By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 13 October 2017
Edit Thread
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Shaunodon said:

My main problem with Jim and why I think he shouldn't have an official score on Metacritic, is because he holds to the ideal that reviews should be based around people's personal opinion, whereas I feel it is the job of a reviewer to give as close to an objective view as possible.

When people are dropping the scores of certain games just cause they had a personal grievance of a particular mechanic, it doesn't give an objective view of the game because most people are unlikely to share that opinion. So when reviewers are just allowed to base everything around their own personal ideals of what they want in the title, the majority or readers probably aren't going to get an objective perspective of what the game will actually offer them. And so what the hell is the point of even having the reviews?

If they want to write their own opinion articles over which games they personally favour, then they can do that in a different and space and I would have no problem with it. But when it comes to reviews there should be a certain standard of professionalism.

There is no objectivity. Objectivity is just a way of saying "Many people love this game critically, and I believe this, so this is the merit at which I judge reviews". The irony is that if you yourself believed BOTW was a 5, you'd probably be here saying that people weren't being objective enough.

I myself think it's close to a 9/10, so it's not like I'm coming from a place of agreeing with Jim. I just can't stand people that fundamentally want to lesser reviews because they don't like the opinion expressed. No, Jim doesn't need to make it an "article", he can make it a review, because it is a review. The problem with reviews is the writing quality, not the opinion expressed.

See, here I disagree.  Perfect objectivity is impossible.  But having a good bit of analytical distance is not.

Example:  I love Mount and Blade.  Poured hundreds of hours into it, recommended it to a lot of people.  But I'll tell you now, anyone who gave it a fraction over 7 is out of their mind.  Because even though I love it, I have the distance to be able to pick it apart and enumerate and explain his flaws.  You can love something and still be analytical and express that analysis with a *degree* objectivity.

I don't dislike Jim's review cause of his opinions or tone.  I dislike it because he failed to do the above.  

This all takes us to the concept of opinion quality: some opinions can stand stronger than others cause you can make a better case for them.  The opinion of "world politics is highly complex and there is no easy resolution for world peace to be found in liberal or conservative politicy" has far more value than "if everyone could just have 3 pieces of chocolate  day, the whole world could be friends!"  Because the former has logical foundations and you can make a compelling case for it while the latter is silly nonsense.

A reviewer's statements should be made on sure footing and they should be able to make a compelling case for where they stand.  If they are too close to the subject matter, too entrenched in their own tastes to do that, there's a problem.