surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I absolutely agree. I see no point on flaming the journalist for a review, as the review is based on the person's opinion. I have been angry at times, but I've never insulted the writer for the review. Everyone has different opinions.
Nice blog :)
Nice blog :)
It's not really about not bashing on a reviewer. However, bashing on one saying they have no integrity or merit is another thing though. It's more along the lines of people looking at Game Reviewers (Or Columnists) as Journalists, they are two very different things. I dunno, I was bored while cooking Fajitas and felt like writing a bit.
To an extent I agree with you, though I don't agree that there are "no facts to check" when writing an opinion piece - opinions mean absolutely nothing if they don't have at least SOME basis in tangible facts, i.e. if you're going to express a point of view to a sizable audience you'd better be able to explain WHY you feel the way you do about something in a manner they can all understand. They might not agree with you, but they can at least see where you're coming from, and widen their own viewpoint a little in the process.
To use the newspapers you mention as an example, many highly-regarded Op-Ed columnists in recent years have completely abdicated their responsibility to build a solid foundation for their thoughts, or even do basic research - one notable sampling is the oft-repeated "Al Gore said he invented the internet" meme from Campaign 2000, which was completely false, but it made for easy snark, so columnists repeated it over and over again, and some STILL do it today. Yes, they're paid to be opinionated, but they're also paid to be well-informed, to make their opinions worth reading: once the latter part of the equation is discarded, they're no more an asset to the overall discourse than the lazy, screaming shut-ins polluting the blogosphere.
Granted, covering politics is very different from covering video games, but in both cases there is a standard of quality to be met, whether you're a journalist or a columnist.
To use the newspapers you mention as an example, many highly-regarded Op-Ed columnists in recent years have completely abdicated their responsibility to build a solid foundation for their thoughts, or even do basic research - one notable sampling is the oft-repeated "Al Gore said he invented the internet" meme from Campaign 2000, which was completely false, but it made for easy snark, so columnists repeated it over and over again, and some STILL do it today. Yes, they're paid to be opinionated, but they're also paid to be well-informed, to make their opinions worth reading: once the latter part of the equation is discarded, they're no more an asset to the overall discourse than the lazy, screaming shut-ins polluting the blogosphere.
Granted, covering politics is very different from covering video games, but in both cases there is a standard of quality to be met, whether you're a journalist or a columnist.
Check facts on opinions.
Ok, lets try this out.
Modern Warfare 2 was absolute Garbage, FACT! Reason, because it was rushed rubbish that just made a massive Deathmatch game. total opinion.
MAG was a better game until Zipper started turning it into Modern Warfare, FACT! Reason, we have a lot of over powered knifing like in MW. total opinion.
There are no facts to check on opinions, because they are simply that opinions. That's all they will ever be, is simply opinions, and the only reasoning I really need is because that's the way I feel about it. It's not as black and white as you're attempting to make it. There isn't a fine line between objective reporting and opinionated writing; the line is extremely bold.
If there is a quality of standard to be met, who sets the standard on someone elses opinion? The only way to be factual on an opinion on a video game, is for the reviewer to have just played the game.
Ok, lets try this out.
Modern Warfare 2 was absolute Garbage, FACT! Reason, because it was rushed rubbish that just made a massive Deathmatch game. total opinion.
MAG was a better game until Zipper started turning it into Modern Warfare, FACT! Reason, we have a lot of over powered knifing like in MW. total opinion.
There are no facts to check on opinions, because they are simply that opinions. That's all they will ever be, is simply opinions, and the only reasoning I really need is because that's the way I feel about it. It's not as black and white as you're attempting to make it. There isn't a fine line between objective reporting and opinionated writing; the line is extremely bold.
If there is a quality of standard to be met, who sets the standard on someone elses opinion? The only way to be factual on an opinion on a video game, is for the reviewer to have just played the game.
First off, sorry for the length of this comment. Great blog by the way, it's an interesting topic.
I can't quote anything on this but I always thought the difference between journalists and columnists was a level of professionalism - not just in manner but also in rational coherency. The former is much more obvious when it comes to plain old reporting. On the other hand it's less important to an author intending as a columnist. In other words, a columnist or an opinion-writer need not necessarily be professional to grant their piece any merit. That's where coherency comes into play.
Like BulletMagnet said (I think), it's all down to verbalized reasoning. If my written opinion is clear and understandable, the reader can grasp why my judgement is the way it is. That's the purpose of an opinion piece - to express. The critical strength of an opinion piece depends on how adequately communicative the opinion is of the topic, and not of the author. Can't stress enough how the difference is important.
Unfortunately a lot of people have decided to equate subjectivity with inexplicability, making the content of the opinion piece about the author and turning the author into an obstacle to the actual game. Problem is when you decide that on subjectivity, you're essentially impeding from the outset proper critical dialogue and conversation on the topic. (Consider that thought with regards political opinion and compromise.)
I'll give you that you can't check facts of your opinion but what you can do is check your reasons. That's just as good. Except for flat out personal taste, an author ought to have intelligible reasons for his critical judgements. If he does, let's hear them. If he doesn't, his opinion has no critical weight. When a readership say they want journalistic integrity or critical integrity or whatever integrity, they're saying they want this responsibility of authorship. They want to know what they're reading isn't just some cooked up bullshit, be it reporting or critiquing.
I can't quote anything on this but I always thought the difference between journalists and columnists was a level of professionalism - not just in manner but also in rational coherency. The former is much more obvious when it comes to plain old reporting. On the other hand it's less important to an author intending as a columnist. In other words, a columnist or an opinion-writer need not necessarily be professional to grant their piece any merit. That's where coherency comes into play.
Like BulletMagnet said (I think), it's all down to verbalized reasoning. If my written opinion is clear and understandable, the reader can grasp why my judgement is the way it is. That's the purpose of an opinion piece - to express. The critical strength of an opinion piece depends on how adequately communicative the opinion is of the topic, and not of the author. Can't stress enough how the difference is important.
Unfortunately a lot of people have decided to equate subjectivity with inexplicability, making the content of the opinion piece about the author and turning the author into an obstacle to the actual game. Problem is when you decide that on subjectivity, you're essentially impeding from the outset proper critical dialogue and conversation on the topic. (Consider that thought with regards political opinion and compromise.)
I'll give you that you can't check facts of your opinion but what you can do is check your reasons. That's just as good. Except for flat out personal taste, an author ought to have intelligible reasons for his critical judgements. If he does, let's hear them. If he doesn't, his opinion has no critical weight. When a readership say they want journalistic integrity or critical integrity or whatever integrity, they're saying they want this responsibility of authorship. They want to know what they're reading isn't just some cooked up bullshit, be it reporting or critiquing.
Byro got into some of what I was saying, but to boil it down, this is what I meant: what separates a worthwhile "columnist" from every other attention-seeking shrieker out there is how much thought and research has gone into the opinions they write down. Noteworthy critics and reviewers for movies/TV/books/etc., despite penning "opinions", are familiar with the overall medium as well as any source material behind the product they're opining on - moreover, they don't simply pull their opinions out of thin air, but stick to a highly analytical process of breaking down and comparing various aspects of the subject matter, eventually arriving at an opinion rather than simply having one.
If a columnist presents an opinion which obviously doesn't reflect the reality in front of him, people write letters to the editor demanding a correction or retraction. Columnists have lost their jobs, or at least the respect of their readers, because they didn't put in enough work to ensure that their opinions, despite being opinions, were as factually sound as possible. Gamers who think their opinion is worth something ought to be held to the same standard - again, readers don't have to agree with what's written, but they DO need to be able to say, for example, "okay, I can acknowledge that point, even if I wouldn't have assigned it the same weight". Once again, opinions are worth nothing if you can't explain WHY you feel the way you do, and this is only possible if you're working with factual information.
If a columnist presents an opinion which obviously doesn't reflect the reality in front of him, people write letters to the editor demanding a correction or retraction. Columnists have lost their jobs, or at least the respect of their readers, because they didn't put in enough work to ensure that their opinions, despite being opinions, were as factually sound as possible. Gamers who think their opinion is worth something ought to be held to the same standard - again, readers don't have to agree with what's written, but they DO need to be able to say, for example, "okay, I can acknowledge that point, even if I wouldn't have assigned it the same weight". Once again, opinions are worth nothing if you can't explain WHY you feel the way you do, and this is only possible if you're working with factual information.
