Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions.
" @oldschool: Wait, why a flame shield? That seems perfectly reasonable. I don't know a si-*throws bucket of water on shield* HA! Your shield is useless now! "
Damn, I lowered my guard. Sneaky man, just sneaky ^-^
Thats all a review is, is an opinion. Of course a bit more of an in depth opinion, hopefully worth actually reading, when its written well. Still, it boils down to nothing more than an opinion.
This is the dumbest question ever. They don't have a score machine for games, people use their judgment to create reviews and scores. There's no "considering"; this is a fact.
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions. ........ dons flame guard ............ "
Well that would be assuming that reviewers can be academic in their approach to scoring a game.
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions."
It doesn't work that way. See, glitches, pop-ups and camera will obviously affect the reviewers opinion of the game, which is reflected in the score. A review score cannot, in any way, be objective. That's just not possible.
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions. ........ dons flame guard ............ "
Of course, anyone who says no is a little deluded..
If I happen to like a game that gets reviews, then I could care less. But when I'm thinking about buying a game, the first thing I'll do is look for reviews.. if everywhere has given it very poor scores, then there's probably a reason for that. Again, that may not necessarily stop me from enjoying the game, but at the very least I'd probably wait for the game to drop in price a bit.
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions. ........ dons flame guard ............ "
Yes, although particular "relevant facts" can become more or less prominent (or ignored altogether) in a review depending on how the reviewer is doing with the game and their personal opinion. You have to be careful when reading reviews because a lot of the time the reviewer will place a lot of emotive language around the facts, whether they be strengths or flaws, and it becomes difficult to know how good or bad those parts of the game really are.
One particular game could have reviewers that either ignore pop-up textures entirely, exaggerate and say that the game is "full of them" or say that there is occasional pop-up that doesn't really detract from the experience. There's no real way to know how this is going to affect you personally until you play the game yourself I think.
Reviews are all opinions. They may be more informed and more reliable opinions than those of the average consumer, and they may be delivered in a different manner with a more authoritative tone, but they are still opinions, and there will always be bias. In that case it's about finding the reviewers you trust and whose opinions most closely resemble yours.
I learnt a long time ago that all journalism is subjective. Nothing is objective in the media anymore.
" @oldschool: Wait, why a flame shield? That seems perfectly reasonable. I don't know a si-*throws bucket of water on shield* HA! Your shield is useless now! "
a flame shield protects him from being flamed, it doesnt necessarely mean the shield itself is in flames... so your water fails. for all you know, it only made the shield stronger! :p
and to stay on topic, yes they are opinions, nothing else
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions. ........ dons flame guard ............ "
I don't necessarily agree with this. While technical aspects are important, after all nobody wants a sloppy game, they can't (and shouldn't) hold more weight than the personal experience of the writer. By your theory a game could be technically perfect and as such the score for that game should reflect that more than the opinion points. However what if that game does everything right but is outright boring and just not fun? Does that game deserve a high score? I think if reviewers started doing things as such
I've never liked review scores that break out the aspects of the game (ala IGN or Gamespot's old formula) because by doing so you are implying that each technical aspect has more weight than if the game is actually good or not based on the reviewers opinion, which by the text of any review it obviously does not. Could you imagine if Roger Ebert reviewed movies and broke the film down by technical aspects and let those talking points influence his ratings more than his personal opinion? There are only two reasons we read reviews and that is to get someone's take on something we are going to buy or for said reviewer to validate our purchase and it all comes down to whose opinions do we want to trust more.
" Yes and no. A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera) and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera). The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions. ........ dons flame guard ............ "
Well that would be assuming that reviewers can be academic in their approach to scoring a game. "
I can dream. I don't think it is impossible, but when a reviewer has no real journalistic credentials and we have no idea of their background, it is difficult to say the least.
@Icemael said:
" It doesn't work that way. See, glitches, pop-ups and camera will obviously affect the reviewers opinion of the game, which is reflected in the score. A review score cannot, in any way, be objective. That's just not possible. "
I don't agree. It is possible to be objective if you choose to and have the writing skills. I will always go with the Halo example. I was totally bored with the game, but if I was to review it, I would still give it a high score, simply because the quality is inescapable. I would separate my opinion from the score, explaining why I personally didn't like it and would advise if the reader was of similar views and tastes to me, they could be best avoiding it.
@Kowbrainz said:
" Yes, although particular "relevant facts" can become more or less prominent (or ignored altogether) in a review depending on how the reviewer is doing with the game and their personal opinion. You have to be careful when reading reviews because a lot of the time the reviewer will place a lot of emotive language around the facts, whether they be strengths or flaws, and it becomes difficult to know how good or bad those parts of the game really are. One particular game could have reviewers that either ignore pop-up textures entirely, exaggerate and say that the game is "full of them" or say that there is occasional pop-up that doesn't really detract from the experience. There's no real way to know how this is going to affect you personally until you play the game yourself I think. "
True. What bothers one person may not bother another and yes, some writers overplay what it is they talk about. It comes down to the skills of the writer.
@kariyanine said:
"I don't necessarily agree with this. While technical aspects are important, after all nobody wants a sloppy game, they can't (and shouldn't) hold more weight than the personal experience of the writer. By your theory a game could be technically perfect and as such the score for that game should reflect that more than the opinion points. However what if that game does everything right but is outright boring and just not fun? Does that game deserve a high score? I think if reviewers started doing things as such I've never liked review scores that break out the aspects of the game (ala IGN or Gamespot's old formula) because by doing so you are implying that each technical aspect has more weight than if the game is actually good or not based on the reviewers opinion, which by the text of any review it obviously does not. Could you imagine if Roger Ebert reviewed movies and broke the film down by technical aspects and let those talking points influence his ratings more than his personal opinion? There are only two reasons we read reviews and that is to get someone's take on something we are going to buy or for said reviewer to validate our purchase and it all comes down to whose opinions do we want to trust more. "
You don't have to. I am not saying no personal experience of the writer, just that it should be weighted appropriately. A game should be compared against other games in the same genre and that is where the personal opinion comes into it for me. If you review Forza 3, then it is reviewed with Forza 2, Gran Tursimo, Need For Speed and PGR3/4 in mind. You get your baseline from that and it should be noted how it compares against what has come before it. An actual score is more about what it does above "perfectly acceptable" or average. What it does better than average pushes that score up. Better still, no score at all as a number is really quite meaningless.
It is probably true to say that writers write purely to entertain, but in doing so, they cheapen the worth of what they write. It is also true that some people want to be entertained by the review. I still it can be done without ruining the integrity of the review. If we disagree that a review cannot be objective, then we will never agree. I am not going to take it personally. I have a lifetime of being analytical and critical of journalists in general. I don't feel the need to just settle for what they dish out.
A review is mostly opinion. If a statement is made about frame rate drops or texture pop-in, than obviously it isn't opinion. But the bread and butter of reviews is opinion.
Yes. Everyones review of a game is an opinion. It's just like any other review, say for a book or a movie. It's an opinion on what the critic thinks/thought.....
That's why if I'm on the edge when trying to decide if I'm going to buy a game or not. I look at more than one review, to see if what everyone is saying matches up. Usually then it's most likely true.
Reviews aren't completely opinion based. For example, I didn't like GTA4, but it's obvious to see the game is top quality, so if I was to review GTA4, I'd praise the game and score it highly. Even though I personally dislike the game, it's easy for me to put my personal feelings aside and judge the game with an open mind and highlight its many good points (and it's bad points, obviously), because I can see plenty of reasons why the majority would love GTA4.
I personally think that like what they do here on Giant bomb with the quick looks is a much better way for someone like me to get an idea of what a game is about... A number only says what the reviewer or the majority think of the game... For example; my favourite game i mystical ninja 2 for the N64, I think that most people would'nt agree that it's the best game ever, but in my opinion it is! That's why I think that review scores should be taken lightly and that you should play a game yourself before you make your call about it!
" It doesn't work that way. See, glitches, pop-ups and camera will obviously affect the reviewers opinion of the game, which is reflected in the score. A review score cannot, in any way, be objective. That's just not possible. "
I don't agree. It is possible to be objective if you choose to and have the writing skills. I will always go with the Halo example. I was totally bored with the game, but if I was to review it, I would still give it a high score, simply because the quality is inescapable. I would separate my opinion from the score, explaining why I personally didn't like it and would advise if the reader was of similar views and tastes to me, they could be best avoiding it."
I would never do that. I'd probably write something like "If you're into this type of game, you'll probably enjoy it. If not, however, steer clear." in the review, but the score would still be based on my personal experience with the game.
I guess there's no definite answer. While I prefer my way of doing things(duh -- it's my way), there isn't anything wrong with your way.
I remember hearing from some game reviewers describing their encounters with game publishing PR folks concerning how they arrived at their scores. Some PR people would read the review, see that the reviewer mentioned three grievances and from there tabulate how much each failing was worth to arrive at the final score. Let's say a game starts at 100% with a printed review score of 88%. If the reviewer cited three problems they had with the game then each problem must be worth 4 percentage points off the top. Now, most game reviewers don't operate under that strict a format in their review process, but that isn't to say that such a method couldn't be applied to address the technical aspects of a game. Was there graphical slow down? Was their pop-in? Did it happen more than once? More that 5 times? Were their load times? Did the loads last longer than 15 seconds? And, so on... This way a separate review score could be objectively published for readers uninterested in the feelings a reviewer had while playing through the game. It might not offer the best insight into the game as a whole, but it would still serve a purpose for some members of the game playing community. Aspects such as tedium, integration of co-op, usefulness of items, and presentation would be addressed in separate critiques. After all, how do you put a number on "Fun" without it being an opinion?
You don't have to. I am not saying no personal experience of the writer, just that it should be weighted appropriately. A game should be compared against other games in the same genre and that is where the personal opinion comes into it for me. If you review Forza 3, then it is reviewed with Forza 2, Gran Tursimo, Need For Speed and PGR3/4 in mind. You get your baseline from that and it should be noted how it compares against what has come before it. An actual score is more about what it does above "perfectly acceptable" or average. What it does better than average pushes that score up. Better still, no score at all as a number is really quite meaningless.
It is probably true to say that writers write purely to entertain, but in doing so, they cheapen the worth of what they write. It is also true that some people want to be entertained by the review. I still it can be done without ruining the integrity of the review. If we disagree that a review cannot be objective, then we will never agree. I am not going to take it personally. I have a lifetime of being analytical and critical of journalists in general. I don't feel the need to just settle for what they dish out. "
I believe you may be right that we will not agree on this issue. I just don't believe that people can be purely objective on the level you seem to be referring to.
Log in to comment