 90 for the XBOX 360. 83 positive and 3 mixed reviews for the latter. 51 positive and 2 mixed for the former. Skullgirls got an 83 on PC...higher than the user score for the same game. Of the six critical reviews listed, all were positive.

Mind you, I might be disagreeing on what the one perspective is. If the one perspective is "puff reviews for games that constantly highlight their strengths and wave away their weaknesses" you might be right. But when someone DOES highlight a weakness in a popular game, they tend to get pilloried for it.

...it seems to meet your general criteria for a balanced review. He discusses and even praises the game play, and touches on various elements, from graphics to how it functions in multiplayer. The review as a whole isn't particularly robust in terms of providing information, but I don't find that an inordinate amount of print space was given over to discussing tone. I agree with you that the reviewer in question "doesn't get the point", but that just makes him a reviewer I wouldn't choose to read again. I'm sure there are people who would agree with him.

I'm approaching it from the perspective of accuracy and being informative. It's blatantly incorrect to assert that the game has failed in terms of its intended goal and much of the review reads like a blogpost. If we look at this from a business perspective, this is a writer that can, and honestly should, be a reason for losing readers. If it was "I feel the game is too harsh" then that would be an acceptable opinion of the game overall. However the game is simultaneously too harsh and yet somehow not accurate enough.

Well, I think the responsibility any given reviewer has is to be HONEST. It's why I keep referencing Tom Chick. Tom is an extremely idiosyncratic reviewer. His one star review of Deus Ex wasn't going to reflect the views of a majority of his audience, but that was the review he delivered because it was the review he believed in. I want that from my reviewers. That is what I would consider "ethical gaming journalism". Even if I hate the final score awarded and disagree with it powerfully, as I did in that case.

Sure, but it's a question of who gives those reviews a platform. I can write a review on these forums for the last 3 games I played. I can be as honest as you'd like, but I wont get paid for it and my reviews wont be on the front page of a site that is attempting to court a large general audience. These sites are perfectly welcome to continue to squander their opportunity to keep these readers, but I've watched companies with this attitude fail before

Interactivity has to exist for it to be a game, yes, but I see people who want to measure how MUCH there was, or to what degree they liked the TYPE of interactivity, or Total Biscuit's argument that there must be a failure state, etc, etc, and all of it amounts to an effort to disallow certain games from even claiming the title, often because the person imposing that definition on them doesn't care for that type of game. While I agree there can be room for confusion if you're employing a numeric scoring system and you give "The Walking Dead" and "XCOM" identical scores, given how wildly different they are as experiences, but seriously...people just need to learn to read to figure out WTF it is they're buying.

I think that the type and level of interactivity should be discernible from a review. I also feel that software like Dear Esther ought to have its own category or tag so that people looking for that kind of experience can find it more easily, and those who don't care for it don't accidentally wander into a poor purchasing decision or waste their time combing through a review only to find out that it's not the type of experience they want. This isn't the only instance where I find this beneficial; the broad category that "action RPG" seems to take up is similarly irritating.

Yeah I agree with that. If you've completely obfuscated the nature of the experience in your review, you've left out some pretty crucial information. That said, I really do question how many people are, say, seeing a 9/10 for Gone Home and rushing out to buy it expecting an 80 hour RPG epic or something. At some point personal responsibility for uninformed decisions has to be taken into account. If a review didn't give me all the information I considered necessary for making an informed decision I would just visit a second, and a third, and a fourth. I have never been left in the dark about what kind of game I'm buying.

Gone Home is actually a really good example of the phenomenon I've mentioned in action
A game that started as an Amnesia mod set in an empty house at night? Some people who bought the game and promote it even admit not knowing what the game was initially, and some of them felt it added to the experience. For someone not looking for the type of game Gone Home is, and instead the kind it initially may appear to be, however, it's probably pretty disappointing/frustrating. What's also noteworthy is that for a game based on some sort of twist or mystery or even a particular mood, less information will often add to the experience.

I think it's quite possible that some people get hired due to their ability to write rather than their gaming expertise. I also think it doesn't need saying that in any industry there will be people who run the gamut from very good at their jobs to very bad at their jobs. I've encountered many of the latter in many types of industry. I've never gone out of my way to try and get them fired, however. And a few of them have been significantly more disruptive to my day to day life than writing a sloppy game review or calling my hobby a name in an angry screed.

This is a pretty gross oversimplification of what's going on right now, as well as not actually being related to what I said

I don't know that this is true, although I suppose it depends on what the nature of your baggage is. If you write a review of "Hatred" carrying the baggage of "Hates violence porn" into it, your review...whilst polarizing to fans of violence porn...will be extremely informative to the statistically significant body of people who don't like it. As I said, the more specific to you a review is, the less useful it is to a wide audience, but the more useful it becomes to those who share your predilections. Whether or not having too many of those kinds of reviews on-board is a problem is down to the people running the sites. As a reader, I'm not bound to any one place for my information.

If the reviews for Hatred tell you no more than the current articles and forum posts do and the game ends up being more than that, you're not only failing to provide a distinct service but are actually actively misinforming people. Again, as far as readers go, there have been people "going elsewhere" for a while. Where the issue comes in is when you have writers being added to blacklists (Pinsof), websites are being targeted simply for allowing differing opinions (KillScreenDaily's opinion piece on the Hitman Absolution trailer), and when articles are only written when they suit a narrative (Boogie2988's harassment, TFYC's indiegogo, etc.)
You may dispute the efficacy of these claims (something we should probably deal with in the PM convo) but these are the claims nonetheless. For "differing opinions" alone, the prevailing attitude has been "I'll take my business elsewhere"

Aside from "Gamer is dead", I haven't seen much I'd qualify as "hysteria", and in all honesty as poorly as some of those articles were written I know EXACTLY what they were criticizing, and it's nothing that the average gamer doesn't complain about almost hourly. We all know how toxic anonymity can make people.

I take it you haven't read through many of the "cultural criticism" pieces or really any of the pieces about this whole mess from the sites being accused of wrongdoing
Heck, many sites will go out of their way to feature any TvW video, including the one that attempts to connect context-specific violence against women within fantasy narratives to real-life IPV

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm approaching it from the perspective of accuracy and being informative. It's blatantly incorrect to assert that the game has failed in terms of its intended goal and much of the review reads like a blogpost. If we look at this from a business perspective, this is a writer that can, and honestly should, be a reason for losing readers. If it was "I feel the game is too harsh" then that would be an acceptable opinion of the game overall. However the game is simultaneously too harsh and yet somehow not accurate enough.

I found it generically informative. In terms of the reviewer's spin, it seemed evident he found the game's "moral tone" to be deplorable, and had a hard time reconciling his distaste for it with the otherwise competent game play. So his final "reviewer's spin" was a 6.5...not a terrible score by any means, if one is employing the entire scale, and one that denotes a measure of ambivalence.

Now, I personally find the reviewer's objections to the game's obvious satirical tone to be wearisome, and would likely disregard them off-hand. It certainly wouldn't be the only review I read if interested in the game...but then I never read only one review.

Sure, but it's a question of who gives those reviews a platform. I can write a review on these forums for the last 3 games I played. I can be as honest as you'd like, but I wont get paid for it and my reviews wont be on the front page of a site that is attempting to court a large general audience. These sites are perfectly welcome to continue to squander their opportunity to keep these readers, but I've watched companies with this attitude fail before.

Generally I work off the assumption that these people know their business model, have better tools than I do to analyze their readership, and thus make informed decisions about what kind of content they want to show. It's certainly not impossible to imagine they're bunglers who have no idea what they're doing, but that is really their lookout. There is a panoply of options out there for me to get information from. If one website keeps botching its articles I just won't read it. The amount of skin missing from my nose is infinitely minute.

I think that the type and level of interactivity should be discernible from a review. I also feel that software like Dear Esther ought to have its own category or tag so that people looking for that kind of experience can find it more easily, and those who don't care for it don't accidentally wander into a poor purchasing decision or waste their time combing through a review only to find out that it's not the type of experience they want. This isn't the only instance where I find this beneficial; the broad category that "action RPG" seems to take up is similarly irritating.

Oh this, we concur entirely. I'm also increasingly more agitated by "Game of the Year" awards. How does one rank a game like, say, Planescape Torment against a game like Jagged Alliance 2? I realize at the end of the day it's a meaningless designation but readers tend to get very frothy about this sort of thing. And yeah, a distinct sub-genre of "Narrative heavy, interaction-light" experiences would be most welcome. I mean, the genre already exists. We just don't have a clever name for it yet.

Gone Home is actually a really good example of the phenomenon I've mentioned in action. A game that started as an Amnesia mod set in an empty house at night? Some people who bought the game and promote it even admit not knowing what the game was initially, and some of them felt it added to the experience. For someone not looking for the type of game Gone Home is, and instead the kind it initially may appear to be, however, it's probably pretty disappointing/frustrating. What's also noteworthy is that for a game based on some sort of twist or mystery or even a particular mood, less information will often add to the experience.

Gone Home is a curious phenomenon. As you say, it's a game that relies at least in part of subversion of expectations to hit its mark, yet at the same time you could charge the developer with misleading marketing. At the end of the day I think it would have produced a lot less ire if they'd just priced it more reasonably. $20 for what was functionally a two hour game was extortionate.

This is a pretty gross oversimplification of what's going on right now, as well as not actually being related to what I said

I'll leave the GG commentary out of this, that's my bad.

I take it you haven't read through many of the "cultural criticism" pieces or really any of the pieces about this whole mess from the sites being accused of wrongdoing.

Heck, many sites will go out of their way to feature any TvW video, including the one that attempts to connect context-specific violence against women within fantasy narratives to real-life IPV

By all means, if there's a piece you feel is particularly inflammatory I'll gladly look at it. Generally speaking, there are only so many hours in the day, and I don't allot much if any of it to reading cultural analysis on gaming websites. It is ABUNDANTLY likely I've overlooked polarizing pieces. Hell I didn't even know who Leigh Alexander WAS before this started.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Just realized I neglected two bits in the prevous post. I'll add them here

Oh I disagree with that ENTIRELY. If there were only a single polarized perspective in gaming reviews we'd see it widely reflected in scores. I've heard a lot lately about "Bayonetta 2" and how it was skewered by an unfair review. It's got a 91 for the WiiU and 90 for the XBOX 360. 83 positive and 3 mixed reviews for the latter. 51 positive and 2 mixed for the former. Skullgirls got an 83 on PC...higher than the user score for the same game. Of the six critical reviews listed, all were positive.

I thought we were looking past review scores
I will say as far as scores and averages goes, the very noticeable disparity between reviewer scores and user scores that seems to be across the vast majority of the board feels very telling. It's also refreshing to see user scored products actually running across the whole score range, even if I don't always agree with the scores given

Mind you, I might be disagreeing on what the one perspective is. If the one perspective is "puff reviews for games that constantly highlight their strengths and wave away their weaknesses" you might be right. But when someone DOES highlight a weakness in a popular game, they tend to get pilloried for it.

This *is* actually more along the lines of what I meant, but additionally there is a particular perspective (some would call it Feminist, but I find that as helpful as calling something "Leftist". Great job, its a thing in a spectrum of things!) and narrative that is being pushed on Kotaku, RPS, Gamasutra and Polygon, amongst others. You may agree with this perspective, to any varying degree, but the fact is that there isn't a lot of variation, and the few instances of variation tend to get shouted down

I found it generically informative. In terms of the reviewer's spin, it seemed evident he found the game's "moral tone" to be deplorable, and had a hard time reconciling his distaste for it with the otherwise competent game play. So his final "reviewer's spin" was a 6.5...not a terrible score by any means, if one is employing the entire scale, and one that denotes a measure of ambivalence.

I would consider "if one is employing the entire scale" to be dismissive of context. While I think the whole scale ought to be used, as it stands basically anything below a 7-7.5 is a "don't bother purchasing" score, and anything below an 8 suggests a noticable quality hit. I would suggest that if the reviewer finds material difficult to a degree where they cannot prevent the review from becoming about themselves rather than the game, that they pass it off to someone who can.

Now, I personally find the reviewer's objections to the game's obvious satirical tone to be wearisome, and would likely disregard them off-hand. It certainly wouldn't be the only review I read if interested in the game...but then I never read only one review.

Nor do I, but not everyone can prioritize reading through reviews until they hit one that tells them, with some level of expertise beyond their own, what the game is. Luckily there were a few for Tropico 5, both from newcomers to the series and from people who have played at least one of the previous titles. This does not, however, make the Polygon review more informative for a general consumerbase

Generally I work off the assumption that these people know their business model, have better tools than I do to analyze their readership, and thus make informed decisions about what kind of content they want to show. It's certainly not impossible to imagine they're bunglers who have no idea what they're doing, but that is really their lookout. There is a panoply of options out there for me to get information from. If one website keeps botching its articles I just won't read it. The amount of skin missing from my nose is infinitely minute.

I think in more than a few cases, the business model involves clickbaiting. If you make anger a commodity, it's pretty much guaranteed that it will backfire at some point. Now that people are armed with tools that level that paying field (that I wont list due to site rules), it'll be interesting to see how long that method remains successful.

Oh this, we concur entirely. I'm also increasingly more agitated by "Game of the Year" awards. How does one rank a game like, say, Planescape Torment against a game like Jagged Alliance 2? I realize at the end of the day it's a meaningless designation but readers tend to get very frothy about this sort of thing. And yeah, a distinct sub-genre of "Narrative heavy, interaction-light" experiences would be most welcome. I mean, the genre already exists. We just don't have a clever name for it yet.

I've seen "Interactive Narrative' suggested a few times, which feels a bit "Visual Novel" in the way that it describes the whole experience. Until then I'll just keep an eye out for the "Walking Simulator" tag on steam

Gone Home is a curious phenomenon. As you say, it's a game that relies at least in part of subversion of expectations to hit its mark, yet at the same time you could charge the developer with misleading marketing. At the end of the day I think it would have produced a lot less ire if they'd just priced it more reasonably. $20 for what was functionally a two hour game was extortionate.

I definitely think the price point was a factor, but I suspect the sheer amount of praise for a game that appears to have burned a decent number of people is probably why ranting about it is still "a thing". That Dominique Pampelmousse game gets a decent amount of flack too, but it gets mocked more than it gets lengthy essays written about it mostly because it's pretty obvious what the game is supposed to be

By all means, if there's a piece you feel is particularly inflammatory I'll gladly look at it. Generally speaking, there are only so many hours in the day, and I don't allot much if any of it to reading cultural analysis on gaming websites. It is ABUNDANTLY likely I've overlooked polarizing pieces. Hell I didn't even know who Leigh Alexander WAS before this started.

I'll have to look through them again. There's been some that are definitely blog posts (featured on platforms like Gamasutra, but blog posts nonetheless) like one that is basically a guy complaining about competition, but on a number of these sites there was, until recently, no distinguishing factor between opinion pieces and news by virtue of the site layout and lack of appropriate labelling.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I will say as far as scores and averages goes, the very noticeable disparity between reviewer scores and user scores that seems to be across the vast majority of the board feels very telling. It's also refreshing to see user scored products actually running across the whole score range, even if I don't always agree with the scores given

As much as I have grown wary of "official" scores, user scores are just useless jungle noises. The volume of 10/10 and 1/10 alone would be evidence that something was wrong. That most turn up the day the game hits the market is just icing on the cake. We talk about "professionals" being unable to divorce their bias from their review...users are functionally worthless at it. You have to mine really hard to find jewels amongst the turd. But, as I said, even score bombers and plumpers can have SOME value. Someone reading day one score bombing of, say, SimCity, would at least get informed as to some of the design elements that inflamed the audience, if not having any actual idea how they impacted game play.

This *is* actually more along the lines of what I meant, but additionally there is a particular perspective (some would call it Feminist, but I find that as helpful as calling something "Leftist". Great job, its a thing in a spectrum of things!) and narrative that is being pushed on Kotaku, RPS, Gamasutra and Polygon, amongst others. You may agree with this perspective, to any varying degree, but the fact is that there isn't a lot of variation, and the few instances of variation tend to get shouted down.

I will tentatively say "that's fair" (although you know I don't believe "Feminism" to follow any particular political doctrine) whilst at the same time say "You have identified a gap in the marketplace and a potential opportunity". Gamer Gate could easily put some time and energy into starting their own website. With hookers, and blackjack. Unlike the calls for game critics to "make their own games", running a website and writing copy is a significantly less taxing and skill-specific endeavor. Indeed, depending on how ambitious one wanted to be, it could be argued that "anyone could do it".

I would consider "if one is employing the entire scale" to be dismissive of context. While I think the whole scale ought to be used, as it stands basically anything below a 7-7.5 is a "don't bother purchasing" score, and anything below an 8 suggests a noticable quality hit. I would suggest that if the reviewer finds material difficult to a degree where they cannot prevent the review from becoming about themselves rather than the game, that they pass it off to someone who can.

I *do* feel that the review was about the game, though. You can argue it was overly focused on one element, but it was an element that stood out to THAT reviewer. A bad score can't be viewed as wrong, even if it becomes an outlier or runs against common sentiment. A game's tone is still very relevant to the experience of playing it, and if a reviewer hated it I want them to be honest with me about that.

Nor do I, but not everyone can prioritize reading through reviews until they hit one that tells them, with some level of expertise beyond their own, what the game is. Luckily there were a few for Tropico 5, both from newcomers to the series and from people who have played at least one of the previous titles. This does not, however, make the Polygon review more informative for a general consumerbase.

My major issue with that review was how short it was, really. I've generally started moving away from written reviews to Let's Plays and demonstrations for the specific reason that review length tends to be truncated and the amount of information available tends to be a bit short-changed as a result. It's possible I'm slowly turning into a reader who would PREFER a biased view of a game just because it gives me an article I consider worth reading, and a viewpoint I couldn't get from just watching the game in action.

I think in more than a few cases, the business model involves clickbaiting.

On that, I agree.

If you make anger a commodity, it's pretty much guaranteed that it will backfire at some point. Now that people are armed with tools that level that paying field (that I wont list due to site rules), it'll be interesting to see how long that method remains successful.

Game criticism has been migrating from written form to YouTube and Twitch and their like for a while now. I expect that migration to continue.

I've seen "Interactive Narrative' suggested a few times, which feels a bit "Visual Novel" in the way that it describes the whole experience. Until then I'll just keep an eye out for the "Walking Simulator" tag on steam

But then how do you distinguish between Skyrim and Dear Esther?!

I kid. I kid the Skyrim.

I definitely think the price point was a factor, but I suspect the sheer amount of praise for a game that appears to have burned a decent number of people is probably why ranting about it is still "a thing". That Dominique Pampelmousse game gets a decent amount of flack too, but it gets mocked more than it gets lengthy essays written about it mostly because it's pretty obvious what the game is supposed to be

It's a pity, because I'm of the mind that the industry needs more "Gone Homes". Not more games about lesbians running away from home, per se, but more games straining at the calcified notions of what "games" are supposed to be. They won't all be winners but the medium will only grow through experimentation.

I'll have to look through them again. There's been some that are definitely blog posts (featured on platforms like Gamasutra, but blog posts nonetheless) like one that is basically a guy complaining about competition, but on a number of these sites there was, until recently, no distinguishing factor between opinion pieces and news by virtue of the site layout and lack of appropriate labelling.

Part of the growing pains when a hobbyist press wants to put on the Big Boy pants and participate in Serious Journalism, I guess.

 

[Schadrach]

An objective review would be a statement of fact-- it would scarcely qualify as a review at all.

It's the difference between "The writing is awful, whoever wrote it has no idea how english-speaking human beings actually speak to eachother, the translation made me cringe." and "The dialogue offended me and did not fit with my world view, therefore I'm going to mark it down."

Neither of those are objective.

It's the difference between "Whoever designed this character was a clown, seriously learn what colours compliment eachother and try again." and "Skimpy outfits, you say? Unnaceptable."

Nor either of those.

It's the difference between "They failed to give the main character one thing a character should have and that is character." and "I don't like the main character being a straight white male."

Nor these.

In fact, none of those you mentioned were objective. The actual difference is that some of those you mentioned contained criticisms you deem valid, and others don't... but your own criteria, by which you judge that, are also subjective.

(Not to mention the last example I quoted was, of course, a strawman).

I think what he or she is getting at is that some of those things are criticisms of the quality of the game itself as a work within the medium, and others are criticisms of the game not aligning exactly with your personal politics.

Like the people who get violently angry with you when you suggest that fanservice in anime is mostly quality neutral (that is that fanservice neither makes a good series worse nor a bad series better) unless it's poorly performed or performed to extreme excess (which are themselves separate things).

 

[Silvanus]

I think what he or she is getting at is that some of those things are criticisms of the quality of the game itself as a work within the medium, and others are criticisms of the game not aligning exactly with your personal politics.

Like the people who get violently angry with you when you suggest that fanservice in anime is mostly quality neutral (that is that fanservice neither makes a good series worse nor a bad series better) unless it's poorly performed or performed to extreme excess (which are themselves separate things).

I do understand this perspective, but it's nothing to do with objectivity.

It's also an arbitrary line drawn between what can be criticised and what can't. Fanservice, politics, narrative-- they're present in games, and they affect the experience for a lot of people.

 

[Wasted]

The only way to make a true objective video game review is one that includes clear numbers. So I imagine a world with objective reviews will only focus on resolution, frame rate, texture quality, etc.

Anything else like themes, gameplay, story, art-style, etc. are subjective opinions.

So this recent call for reviews to be only objective essentially want them to review games the same way people review cars.