surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I think you and Jim are making yourselves look like idiots. My idea of an objective review isn't one that offers no insight, but one that a reviewer makes without having any preconceived notions of a game prior to writing the review.
For example, one who does not like RTS games should not write a review on RTS games, because they already have a bias, whatever the reason may be, against RTS games.
It's my opinion that a writer writes reviews not to simply express his own opinion on the game, but to help their audience get a solid grasp of what the game has to offer and an opinion on whether that audience may reasonably enjoy the product or not.
Bias =/= opinion. Bias is similar to predjudice. Bias is giving Xbox 360 games high marks and PS3 games low marks just because you prefer 360 games. I don't accuse Jim of Bias, but I think he also has a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word just like everyone else who tends to throw the word around.
100% unbiased reviews are possible without being retarded as above. In fact, every reviewer should attempt to write as fair a review as possible putting aside all of their own preconceived preferences prior to doing so.
For example, one who does not like RTS games should not write a review on RTS games, because they already have a bias, whatever the reason may be, against RTS games.
It's my opinion that a writer writes reviews not to simply express his own opinion on the game, but to help their audience get a solid grasp of what the game has to offer and an opinion on whether that audience may reasonably enjoy the product or not.
Bias =/= opinion. Bias is similar to predjudice. Bias is giving Xbox 360 games high marks and PS3 games low marks just because you prefer 360 games. I don't accuse Jim of Bias, but I think he also has a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word just like everyone else who tends to throw the word around.
100% unbiased reviews are possible without being retarded as above. In fact, every reviewer should attempt to write as fair a review as possible putting aside all of their own preconceived preferences prior to doing so.
What you're talking about is nonsense.
The only part of any type of review that can be 100% unbiased is the technical specifications. Is this book well written. Is this movie well edited? Does the video game have great polish?
Those are the only objective elements. A game can have bad graphics, or it can have shitty graphics. When you talk about art direction, it becomes more subjective. You either like it or you don't.
A person who does not like RTS games should review an RTS game. Otherwise, how will the people who don't like RTS games find a viewpoint that resonates with them? If I'm not a big fan of the genre, and the only people who are "allowed" to review the game are people who love it, then how will I know that I won't like the game, what with all the 10s and GOTYs. Somebody who doesn't like RTS games brings a unique side to things. They may be able to list flaws that somebody else couldn't.
Also, if somebody who loved RTS games reviewed an RTS game, by definition, their review would be just as biased. The bias coin has two sides, buddy. The only way it couldn't be biased towards either end would be having a person who has never heard of an RTS and has never played one. He'd only be good for one review of course, as he'd then develop a bias towards liking the genre or not liking it. That's not counting any possible bias he might have had to it before. Maybe within two minutes of play he develops a bias against macro based play because he's more used to games like Bayonetta, with easy, fluid and responsive controls?
Seriously, kids these days.
The only part of any type of review that can be 100% unbiased is the technical specifications. Is this book well written. Is this movie well edited? Does the video game have great polish?
Those are the only objective elements. A game can have bad graphics, or it can have shitty graphics. When you talk about art direction, it becomes more subjective. You either like it or you don't.
A person who does not like RTS games should review an RTS game. Otherwise, how will the people who don't like RTS games find a viewpoint that resonates with them? If I'm not a big fan of the genre, and the only people who are "allowed" to review the game are people who love it, then how will I know that I won't like the game, what with all the 10s and GOTYs. Somebody who doesn't like RTS games brings a unique side to things. They may be able to list flaws that somebody else couldn't.
Also, if somebody who loved RTS games reviewed an RTS game, by definition, their review would be just as biased. The bias coin has two sides, buddy. The only way it couldn't be biased towards either end would be having a person who has never heard of an RTS and has never played one. He'd only be good for one review of course, as he'd then develop a bias towards liking the genre or not liking it. That's not counting any possible bias he might have had to it before. Maybe within two minutes of play he develops a bias against macro based play because he's more used to games like Bayonetta, with easy, fluid and responsive controls?
Seriously, kids these days.
@Benjaminajacobs
Chill out, man. Jim had every right to write his 100% Objective Review. I'm sure there are people who have a logical complaint to how he writes his reviews. Like your complaint, it seems somewhat coherent to me.
But for every one person with a logical complaint, there were about 100 more who shouted "zOMG BIAS" every time he says a negative thing about someone's favorite game. And those people are who the joke review was directed at.
Anyway, I don't think his reviews are bias, as he usually puts evidence behind his complaints.
Chill out, man. Jim had every right to write his 100% Objective Review. I'm sure there are people who have a logical complaint to how he writes his reviews. Like your complaint, it seems somewhat coherent to me.
But for every one person with a logical complaint, there were about 100 more who shouted "zOMG BIAS" every time he says a negative thing about someone's favorite game. And those people are who the joke review was directed at.
Anyway, I don't think his reviews are bias, as he usually puts evidence behind his complaints.
@ Gatsby
Again, you're equating Bias with Opinion. These are two clearly different things. If you bothered to read my comment and think about it rather than writing a knee jerk reactionary comment you would not have used the argument you did.
Bias is having a leaning one way or another before actually experiencing something. "I don't like First Person Shooters made by Nintendo, so when I write this review of a FPS by Nintendo I'm giving it low marks regardless of what the game is like."
@B34n
It's cool, I'm not upset by any means. I think it's sad though that Jim is obviously getting bent out of shape over what a bunch of barely literate 13 yr olds are saying about him on the internet. If he and those close to him know that he has integrity, then what does it matter what some pissant says about him on the intrawebernets?
Stop making such a big deal about it, keep writing your reviews. This retarded crap with his latest Jimquisition and 100% objective reviews are not helping anyone. All it does is make himself part of the same retarded joke all the immature runts on the internet are.
Again, you're equating Bias with Opinion. These are two clearly different things. If you bothered to read my comment and think about it rather than writing a knee jerk reactionary comment you would not have used the argument you did.
Bias is having a leaning one way or another before actually experiencing something. "I don't like First Person Shooters made by Nintendo, so when I write this review of a FPS by Nintendo I'm giving it low marks regardless of what the game is like."
@B34n
It's cool, I'm not upset by any means. I think it's sad though that Jim is obviously getting bent out of shape over what a bunch of barely literate 13 yr olds are saying about him on the internet. If he and those close to him know that he has integrity, then what does it matter what some pissant says about him on the intrawebernets?
Stop making such a big deal about it, keep writing your reviews. This retarded crap with his latest Jimquisition and 100% objective reviews are not helping anyone. All it does is make himself part of the same retarded joke all the immature runts on the internet are.
@benjaminajacobs
So you seem to have a realyl good idea of what you want from a review, and I'd like to actually understand this opinion you have.
I think anyone in a position to write reviews for games already has an opinion on the types of games that they do or do not like. Would this then mean that you want reviews of games written by people that have not played games/ do not have any development of preference on what they find favorable in games?
I'd like to understand, because I don't think what you're looking for is possible.
Also, do you have an example of this type of review? Seriously, I would like to understand your view point, as you seem to have it well worked out for yourself.
So you seem to have a realyl good idea of what you want from a review, and I'd like to actually understand this opinion you have.
I think anyone in a position to write reviews for games already has an opinion on the types of games that they do or do not like. Would this then mean that you want reviews of games written by people that have not played games/ do not have any development of preference on what they find favorable in games?
I'd like to understand, because I don't think what you're looking for is possible.
Also, do you have an example of this type of review? Seriously, I would like to understand your view point, as you seem to have it well worked out for yourself.
@Tubatic
It's impossible to be able to pick out a review that definitely fits my criteria because if the reviewer did their job with integrity it should just seem like a regular review.
In the end it comes down to the reviewers integrity. If a reviewer finds they already dread playing a certain game before putting it in the console, then more than likely they should not review it. By continuing to play the game helps no one. They don't enjoy the game and the review is going to get low scores, perhaps when it doesn't deserve it. On the other side of this, if a reviewer pops a boner whenever Final Fantasy is merely mentioned and owns all sorts of FF memorabilia, and professes themselves the ultimate FF Fanboy, it is obvious that this person can not write an unbiased review of a Final Fantasy game.
I think a review by someone who doesn't play games, as you suggest, would again offer nothing to the audience as they do not know what to look for.
A person who writes reviews should be knowledgeable of the product, but should not have any previous preferences to the type of product it is. A review should be based on what the product has to offer to the audience, not just the author's prefabricated (before playing the game) opinion of the game. You wouldn't want someone who hates waffles to write a review for a waffle restaurant.
It's impossible to be able to pick out a review that definitely fits my criteria because if the reviewer did their job with integrity it should just seem like a regular review.
In the end it comes down to the reviewers integrity. If a reviewer finds they already dread playing a certain game before putting it in the console, then more than likely they should not review it. By continuing to play the game helps no one. They don't enjoy the game and the review is going to get low scores, perhaps when it doesn't deserve it. On the other side of this, if a reviewer pops a boner whenever Final Fantasy is merely mentioned and owns all sorts of FF memorabilia, and professes themselves the ultimate FF Fanboy, it is obvious that this person can not write an unbiased review of a Final Fantasy game.
I think a review by someone who doesn't play games, as you suggest, would again offer nothing to the audience as they do not know what to look for.
A person who writes reviews should be knowledgeable of the product, but should not have any previous preferences to the type of product it is. A review should be based on what the product has to offer to the audience, not just the author's prefabricated (before playing the game) opinion of the game. You wouldn't want someone who hates waffles to write a review for a waffle restaurant.
@benjaminajacobs
Hmm, I think i understand and appreciate that. You don't want someone to have already decided they will or won't like something. I can appreciate how that changes the tone of a review.
I would wonder though: Is it then even possible to have a high scoring "10" review without being a fan of a genre/series? When I think of a review being regular/fair/evenly evaluating, the notion seems to me to be a review the fits into that average "7" range: its got bad parts, its got great parts, its not something I can herald as a marvel.
Could you link me to a "regular" review? To be fair, most of my review consumption is from Destructoid, and its certianly possible I don't know what a normal review looks like.
I'm challenging your point, which is often a dickish thing to do on the internet. But again, I want to make sure I get it/ see how it works.
Hmm, I think i understand and appreciate that. You don't want someone to have already decided they will or won't like something. I can appreciate how that changes the tone of a review.
I would wonder though: Is it then even possible to have a high scoring "10" review without being a fan of a genre/series? When I think of a review being regular/fair/evenly evaluating, the notion seems to me to be a review the fits into that average "7" range: its got bad parts, its got great parts, its not something I can herald as a marvel.
Could you link me to a "regular" review? To be fair, most of my review consumption is from Destructoid, and its certianly possible I don't know what a normal review looks like.
I'm challenging your point, which is often a dickish thing to do on the internet. But again, I want to make sure I get it/ see how it works.
@Tubatic
I think you're making it more complicated than it is. Any review on this site matches my description. As I said before, I don't question Jim's integrity. I haven't had any issues with any of the reviews on here.
A game can fairly get a 10. Again, it comes down to whether the reviewer had a preconceived notion of the product before playing it. Let's say I like FPS games, I like 3rd Person games, I like RPGs etc, but I'm not like biased to any one of those genres in particular. I don't pledge my soul to any particular genre, and I stay away from reviewing games in a genre I really don't like too much. Now along comes a game in a genre I like (I like it, but I still acknowledge that there are good games in the genre as well as bad ones). This game blows me away. After playing the game thoroughly, I find there's nothing wrong with the game, and all aspects of the game are phenomenal. If that's the case, then sure give the game a 10.
The point is the game was reviewed based on it's merits. I didn't review it based on my own personal bias. I played the game and objectively looked at the experience I had during that time. Was the game enjoyable to me? Do I think others would reasonably enjoy it? Was the game broken in any aspect? etc.
If a reviewer thinks that they have a prefabricated opinion of the game prior to playing it, then they should pass the review on to someone else. That's all this boils down to for me.
It's like say someone couldn't stand Sean Penn because of his political leanings. They go in to a Sean Penn movie and write a review that says the movie sucks no one should see it even though most people seem to think it's a good movie. Do you think that's a fair review? Do you think that review helps or hurts the people trying to find out whether it's a good movie and whether it's worth their time?
It all comes down to the reviewer's integrity. Do they think they can be unbiased and objectively point out the strengths and weaknesses of the product they are reviewing prior to playing the game? They're free to share their opinions of the game, as long as they are informed opinions based on experiences they've had with the product.
I think you're making it more complicated than it is. Any review on this site matches my description. As I said before, I don't question Jim's integrity. I haven't had any issues with any of the reviews on here.
A game can fairly get a 10. Again, it comes down to whether the reviewer had a preconceived notion of the product before playing it. Let's say I like FPS games, I like 3rd Person games, I like RPGs etc, but I'm not like biased to any one of those genres in particular. I don't pledge my soul to any particular genre, and I stay away from reviewing games in a genre I really don't like too much. Now along comes a game in a genre I like (I like it, but I still acknowledge that there are good games in the genre as well as bad ones). This game blows me away. After playing the game thoroughly, I find there's nothing wrong with the game, and all aspects of the game are phenomenal. If that's the case, then sure give the game a 10.
The point is the game was reviewed based on it's merits. I didn't review it based on my own personal bias. I played the game and objectively looked at the experience I had during that time. Was the game enjoyable to me? Do I think others would reasonably enjoy it? Was the game broken in any aspect? etc.
If a reviewer thinks that they have a prefabricated opinion of the game prior to playing it, then they should pass the review on to someone else. That's all this boils down to for me.
It's like say someone couldn't stand Sean Penn because of his political leanings. They go in to a Sean Penn movie and write a review that says the movie sucks no one should see it even though most people seem to think it's a good movie. Do you think that's a fair review? Do you think that review helps or hurts the people trying to find out whether it's a good movie and whether it's worth their time?
It all comes down to the reviewer's integrity. Do they think they can be unbiased and objectively point out the strengths and weaknesses of the product they are reviewing prior to playing the game? They're free to share their opinions of the game, as long as they are informed opinions based on experiences they've had with the product.
I would wonder though: Is it then even possible to have a high scoring "10" review without being a fan of a genre/series? When I think of a review being regular/fair/evenly evaluating, the notion seems to me to be a review the fits into that average "7" range: its got bad parts, its got great parts, its not something I can herald as a marvel.
This is the very reason why I don't even fucking look at scores any more, and why I use grades instead when I review.
An F should be seen/played by no one. An A+ should be seen/played by everyone, regardless of who made it, regardless of my preferences.
Anything more convoluted than that is just text and fury signifying bullshit.
How is something going to be "average" at a 7.0, when it would make more sense for it to be 5.0? Shouldn't that better convey it being a mediocre game? And how does Metacritic weigh all this shit? Nevermind, I've never bothered looking at metacritic and I'm not going to start.
This is the very reason why I don't even fucking look at scores any more, and why I use grades instead when I review.
An F should be seen/played by no one. An A+ should be seen/played by everyone, regardless of who made it, regardless of my preferences.
Anything more convoluted than that is just text and fury signifying bullshit.
How is something going to be "average" at a 7.0, when it would make more sense for it to be 5.0? Shouldn't that better convey it being a mediocre game? And how does Metacritic weigh all this shit? Nevermind, I've never bothered looking at metacritic and I'm not going to start.
@Nihil
I agree that the standard 1-10 scoring system with 7 being average and 10 being high is broken. However, any scoring system has it's flaws, even an F-A one. Games come in such a variety with many different genres, many different purposes and many different experiences. To try to rank them is a practice in futility. Sure there are going to be standouts that you would recommend or not to everyone. When you get to the middle of the pack though things get murky. I think it's kind of like trying to score everyone in your town. You try to break down all of their qualities and assign arbitrary number values. In the end it's really kind of meaningless because people are so wildly different and each has something to offer.
Still there are people (see:idiots) who don't want to be bothered with actually reading reviews and just want a quick answer as to how good a game is. They're the reason why review sites are required to have a scoring system.
I agree that the standard 1-10 scoring system with 7 being average and 10 being high is broken. However, any scoring system has it's flaws, even an F-A one. Games come in such a variety with many different genres, many different purposes and many different experiences. To try to rank them is a practice in futility. Sure there are going to be standouts that you would recommend or not to everyone. When you get to the middle of the pack though things get murky. I think it's kind of like trying to score everyone in your town. You try to break down all of their qualities and assign arbitrary number values. In the end it's really kind of meaningless because people are so wildly different and each has something to offer.
Still there are people (see:idiots) who don't want to be bothered with actually reading reviews and just want a quick answer as to how good a game is. They're the reason why review sites are required to have a scoring system.
@Tubatic
I was on the debate team when I was in High School, and I'm confident in my position so I don't mind being challenged to support my stance. If people can't support their beliefs then those beliefs probably aren't worth having.
I was on the debate team when I was in High School, and I'm confident in my position so I don't mind being challenged to support my stance. If people can't support their beliefs then those beliefs probably aren't worth having.
@bejaminajacobs
OK. Then we kind of have similar opinions, I guess. I thought it was the case where you didn't agree with the reviews happening here, considering integrity. I can't say I've ever understood the venom D-Toid gets for being so opinionated in their reviews. I've read a good number of reviews that really seem to go out of their way to dog a game, and I don't feel like I've seen that on this site.
@Nihil
Enh. I think it all adds up about the same. If i'm taking MetaCritic data as a shorthand for favorable/palettable experience, it works out fairly well. Granted, I put the scrutiny on that data by reading through the blurbs and taking a hard look a the highest and lowest scoring reviews. MetaCritic quantizes letter grades to raw numbers. As are 100, B's are 80's, C's are 60s, D's 40, E-F 20 or lower. Same with Stars, I gather.
If its 90 or higher, its safe to say lots of sources really liked it. Below 50, lots of sources didn't like it very much. Anything in the middle, well, jury's kind of out.
My definition of average, at least, draws from how the reviews I've read generally score games that simply don't garner great excitement from the reviewer or otherwise have something about them that make them hard to recommend. Though Destructoid defines their system differently, the sum of all sites reporting to Meta Critic seem to ascribe otherwise.
OK. Then we kind of have similar opinions, I guess. I thought it was the case where you didn't agree with the reviews happening here, considering integrity. I can't say I've ever understood the venom D-Toid gets for being so opinionated in their reviews. I've read a good number of reviews that really seem to go out of their way to dog a game, and I don't feel like I've seen that on this site.
@Nihil
Enh. I think it all adds up about the same. If i'm taking MetaCritic data as a shorthand for favorable/palettable experience, it works out fairly well. Granted, I put the scrutiny on that data by reading through the blurbs and taking a hard look a the highest and lowest scoring reviews. MetaCritic quantizes letter grades to raw numbers. As are 100, B's are 80's, C's are 60s, D's 40, E-F 20 or lower. Same with Stars, I gather.
If its 90 or higher, its safe to say lots of sources really liked it. Below 50, lots of sources didn't like it very much. Anything in the middle, well, jury's kind of out.
My definition of average, at least, draws from how the reviews I've read generally score games that simply don't garner great excitement from the reviewer or otherwise have something about them that make them hard to recommend. Though Destructoid defines their system differently, the sum of all sites reporting to Meta Critic seem to ascribe otherwise.
It's like say someone couldn't stand Sean Penn because of his political leanings. They go in to a Sean Penn movie and write a review that says the movie sucks no one should see it even though most people seem to think it's a good movie. Do you think that's a fair review? Do you think that review helps or hurts the people trying to find out whether it's a good movie and whether it's worth their time?
Here's the thing: their review may be prejudiced and unfair as to whether they liked it or not. But I still value their opinion. Why? Because it lets me know there are people out there who hate Sean Penn (not that I really care about Sean Penn). It lets me know there are people out there on a different page than me. And I find that more interesting than everyone saying the same thing about something. Whoever he is aiming his review at, it's up to them to decide whether they accept his take or not. He shouldn't be denied in making his voice heard, just because he already feels a certain way about it. Unless he's getting paid to feel that way.
And if he's just plain wrong, people will know it, and then we can tar & feather him.
To try to rank them is a practice in futility.
No argument there.
This wasn't funny when Jim's ass did it, and it's not funny when you did it.
I actually found it pretty fucking hilarious. Different strokes, I suppose.
Here's the thing: their review may be prejudiced and unfair as to whether they liked it or not. But I still value their opinion. Why? Because it lets me know there are people out there who hate Sean Penn (not that I really care about Sean Penn). It lets me know there are people out there on a different page than me. And I find that more interesting than everyone saying the same thing about something. Whoever he is aiming his review at, it's up to them to decide whether they accept his take or not. He shouldn't be denied in making his voice heard, just because he already feels a certain way about it. Unless he's getting paid to feel that way.
And if he's just plain wrong, people will know it, and then we can tar & feather him.
To try to rank them is a practice in futility.
No argument there.
This wasn't funny when Jim's ass did it, and it's not funny when you did it.
I actually found it pretty fucking hilarious. Different strokes, I suppose.
@Nihil
You might appreciate that, but for someone who is a movie fan and is trying to find out if they themselves might want to see the movie would not. People don't read reviews to see that there are people that hate certain things. People read reviews to see if something is worth their time and money. By writing prejudiced reviews the reviewer is betraying their audience.
It's not a matter of being able to write whatever you want because that's your opinion and you have a right to free speech. It's about giving your audience an idea of whether they'll like the product or not. Once you shirk objectivity and just start writing based on prejudice you go from writing a review to writing an editorial or opinion column.
You might appreciate that, but for someone who is a movie fan and is trying to find out if they themselves might want to see the movie would not. People don't read reviews to see that there are people that hate certain things. People read reviews to see if something is worth their time and money. By writing prejudiced reviews the reviewer is betraying their audience.
It's not a matter of being able to write whatever you want because that's your opinion and you have a right to free speech. It's about giving your audience an idea of whether they'll like the product or not. Once you shirk objectivity and just start writing based on prejudice you go from writing a review to writing an editorial or opinion column.
@ Ben
Dude, that's exactly what Jim brought up in the comments.
Who is going to read one fucking review and base how they spend their money on it? Anyone who's a movie fan would know after reading that the guy is either being too hard or too soft for whatever reason.
Anyone reading a review to see if they want to pay to play/watch something, and isn't already knowledgeable about the business, is just fucked.
And then they can rant/rage on the internet about it, like everybody else who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. =D
Dude, that's exactly what Jim brought up in the comments.
Who is going to read one fucking review and base how they spend their money on it? Anyone who's a movie fan would know after reading that the guy is either being too hard or too soft for whatever reason.
Anyone reading a review to see if they want to pay to play/watch something, and isn't already knowledgeable about the business, is just fucked.
And then they can rant/rage on the internet about it, like everybody else who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. =D
I tried watching the first "season" of The Guild and it never really stopped being a hyperbole of the subject matter. I doubt it gets better, because it never got to funny, just creepy.
