Is objective review possible?

[Whisper]

When i download film or buy game it is always same story: some people say this is good, and some is trash.

But film or game cant be good AND trash at same time. This two options contradict each other. This means that one review is wrong (or lying) and one is right.

Is objective review possible?

 

[TBeholder]

What is your definition of "objective"?

 

[Daedalos]

Of course objectivity is possible.

Is it easy? No, but possible.

It requires an individual and a perspective that clearly puts the ego and the self on the shelf.

Things like, story, writing, mechanics, UI, colours, animations, audio, visuals, are all things that can be rated on how well they seem to perform to the player.

 

[abija]

Yes it is, had them all the time when I was young in video game magazines that were written by truly passionate people at that time. One of the guys behind doorkickers used to write some solid reviews for simulators.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

reviews are a spook, nobody cares about them

 

[Child of Malkav]

Absolutely not. A resounding NO. Every reviewer is human and has different preferences, likes, dislikes, tastes etc. And those act as a filter, prism through which he views a product and influence his decision.
The best way to decide if a game is good us to simply watch gameplay videos or play early access, demos, whatever.
Another way is to read interviews. They're usually more truthful than reviews by far.

 

[Darth Roxor]

only when it's written by darth roxor

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Yes, it is.

Every reviewer is human and has different preferences, likes, dislikes, tastes etc

Just because someone likes to eat shit, doesn't make it a healthy and well cooked meal...

 

[Reality]

Yes.

Drinking the "everything is subjective" kool aid leads to things like "my interpretation of Red Riding hood is that it's a metaphor for for menstruation" and Red Riding Hood is about werwolve hunters, and all kind of nonsense.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

objectivity is perfectly possible. all you need is knowledge on the subject (which rules out most of the gaming journos) and no money revenue attached to the subject (which rules out all of the gaming journos). also not being a dumbfuck retard helps, but this rules out most of the human population.

reviews are a spook

 

[BrotherFrank]

Put me in the school of thought that thinks no, you'd have to be a robot to write a truly objective review and even then, the review wouldn't be that helpful.

Stupid example that comes to mind, by every single possible metric dynasty warriors 3 is an inferior game to its followups:

Yet I will argue it's the best game in the series still. It's the equivalent of one of those poorly dubbed eastern martial arts movie, the consumption of which I personally adore but not everyone will share my patrician tastes, and a 100% logical robot dissecting a game into its component parts will never be able to understand why it's a fun game, let alone a good one.

Without going too much into games is art debate, a game is more then the sum of its parts, its primary purpose is entertainment (usually) and how effective it is at accomplishing it will be highly subjective and down to personal tastes.. The mark of a good reviewer is how well they are able to balance their own biases with objectivity and that is the problem with modern game journos : they are idealogues, not reviewers, they are more concerned about enforcing their petty brand of morality and to seem moral in the eyes of their peers to the point that even when they recognize a game is good, they will still lower its final rating based purely on shifting social paradigms.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

you said it yourself. "the game sucks". that's the objective part. having fun with it regardless is your own taste, which is perfectly fine as long as you keep in mind the game sucks and won't try to convince others it doesn't.

 

[Citizen]

no. authoritative one on the other hand...

 

[DalekFlay]

Have this debate endlessly on my film forum and the conclusion I usually come to is that some rare things about media can be objective... like say "The Godfather has good acting in it," or "The Godfather is better art than reality television"... but your enjoyment of said things is always subjective.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

in fact it's "YOUR enjoyment", it's not "what this is objectively worth". honestly i don't understand how you people can miss this very simple and basic truth whilst even uttering it yourselves. you keep mistaking "i like it" with "it's good".

 

[Tigranes]

objectivity as a perfectly neutral state entirely stripped of human bias has never been a thing in modern sciences - just a popular caricature. (e.g. Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison's eponymous book) and there are various models of how to get towards it - hell, Kant's objective often meant something almost opposite to some modern senses.

if you want objective as secured by peer review and intersubjective agreement then we need a more thought out and institutionalised game journalism that isnt as brainless, money-chasing and all round poor quality.

but by what standard? Enlightenment writing on the question of taste never found a single solution to that problem. what are games even for? easier to find a norm in a small community so codex sort of had it for a while, i.e. c&c ... though that probably has ebbed away too at this point. any kind of objectivity isnt something where you just write down some rules and use them forever. its a slippery slope you keep trying to climb.

 

[Alphons]

Can this question be answered objectively??

 

[luj1]

Of course objectivity is possible. One just needs to amass sufficient knowledge.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

It is possible. An objective review is one where the elements of a game get summarized. "It has X number of guns". "There are Y game modes in the game". People think they want objective reviews, but in reality they won't. What they want is a review where the good things and the bad things from a game are mentioned and explained. And guess what, that kind of review is actually a subjective one, since it's based on the reviewer vision of the product and his criteria (Which is based on previous experiences and previous knowledge).

People in general tend to search and to simpatise with reviews that reinforce their thoughts or prejudges about a game. That's why if you watch a game review on Youtube, no matter if it is positive or negative regarding the game, you will see a lot of circlejerking in the comments.

The most rational people are those who want to ear and read the biggest amount of well-structured opinions as posible. Those based on solid statements, both positive and negative ones, in order to compare them and obtain as much knowledge as posible about a game. I always wanted to have this kind of approach, and that's why I ended up on internet forums. To compare different visions about games and eventually, learn.

 

[Child of Malkav]

Yes, it is.

Every reviewer is human and has different preferences, likes, dislikes, tastes etc

Just because someone likes to eat shit, doesn't make it a healthy and well cooked meal...

I was talking about video games, as per the OP.
Books, movies, video games, paintings, sculptures etc. all of this is subjective, eye of the beholder thing as each writer, director, designer, painter, sculptor has his/her own style of approaching a subject and emphasizing various aspects of the work according to their vision.

 

[Grauken]

Not possible

 

[Pharad]

It's hardly possible as most of the reviewers' opinions are based on emotions and it's hard to switch it off because after all, we are all human

 

[PulsatingBrain]

no

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

It is possible. An objective review is one where the elements of a game get summarized. "It has X number of guns". "There are Y game modes in the game". People think they want objective reviews, but in reality they won't. What they want is a review where the good things and the bad things from a game are mentioned and explained. And guess what, that kind of review is actually a subjective one, since it's based on the reviewer vision of the product and his criteria (Which is based on previous experiences and previous knowledge).

let's take for example a genre i totally don't like: driving games. i just don't get what's the fun in going round and round and round and round and round and so on. even i am perfectly capable of an objective review: how's the driving model? what degree of realism or arcade-ism has it? is it a game about feel or speed? how's rubberbanding? does ai drive or cheat? how many tracks? are they different enough? do they look different enough? how many vehicles? do they behave and handle differently? is the damage model important to gameplay? how detailed is it? add a pinch of the holy trinity ui-graphics-sounds and there you have it. not a single "i like this", all perfectly measurable elements.
it's absurd i have to explain these basic common sense concepts.

 

[Child of Malkav]

From all the questions in your driving example, only the ones "how many tracks" and "how many vehicles" have objective answers. Everything else is in subjective territory. Why? Because for every other question you asked someone else will have a different opinion. Example: are they different enough? How different does one track needs to be from another for you to consider it as such? Some more dirt? Or a clean road? A bridge? A coastline? Also to remind that DkS 2 was criticized for having many weapons with similar movesets while also defending BB for its lack of a vast arsenal. Some agreed, some disagreed.
The same thing goes for looks. Purely 100% subjective.
Vehicles, how do they handle? Again, each has a preference and a style and an inclination towards certain models. In NFS Most Wanted 2005, a lot of people loved the BMW M3 GTR, whereas others swore by the Lamborghini and Porsche, even though IMO, they handled very poorly. And these examples came from people I was meeting almost daily not from anonymous keyboard warriors on the internet.
The same for damage model. Some consider it an afterthought. Others, not deep enough. Another portion, good.
Go into the UI, graphics, sounds and it's just the same story. I'm not gonna repeat everything I've said. Hope you get the point.
Another example on our very own RPG Codex compared to say, Reddit. We consider Fallout 1 and 2 some of the best games ever, whereas on Reddit a lot of people would disagree for various reasons. To them Fallout started with 3. Also check the list of top 70 games/RPGs here on the Codex. Opinions (which are subjective) are different since you can find games that are considered (at least officially) decline yet that list reflects something else.