The problems with the supposedly "unbiased" review
- Thread starter Kerethos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I did some reviewing recently and hated it, turned me off of games and writing at the same time. Doing 2 reviews to a professional websites style guide made me hate mankind. It severely limited the type of criticism I could give by censoring any mention of a person and their work on a particular project, which is madness. Then in the interest of creating a professional image style guide demanded that no use of the first person perspective to describe actions in the gameworld, meaning that actual experiences that happened to me and the things that I felt whilst playing had to be placed into the third person so what "I found [x] was [y]" would become the actions of a hypothetical third person in this example "Eagle-eyed players might find [x] to be [y]" which is fine just once or twice but by the end of the article I had invented about 10 different gaming characters to fill my shoes and it just seemed silly.
The major problem I had was their scoring system, it was literally a checklist of things, I wasn't rating a product or my experience with it, I was marking an exam paper, how much of making a game has this company achieved/10.
I have actually designed a review system that I think is balanced and fair, if there is demand for an example I will do one and if people like it I might start writing reviews again.
The major problem I had was their scoring system, it was literally a checklist of things, I wasn't rating a product or my experience with it, I was marking an exam paper, how much of making a game has this company achieved/10.
I have actually designed a review system that I think is balanced and fair, if there is demand for an example I will do one and if people like it I might start writing reviews again.
What can i say? Most reviewers lack my experience of gaming so why would i even care what their opinion of a game is? My friends give me far better reviews because they know what grabs my attention, what aspects of games i like and what things break the mold for me. I see reviews as advertising (something i despise) and treat them as such...
I would have absolutely no problem with people inserting whatever politics they want into a review if there wasn't for Metacritic. For instance, if you give the game a low score because the main character does not have enough clothes, that affects the Metacritic score, and that then affects how (some) companies will make games. Thus, their personal politics will get reflected in how games get made. It's difficult to assess how much effect these things have in the long run, as it would require a serious study, but my opinion is that there is enough to worry about it. The flood of calls for "objectivity" in reviews reflects the same anxiety.
To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with anyone having any opinion, if it wasn't for it affecting review scores. Which is why when RPS does it, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother me when Polygon does it.
For the record, I don't think there is an objective truth here, either way, it's that my biases don't correspond with their biases, and that is a source of conflict. If, for instance, a certain group of journalists decides that having the "right message" rather than fun is what games should be about, or that everyone who plays games primarily for escapism and doesn't care for deeper meaning is a basement-dwelling consumerist zombie with a mushroom hat, gamers that don't agree would be likely to backlash.
To clarify, I wouldn't have a problem with anyone having any opinion, if it wasn't for it affecting review scores. Which is why when RPS does it, it doesn't bother me, but it does bother me when Polygon does it.
For the record, I don't think there is an objective truth here, either way, it's that my biases don't correspond with their biases, and that is a source of conflict. If, for instance, a certain group of journalists decides that having the "right message" rather than fun is what games should be about, or that everyone who plays games primarily for escapism and doesn't care for deeper meaning is a basement-dwelling consumerist zombie with a mushroom hat, gamers that don't agree would be likely to backlash.
I certainly understand what the OP is saying here. I've read a review from a site that completely loved the game for what it was, but took off an insane amount of points because "they" felt the game was over-sexualized.
Something being over-sexualized is an ideology, and ideology doesn't belong in a objective review. If Fidel Castro makes you a sandwich and you loved everything about that sandwich, you wouldn't remove points because Fidel Castro made the sandwich. Who made the sandwich is irrelevant to its taste. If a game features a ton of swear words and you have virgin ears, then removing points because there's too many swear words is a reviewer cramming their own ideology down the throat of gamers.
A review should be based on a number of criteria:
Graphics - Are the graphics good compared to other games of that system?
Sound/Immersion - Are you immersed in the world presented to you? How's the environment? How's the music/voice acting/sound effects?
Controls - Are the controls too clunky or are they buttery smooth?
Gameplay - Are you enjoying yourself (key factor here).
Replayability - Does the game hold your attention enough for you to want to play it again?
That's really all gamers want to know. You think the game is sexist? Write an opinion piece about it. You think there's too much swearing? Talk about it in another medium. You think there's too much violence in the game? Take it elsewhere.
I don't think that a review should be a buyer's guide anyway. Reviews should be critiques that start the discussion of the game and help generate buzz for it. If I hear buzz about a game, I'll check it out. If it sounds interesting, I'll buy it. When the same things are said over and over again, it kills buzz. It makes a game sound uninteresting. I want reviewers to go off on tangents and ramble about some minor detail that changed the game for them. Hell, I even invite reviewers with close ties to the developer to talk about the game, as long as they disclose that connection. Talk at length about how your connection to the game has colored your perception, I want to have more food for thought.
Reviewers are afraid to actually critique a game because readers expect the numerical score to be unbiased or objective, so nothing of value gets said about the game. Even if I do try out a game that has been made to sound less interesting than it is, I won't find as much value in it on my own as I would have if I could participate in thoughtful discussions about the game. Reviews that try to be 'objective' suck. If a game blatantly just isn't as functional as it should be, that will still come across in a proper review.
In my opinion, Zero Punctuation is actually one of the few genuinely good review shows--I don't just watch it because I think Yahtzee's funny. He talks at length about how the game fits in to the bigger picture and his personal experiences with it, and I really appreciate that.
Reviewers are afraid to actually critique a game because readers expect the numerical score to be unbiased or objective, so nothing of value gets said about the game. Even if I do try out a game that has been made to sound less interesting than it is, I won't find as much value in it on my own as I would have if I could participate in thoughtful discussions about the game. Reviews that try to be 'objective' suck. If a game blatantly just isn't as functional as it should be, that will still come across in a proper review.
In my opinion, Zero Punctuation is actually one of the few genuinely good review shows--I don't just watch it because I think Yahtzee's funny. He talks at length about how the game fits in to the bigger picture and his personal experiences with it, and I really appreciate that.
This is a problem with metacritic and publisher practices though, is it really ok to try and eliminate views and scores because an outside force has decided a review aggregator should be a basis for handing out bonuses.mmiki said:
Not to mention, that comes across as a mostly presumptive argument, as Metacritic weights scores from places like IGN heavier than scores from Polygon or other smaller sites anyway, so the chances that a game getting a low score due to a reviewer having an ideological bent having enough effect to screw a developer out of a contract bonus is astronomically low, we would have to start seeing a lot more sites than just Polygon and kotaku reviewing games that way for it to happen.
The weight given to metacritic isn't even a universal thing amongst publishers anyway, the most famous examples I can think of were New Vegas and the stipulation for Destiny, and both those games missed their target scores for completely mechanical reasons, because it takes a lot more than one or two sites knocking off points for sexualization or whatnot to throw off an entire metacritic score, and if a game was so close to the line that a single Polygon review would push it over, then the game would have to have more issues than just too much sexualization.
BigTuk said:
But I've never really view reviews as being descriptions of what games are. You can certainly give your opinion on graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability and etc. without sounding boring, don't you agree?
QuintonMcLeod said:
Yes and no, while you can make a review interesting that way, it is not all I want out of a review, and without an analysis of story or content, even if I disagree with the reviewer, I am going to find the reviewer that touches on a more comprehensive evaluation over simply gameplay and replayability to be the reviewer who will be getting more views from me in the future.
I cannot believe this goes three pages. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" or objective review. The very concept of it is absurd, and has been spoofed effectively in the past.
Reviews will exist somewhere along a scale of relatively impartial to highly personalized. The former is likely to be relevant to a large number of people whilst at the same time not being particularly useful...of necessity it will be highly generic. The latter will be relevant to a small number of people, but for those to whom it is relevant it will be highly useful, as it will reflect their tastes.
All reviews, no matter how partial or biased, have a right to exist.
If a review aggregate site like Metacritic is including "biased" reviews in their score, as they clearly do, and that effects bonuses or what not, as has been the case a couple of times, the responsibility for that lies on the publisher who tied financial recompense to something as ephemeral as a metacritic score. If you want to protest, complain to the publisher. If you want to get your activist hat on, boycott their games and let them know why.
Don't seek to REMOVE THE REVIEWS.
Reviews will exist somewhere along a scale of relatively impartial to highly personalized. The former is likely to be relevant to a large number of people whilst at the same time not being particularly useful...of necessity it will be highly generic. The latter will be relevant to a small number of people, but for those to whom it is relevant it will be highly useful, as it will reflect their tastes.
All reviews, no matter how partial or biased, have a right to exist.
If a review aggregate site like Metacritic is including "biased" reviews in their score, as they clearly do, and that effects bonuses or what not, as has been the case a couple of times, the responsibility for that lies on the publisher who tied financial recompense to something as ephemeral as a metacritic score. If you want to protest, complain to the publisher. If you want to get your activist hat on, boycott their games and let them know why.
Don't seek to REMOVE THE REVIEWS.
EternallyBored said:
I think you and I agree a lot more than we may both think. What are your opinion's on Polygon's Bayonetta 2 review?
Wich would mean that elements such as a games plot, aestethic direction, characters, the overall gameplay style or genre (some people hate rts´s others dislike 1v1 fighters and you realy can´t expect one person to be equally well versed in all of them), level design and literally anything outside of it´s controlls and possible bugs are of limits in an objective review. Trying to make an "objectively" good game is just about as impossible as making an "objectively" good movie, book, etc.. Also what would constitute a better game in this analogy? If every game is just a sudoku puzzle and can be considered good if it´s solveable, then that would mean all games are equally as good as long as they´re functional. In that case why need a review at all? Why don´t we just put a small thumbs up or down below the games title for objectively good and bad games?KazuhiraMiller said:
Lastly, games are an artistic medium, all forms criticism are allowed in artistic media. Books, movies, songs, statues and paintings are all susceptible to criticism from ethical, social or idiological standpoints and games don´t get a free pass.
This [http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml] is an objective review, as is this [http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/battlefield-4-review/] and that entire website. The fact that you are "giving opinion" is the opposite of "objective". Objectivity is giving straight facts, so literally it would be a description of the game...and therefore, not a review. You seem to be arguing that people can do objective analysis by giving opinions, which is a paradox.QuintonMcLeod said: