By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What's fueling the distrust for game journalists?

adriane23 on 13 February 2013
Veknoid_Outcast said:
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
adriane23 said:

If a critic puts aside his personal opinions to critique something, he's the definition of a critic.

If I didn't like FPS games and reviewed Halo 4, I can't be taken seriously if I bash it for being in first person. As a professional, I should only critique it for what it's trying to accomplish, and how it stacks up against its contemporaries in its genre.

That is entirely wrong. If a critic puts aside his personal opinions, he's no longer a critic. It's the job of a critic to operate in the space between audience and medium, interpreting the medium in an intelligent, lucid, and stylish way. By definition, a critic is a judge, and he must use his own standards and interpretations to judge the material at his disposal.

Without personal opinions, a critic is just an empty vessel, regurgitating to his audience only the facts of the medium. We read critical reviews because we want something more than facts and figures. We want to be entertained, we want to be educated, and we want the expert opinion of someone who understands the medium better than we do.


LMAO, wow man. I can't decide if this is hilarious or just sad. Maybe both. It sounds like you want someone to tell you what to believe. If that's what you want, I guess, but what you describe is sensationalistic journalism.

It's the truth. It's definitely not sensationalism. Nothing of what I said corresponds to sensationalism, which has more to do with the embellishment of relatively unimportant or irrelevant news.

Critics aren't there to tell us what to believe. They're there to provide guidance and expert advice. If I don't know how to install a ceiling fan properly, I'll seek out the advice of an electrician. If my car breaks down, and I'm confused as to what went wrong, I'll contact a mechanic. If I want to know what movie to watch over the weekend, I might consult a critic. It's professional advice, that's all.

If you want a video game critic who sets aside his opinions and expectations, you might as well bypass reviews altogether. You'd be better off reading the product description.

At the bolded: Been doing this for over a decade.

You don't (and probably never will) realize it, but your second paragraph basically described what I already said a gaming journalist is supposed to do.

Now that's simply not true. You said earlier that a critic should put aside his opinions and judge a game "for what it's trying to accomplish," whatever that means.

It sounds as if you don't want gaming journalists at all. Just a yes-man who corroborates your own taste in games.


Just as I suspected, you don't get it. You probably won't get this either, but I'll give you something to think about. I don't want a "yes-man" journalist or a "no-man" journalist, I want an objective journalist.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

Around the Network
theprof00 on 13 February 2013

1. Reviews done by people who don't play the genre they are reviewing
2. People being fired over bad reviews
3. Scandals of journalists being paid off by companies
4. Flaws in the numerical rating system
5. Inconsistencies among reviewer metrics



melbye on 13 February 2013

For me it seems like most of them are raging XBOX-fanboys



Veknoid_Outcast on 13 February 2013
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Now that's simply not true. You said earlier that a critic should put aside his opinions and judge a game "for what it's trying to accomplish," whatever that means.

It sounds as if you don't want gaming journalists at all. Just a yes-man who corroborates your own taste in games.


Just as I suspected, you don't get it. You probably won't get this either, but I'll give you something to think about. I don't want a "yes-man" journalist or a "no-man" journalist, I want an objective journalist.

OK, then please unpack that term. When you say "objective," what do you mean? Does that mean you want a journalist who writes without any personal feelings or interpretations?

That is a useful thing to have in a reporter, certainly. But when it comes to a reviewer, he should most definitely include his personal feelings and interpretations. Because those feelings and interpretations, along with his experience playing games, are what gives his position meaning. No one can, and no one should, evaluate a piece of art in an objective way. You can either have a dispassioned description of a game or you can have a subjective critical analysis. You cannot have both.



adriane23 on 13 February 2013
Veknoid_Outcast said:
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Now that's simply not true. You said earlier that a critic should put aside his opinions and judge a game "for what it's trying to accomplish," whatever that means.

It sounds as if you don't want gaming journalists at all. Just a yes-man who corroborates your own taste in games.


Just as I suspected, you don't get it. You probably won't get this either, but I'll give you something to think about. I don't want a "yes-man" journalist or a "no-man" journalist, I want an objective journalist.

OK, then please unpack that term. When you say "objective," what do you mean? Does that mean you want a journalist who writes without any personal feelings or interpretations?

That is a useful thing to have in a reporter, certainly. But when it comes to a reviewer, he should most definitely include his personal feelings and interpretations. Because those feelings and interpretations, along with his experience playing games, are what gives his position meaning. No one can, and no one should, evaluate a piece of art in an objective way. You can either have a dispassioned description of a game or you can have a subjective critical analysis. You cannot have both.

Interpretations are fine, but personal feelings need to be put aside. A critic can give a passionate description of whatever they're reviewing and still give an unbiased review. What a critic shouldn't do is grade something based on a personal bias. As a professional, if you hate RTS games, you need to put that hatred aside and base your critique on the merits/short-comings of the game, or not review it at all.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

Around the Network
Akvod on 13 February 2013
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
adriane23 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Now that's simply not true. You said earlier that a critic should put aside his opinions and judge a game "for what it's trying to accomplish," whatever that means.

It sounds as if you don't want gaming journalists at all. Just a yes-man who corroborates your own taste in games.


Just as I suspected, you don't get it. You probably won't get this either, but I'll give you something to think about. I don't want a "yes-man" journalist or a "no-man" journalist, I want an objective journalist.

OK, then please unpack that term. When you say "objective," what do you mean? Does that mean you want a journalist who writes without any personal feelings or interpretations?

That is a useful thing to have in a reporter, certainly. But when it comes to a reviewer, he should most definitely include his personal feelings and interpretations. Because those feelings and interpretations, along with his experience playing games, are what gives his position meaning. No one can, and no one should, evaluate a piece of art in an objective way. You can either have a dispassioned description of a game or you can have a subjective critical analysis. You cannot have both.

Interpretations are fine, but personal feelings need to be put aside. A critic can give a passionate description of whatever they're reviewing and still give an unbiased review. What a critic shouldn't do is grade something based on a personal bias. As a professional, if you hate RTS games, you need to put that hatred aside and base your critique on the merits/short-comings of the game, or not review it at all.

As long as the reviewer discloses that they don't like RTS games, I'm fine with it.

Obviously I'll find it to be a non-useful review, but that's a different story.



NintendoPie on 13 February 2013

The classic answer would be the game journalists themselves.



adriane23 on 13 February 2013
Akvod said:
adriane23 said:

Interpretations are fine, but personal feelings need to be put aside. A critic can give a passionate description of whatever they're reviewing and still give an unbiased review. What a critic shouldn't do is grade something based on a personal bias. As a professional, if you hate RTS games, you need to put that hatred aside and base your critique on the merits/short-comings of the game, or not review it at all.

As long as the reviewer discloses that they don't like RTS games, I'm fine with it.

Obviously I'll find it to be a non-useful review, but that's a different story.

Well, at least you'd be able to save yourself some time by not reading the review after they disclose that.



I am the Playstation Avenger.