| Mnementh said: Let's face it: our enjoyment of games is subjective. It always is. You can conclude that some games are objectively terrible, but on the other end of the scale is no objectivity. I wasn't unhappy with Jim Sterlings review, I always said in the thread, that I thought his opinion acceptable (while I feel differently) and his points valid. Also his score was OK, a 7/10 is fine. Secondly there is this perception of 10/10 as perfection. This really bugs me. This is like saying: we can use numbers from 1 to 10, but we don't use the ten. That's bull. The ten is a valid score. As no game is perfect it means the flaws don't destroy the enjoyment. Overall I think the issue is similar to ME:A face-animations. While it might look strange in places, most people care more for other things. |
Our enjoyment of a game might be subjective but it's generally grounded by objective parameters. Controls, camera functionality, frame-rate--there are any number of criteria that can be rated and compared to other games. When I look at a review, I want the technical side to be considered as well because I'm the only one who can decide what does and does not detract from my experience. The reviewer saying, "oh, but I don't care about X, I only care about Y," makes the article about the reviewer as much as it is about the game.
That's why many people, when they read a review of something, they're looking for as much objective information as possible, so they can apply it to their own list of likes and dislikes. Reviews, in my opinion, should describe both sides of the coin. They aren't simply an editorial or a tech analysis, they're a reflection of both.
Personally, if I were writing a review, I would want to incorporate the objective and the subjective in my score. If they both register a "10" then I'll give the game a 10. If one or both fail to hit that mark then I'm not going to award a perfect score. That's my philosophy, because otherwise I'd feel like I'm trying to sweep the negatives under the carpet, which I see as a disservice to the reader.
If anyone likes a score that puts the writer front and center, that's totally fine, too, though I think it's hilarious that they're all mixed up together in one "meta-score". 8 Oranges + 9 Apples = 8.5 Pineapples.
| Veknoid_Outcast said: I think there's room for both methods. When I review a game I describe its mechanics, modes, and gameplay, but I also assign pros and cons to those features based on my subjective priorities. Ideally, consumers will find a group of reviewers among the larger pool that reflect their own priorities. Following that group would be a lot more helpful than staring at some context-less aggregate score on Metacritic. |
That's basically my thoughts on the matter. I don't care at all for the kind of reviewing Jim Sterling does but I'm not going to claim that his style shouldn't exist. All I need to do is look elsewhere. It's a big internet.
