By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Akvod on 29 November 2013
Edit Thread
d21lewis said:
Akvod said:
d21lewis said:
 


No, the guys that pay for the game are likely to be more biased because, as stated, who buys a game that they don't intend to like?  So, every "unbiased review" has a little bit of bias already. But, for a review of a game I intend to buy, the opinion of somebody that sacrificed their hard earned money is definitely appreciated.  Aside from that little quibble, I think we're in agreement except for the bolded.  It's just a name.

So you're saying that the people who buy the games already have positive feelings about the game before they buy it???

Again, that can lead to many things.

An inflation of scores by "unbiased" reviewers since they all bought the game and thus had positive feelings beforehand.

The positive expectations could have also put a lens on how they experienced the game (they might be more willing to overlook the flaws for example).

Also, the positive expectations and the financial investment could make any backlash against a game even bigger than a person who came in netural and with no financial investment.


I think we're going to end up walking into philosophical territory.  Can a review be truly unbiased?  For me, I sometimes thing reviewers are a little too harsh on games because they didn't have to pay for them or a little to lenient because they don't have any investment.  I can readily admit that there's no such thing as an unbiased review.  My thing is that the reviewers report from our point of view--the consumer.  The person that has to pay money for the game.  I've bought games that didn't live up to expectations and I bashed them accordingly.  I didn't get my $60 worth.  I've had games that blew away expectations and praised them as well. 

I just think that the "Unbiased" reviewers try their best to leave their fanboy goggles at the door and try their best to review games on their own merit.  Perhaps its impossible but nobody that participates is a professional.  Their just reviews from our peers.  I see no harm in it.

"Can a review be truly unbiased? "

A review can't, since it's interpreting OBJECTIVE facts and giving some kind of SUBJECTIVE evaluation (a number score, purchase recommendation, etc).

"My thing is that the reviewers report from our point of view--the consumer."

WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT AN UNBIASED REVIEW IS!!!!!!!!!!!

"I just think that the "Unbiased" reviewers try their best to leave their fanboy goggles at the door and try their best to review games on their own merit.  Perhaps its impossible but nobody that participates is a professional.  Their just reviews from our peers.  I see no harm in it."

I see harm in it.

First, it's contributing to McCarthy-esque trend of accusing people of being "unbiased" and as "fanboys". The title implies that other reviewers are biased when they make that their differentiating quality. It's not only wrong, but it's also pretty insulting and arrogant. Just accusing away the dozens of professional reviewers out there or every day consumer reviewers as being biased, and that they are the shining beacon of unbiased reason. It's the height of arrogance.

It also detracts away from the main problem. The main problem isn't that people are "biased". The problem isn't that people argue about which console or game is better than the other. The problem with fanboys is that they don't engage in meaningful dialogue.

It's like how "debates" in the old Crossfire or on Fox are really just people reading off memorized talking points (or in the case of Sarah Palin, written on her hand).

If you have time, watch Jon Stewart explain what I'm saying:

 

I guess I'm really just seeing two extremes that are ultimately engaging in the same thing. Just as fanboyism don't have meaningful discussion with opinions explained in detail, "unbiased" discussion results in no meaningful discussion with opinions explained in detail.

People are BIASED. They have different opinions and principles, which are colored by their years of exsitence. Our souls are built from our experiences. We should not deny that, but in fact openly embrace it. Doing so will result in more interesting and thoughtful discussions.

We should reject bad discussions, but also reject demands for no discourse.