If everything that isn't countable is purely subjective opinion, what is the point of reviews? Why even bother if I cannot expect to learn something about my likely experience based on your descriptions of your experience? To borrow a phrase, critics set themselves too easy, too useless a task if all they can tell us are words that have no real meaning other than "I liked this game".
Reviews are nothing more than words describing what the reviewer liked and disliked about the thing. Sometimes, the reviewer also compares that thing to another thing he/she liked/disliked.
I don't understand why there is an expectation other than that. Taste and tolerance of games/systems are entirely subjective. What bothers me about Souls games might not bother you. What I like about Super Mario Bros. 3 might drive you batty.
That's why it's so useful to find a handful of reviewers you enjoy reading/watching, learning how their tastes stack up to yours, and then adjusting your purchasing decisions based on the results. "Well, I tend to like hero-based RTS games a bit more than Jill and Sam, and they both liked this game, so I'll probably really enjoy it."
@bassguy: if you're not going to play something because people are saying it's good you're going to have a bad time with video games
That's not what I said. I'm gauging my taste in games against maybe six or seven people from game outlets I read. They clearly like FPSs (especially modernized takes on classics) MUCH, MUCH more than I do. When it comes time for me to spend my money, I have to take previous experiences into account. "X people said Y was great, but I only thought it was middling. When a similar situation plays out again, I'll interpret their 'great' as 'middling' for me."
Those two quotes say the exact same thing, just in different language. It peeves me that people criticise third person writing as they think the writer is trying to say something objectively. Every statement of critique in a review is subjective, and doesn't need to be qualified with "i think", "i feel", or "in my opinion", that is just assumed. Otherwise, every review would read like the diary of a 12 year old, which some already do.
No.
A claim that a game is poorly designed in a published review implies an objective standard, that the writer understands design and that the game is below the standards of quality the consumer should expect. This is a very different thing from "this is a fork-lift simulator for assholes" which is raw, hilarious subjectivity.
It is foolish to respond to statements of opinion as if they were assertions of fact just because they aren't made obvious by their phrasing, yes, but it is equally foolish to excuse incorrect factual statements as if they were just opinions.
Just because there are standards and expectations doesn't magically make any statement about the quality of game design "objective."
There aren't inherent laws of game design. There is definitely a body of knowledge that we build upon, but a game that rigidly delivers something based on previous well-received games doesn't become "objectively good" by any standard.
Humans have different opinions on what makes something good or not. We're not talking about laws of physics here. There's very little that is truly "objective." If they're not listing facts (this is the average frame rate, there are x levels, combat works like this), just assume it's a subjective opinion. This goes for any and all reviews.
It's a little bit like a bad Punchout. That whole last third needed to be refined a bit – it seems pretty rough comparatively. The boss fight was just a capper on a third act that needed the red pen treatment.
Log in to comment