Is "being biased" an issue in gamejournalism?

@video_game_king: Why is it "full of crap"? Maybe a bit hyperbole, but not by much. Of course there's many worse games, but I generally don't play many bad games (Big Rigs is probably worse, never played it). The game played like absolute shit, and the voice work is incredibly inept. That qualifies it as one of the worst games I've ever played.

This just goes to show that everything has its defenders on the internet. I've literally never seen anyone defending the Zelda CD-i games before, and let me assure you, it's not because of the Russian animation or because it's "different", it's because those games are generally considered to be awful in every way.

I don't really care what cracked and some random youtuber's "Top 10 Best/Worst Games" video has to say...why do you give value to their opinions?

That's really what this whole silly reviews thing is about isn't it? Is somebody having a different opinion on something invalidate your own? Why do we have to defend our own opinions so fervently on the internet. Tell people what you yourself like or don't like, fine. Whatever.

Not absolute shit. There are redeemable parts to it, like the idea of exploring the world and using your equipment to unlock new areas, Metroidvania-style. It's just the execution of those ideas that makes the game bad.

Here you go. (Hey, you never said anything about it being a competent defense.)

Then why is it that (not counting you) I can only name one person who's actually criticized the game for its gameplay mechanics rather than for its presentation or the context in which it was made? If it was awful in every way, they'd certainly have more ammo than these trite and tired points would suggest. It's also interesting to note that those two things I listed (the presentation and the context) are both things that don't require you actually play the game.

Probably because it's easy to watch a youtube video of a cutscene and hard to play a rare CD-i game dude.

That's exactly my point. In fact, I state as much in the last sentence.

Okay, so you're a guy that likes some things the Zelda CD-i games have to offer. Why do you need to validate that opinion with others' opinions that badly? Maybe you just like things other people don't. There's nothing wrong with that.

You also said it didn't really execute on what it was trying to do...so....

It's more about giving the games their fair due. Take note of how I don't like the game, either, as evidenced by my earlier "Yes". I'm also gonna give @amyggen's opinion on this greater weight than the links, since he's played the game and his opinion is therefore grounded in that game's reality. (I'd have added "or at least more grounded", but again, I doubt that the critics I linked have actually touched the game.)

Not many people are going to have played the games, you know that, so, if you feel the need to educate them or convert them over to your way of thinking, present your arguments. You may not change their opinion, but you told them what you like and dislike. You can even slap a number at the end if you want.

If somebody is giving you an opinion on something, and you have reason to not totally value it, then don't. The end. Fair is impossible in this reality.

Ultimately I believe that reviews which punish lack of innovation are political, because they score the game for what it isn't, rather than what it is.

It's another great Batman game? It's just more of the same? A buyer beware is okay, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a massive downgrading of the score.

To put that into perspective. Any Mario game is somebody's first Mario game. I'm through with them, but they're still awesome for those who still care, many of which might discover Mario for the first time.

OH MY GOD I WISH SCORES WERE NEVER INVENTED ARGH

Quantifying a qualitative thing DON'T MAKE NO GODDURNED SENSE

Mr Gerstmann gave Tekken 3 a 9.9. While it was a fantastic review to read i will never understand what the 0.1 deduction was!! death to scores in reviews!

Probably just so it wouldn't be a 10. That jerk.

8-9-10 scores are for mechanics and the experience. Part of that experience is the originality and creativity shown. So a 9-scored game can get a 6-7 if the experience, along with the mechanics are exactly the same. Every review I've seen has explained this for the new Batman game. Do people really just read scores and immediately assume the worse about a reviewer? And 6-7-8 scores are given to good games that have notable problems (like Mirror's Edge).

Why did I leave such a long response to this? People who complain or ponder or whatever about reviews are the fucking worst! What the fuck is wrong with me! What am I fucking doing?!??!?

In order to discuss this we need to pick on particular reviewers to show their personal inconsistencies with this sort of punishment. If the same reviewer gave the Fifa, COD or AC sequels an A-grade while punishing Arkham Origins for the same or similar infractions then we can justifiably call in the internet bias police. But disparate reviewers or even publications can't be picked on for this as there's too much subjectivity applicable to a review.

lol

This isn't not a problem though. If someone playing the same style of games over and over again keeps reviewing them it doesn't make the games less good or less successful at what they're trying to do. This perception of depreciated value is just that, a perception caused by prolonged experience. That would suggest that to get a review less tainted by preconceived notions of the game would require someone who hasn't played the previous games. That's a pretty impractical expectation - though assuming diminishing returns is true it's also the only way to get less bias game reviews. It would also create a cycle of games getting progressively worse reviews because of styles falling out of favor. A game receiving a poor review simply because of the release date would render the review not useful, imo.

Reviews are conceptually beyond stupid. Enjoy the things you enjoy.

You'll never have a reviewer who isn't biased, just like you'll never read an objective review. Peoples opinions factor into what they write, that's just how it is. I think the fact that it's exactly like previous games is part of the reason why it has been getting a lower score, many people don't wanna play the exact same game over and over. I haven't played it yet, I have no opinion on it and I'll probably really like it when I do but I can't fault somehow who feels like it's just more of the same, that's part of the problem of this stupid cycle the industry has gotten in where they need to pump those franchise titles out as fast as possible.

Well, it could be useful, as long as the reader has had similar experience to the reviewer.

I agree with everything you said. It is a problem, but it's also a fact, so the best we can do is to be aware of it and hope that reviewers can be upfront with why they might be "tired" of a certain game.

For example, Brad's favorite Mario Kart is the SNES version, which is a great game. My favorite Mario Kart is the first Wii version, which is also a great game, but it is probably my favorite because it's the first one in the series that I seriously played. The first one that Brad seriously played was the SNES version, so by the time the Wii one came out it was repetitive to him.

So it would be completely valid for him to give it, say, a 6/10 for being too samey, as long as he makes it known that his opinion may be effected by having played previous games in the series. Basically, as is the conclusion to all of these threads, review scores are meaningless unless you know about the person who wrote it.

Bias is rare, people liking games because they're easier or shorter is not; case in point: Shadow of the Colossus.

6 and 7 are not low scores, just average.

@shevar

FIFA gets a free pass for the same reason Call of Duty does -- they are in many ways the same game (sort of). Sports games and shooters don't play the same way twice, every game, every fight online, there's so many variables and possible outcomes. People know this going into those games, which is why most people like me don't give a shit about the story mode of any of those games and just want a straight up quick match.

Action-adventure-third-person-story-drive whatever games don't have that luxury. Batman Arkham Origins may allow you to approach areas with different tactics, but it's not going to vary all that much really. And that's not the point of it either. It's a guided experience, and sometimes that perfectly acceptable. If the reviewers are calling it "samey" it's them telling you "I feel like I've done all this before". If that doesn't resonate with you and you feel that A) You're ok with more of the same, or B) You're new to the series, you take that advice with a grain of salt for your own personal experience. Haven't played the games in the series? You may like it. Like me you thought Arkham City was a bit too much of the same? This game probably won't do much for you.

Reviews without bylines and context are broken I agree with that. Hence why I could give a flying fuck what Edge or Games TM think. Bylines create accountability and context. Bias is why it's called a "Review" not "Facts about the game". Reviews are subjective, there's no checklist to complete to get a 10, it's how the reviewer feels and you can feel differently and both be right.

THE LAST THING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN is reviewers say "Well fans of ____ will like it" or "Gamers who are ____ years old will dig it". That's a cop-out. I have no fucking idea what a 10-year-old girl plays on her 3DS or why she likes it. All I can tell you is what I like and why. That's not bias, that's the truth.

tl;dr: Shooter and sports games are designed to be the same experience and we know that going in AND it's why they work, story driven action/adventure games are linear and need to innovate to be relevant. It's not bias if it's what the reviewer thinks ... bias is when they have an agenda such as "I'm anti-Warner Bros so I'm going to rate this game lower". Learn what bias actually means.

@shevar: Eh, enthusiast press is not really the same thing as journalism (kind of like AVWEB is to aviation). Not something to worry about. If your really concerned find a reviewer who kind of has tastes along the same lines as yourself.

Game reviews are fine, it's scores that are pointless. That's why I just read the reviews Giant Bomb posts without looking at the score.

With this new batman game, most of the reviews I've read are, "It's okay. It's the same as the last one mostly." Judging from the Quick Look I can say I fully agree. It doesn't look bad, it just doesn't look amazing.

The thing is, games get judged on what they try to do. You can't really say a Fifa game is bad because you can't cast Firaga in it, you have to judge it on how it is as a soccer game. At the same time a game like Batman has to be judged it by itself, and not on how well it recreates something else. So while Batman may be a more interesting or compelling game than Fifa, it's definitely possible and pretty reasonable that it might score higher.

Don't read the review if you already played and enjoyed the game, and don't look at the score if you want to know if you should buy it or not.

If anything I'd say user reviews are worthless. xXWEED_GOKU420Xx may give Batman a 10/10 because "YO ITS SICK U CAN FITE THE JOCKER" or give it a 0/10 because "They should have made Bane have a cooler voice, game sucks." Most people deal in absolutes, so if one thing is good, or one thing is bad about a game, it's either the best game ever or the worst game ever.

What I don't understand is people that get angry when a game they like gets a lower score than they think it deserves. I thought GTAV deserved a 7 or 8 out of ten, and I'd definitely say its one of the best games of the year, but I've seen people flip their shit because some random reviewer from an established website gave it an 8/10 and said, "Yeah, it's not the best game ever, but it's really great and well worth playing". Didn't a couple people send Jeff death threats or something because he didn't give a Zelda game a perfect score?

This thread just shows why reviews and scores are fucking stupid. Quick Looks all the way.

Game Journalism should probably be called Game Criticism, and criticism is always biased because it is one hundred percent based on opinions.

Why wouldn't it be; its easy to see bias on "real" news channels like MSNBC all the time. I would say video games journalism is less vitriolic as they aren't as flame baitey and full of liars like a place like MSNBC but there is still bias towards certain products. As an example, Jeff will quickly talk hot mess about a game that is second in the series but still says he is excited for the new Call of Duty and that it looks great. Big deal? Nope, but there are biases in everything. Real journalists (which none of the bombers, outside of probably Patrick, will actually call themselves a journalist) actively and honestly admit their prejudices and biases.

That's one incredibly important thing I think gamers need to start to understand. Nobody (I hope?) wants to know the consensus opinion of a recent album, book or movie, and nobody would say that, say, New York Times' said that so-and-so book was terrible, and that is the entire papers opinion of it. When it comes to every other medium we understand that the critic voices their personal opinion, and that you - the reader - is supposed to compare and contrast your taste compared to the critic, and find someone who has a taste similar to yours, since then their opinion of things you do not know are likely to mesh with yours. The idea that every single video game critic should give a game perfect scores because it doesn't wipe your hard drive when you play it, or that every single editor on IGN must stand by Greg Miller's (or whoever) review of a game is so incredibly dumb, and I can't even fathom where it comes from.

Or could it be we still care WAY too much about a number some random person put on a game? I'd like to think so.

@shevar:

I only read the opening post, so I don't know if this kind of reply has been suggested. Forgive me if it's redundant.

What I've noticed with Arkham Origins is that the multiplayer component is a polarizing feature. Some people have expressed that they are enjoying it, others not so much. But regardless, it is on the disc and therefore must be part of the critique. And if the reviewer considers it busted or just not fun, the review needs to reflect that. Even if the base game is just as good as Arkham City, even if you take away the thoughts of "innovation" and "more of the same", it added a mode and that mode has been called into question.

I'm assuming of course that the post you made refers to Carolyn Petit's review since that's the lowest one I'm aware of. I'm of a mind that more Arkham, even if it is just more of the same thing that I already loved two and four years ago respectively, is a positive thing. However, they chose to add in this 3 team asymmetrical multiplayer and if the reviewer (be it Carolyn or whoever) found it to be a problematic issue then I'd imagine that is the bulk of the reason that the score was lowered to reflect a product that has some merit but also some busted segments.

For me, I haven't played the Arkham Origins multiplayer component yet. And honestly, I probably won't. I'll play the story, which is what I bought the game for. Then I'll play the combat and predator challenges because those have always entertained me. And really, that's all I wanted. If those are decent, even if they are more of the same, then I call it a win.

As a contrast, this really isn't like Call of Duty though, because those are games that update and keep the same level of consistent quality through all of their modes. You may not like CoD, and I don't particularly care for it, but the story mode is always a certain level of quality and the multiplayer is always a certain level of quality. Now if a Call of Duty had come out and the story segment had been fundamentally broken or had a mode that was promoted but not realized fully, then it might be closer to what Origins is seeing in review now. Or if Assassin's Creed's multiplayer component had left a bad impression when they added it, maybe these would be similar. I can't speak to sports games specifically though as I haven't played one since the 90s. I assume that sports fans want that kind of thing since they turn out in droves year after year to buy them. And like Origins does for Batman, it's giving fans what they want scores be damned.