Topic: Objective Game Reviews

Why do gamers keep requesting that they see "objective" game reviews? How does this make any sense at all?

Is it just people using terms they don't understand or do they really want reviews devoid of all opinion? Saw this on our facebook page where someone complained about our Pool FX review being "subjective" and it just baffles me.

Certain things can be a bit 'objective' but its still subjective. Things like Graphics, Content even to a degree gameplay can be objective and quantifiable but at the end of the day there is still an element of opinion within. A review is generally nothing more than some persons opinion even if they try and be objective and if you base your purchase on just one you can make mistakes.
I know that some reviewers are criticised regardless by some people as if their review is definitive and gospel. If their review doesn't match the opinion of those people they are wrong, biased or even paid to score it that way.
According to metacritic which averages a lot of scores both public and reviewers there is often a difference - however I do know that in some cases this is 'contrived' - The people who use metacritic fix their scores to lower or raise a games public score - classic example is CoD which scores very low on the public.
A game like Bloodbourne has scored very high amongst most Journo's but I know that if I reviewed it, it would score a lot lower due to a number of frustrations I would have - loading times, checkpoint system etc etc even if both the reviewer and myself tried to be as objective as possible.
I believe that the majority of reviewers are objective first and foremost but within that there is an element of opinion

Reviews are inherently subjective; its someones opinion on a game. An objective review would be like "its a game, theres some balls, they go in the pockets if you hit it right".

Bonkers

But some things can be a bit more objective. Things like consistent frame rates, accurate movement and collision detection, controls - response and precision, variety of game modes and amount of content etc. These things can be quantifiable and objective. The opinion though would come in about whether these are within acceptable or not. Opinion also comes in if some minor issues affect a game or not. Like I said for me Bloodbournes reloading time after each death and resetting of all enemies but loss of items would seriously impact on my enjoyment but obviously doesn't impact on the majority of reviewers but an objective review would mention this.

You're right as usual, Bam! I've watched some vids on Bloodborne and the loading times do seem ridiculous

You are both right. All reviews are subjective but need objectivity also. Occasionally, objectivity gets lost in a review, for instance, someone who really likes a game may forget to mention glitches and issues whilst someone who dislikes it may nit pick to the extreme, that's the subjective coming in to play.

Just so you guys know this would be an objective review:
www.objectivegamereviews.com/resogun-review/

Yeah...

I have friends that write for larger outlets such as Kotaku so I would prefer if you didn't say dumb stuff like money changed hands. Thanks...

Silly accusations like that hurt the entire industry.

Also the Silent Hill HD Collection has a 70 on Metacritic, hardly amazing reviews.

@utena, people report on what they see, if they don't get a glitch, they can't report it. Look at AC Unity, hardly any of the issues were reported yet many experienced them later. I had this discussion with someone I trust and I genuinely believe that that reviewer did not have the glitches that I did, why, I have no idea.

Don't beat yourself up over it — it's not that big of a deal.

But backing up what @sorethumbed said, there have been plenty of games that I've reviewed where I've not stumbled onto a single bug or glitch, while many other critics complain about them profusely. I've also reviewed a couple games where I've experienced many glitches, but no one else was talking about them. It's odd how that works, but it does happen.

While I don't know of any specific situation where advertising has affected a review score, I would say it's naive to think that it NEVER happens. Corruption exists in every facet of life, so it's nonsensical to think the games industry is too innocent for it. That said, you can't just go pointing a finger and assuming that it's happening. Ya know?

People don't realize that reviewers are a much smaller test sample than the thousands of people who buy a game day one. How are they going to experience every bug? They aren't game testers. Trust me, if I encounter any major glitches I'll mention them but some people had no issues with games I had issues with (like Citizens of Earth I had hard-lock on me several times).

I have to say that while I try not to be TOO picky, I mention bugs and glitches when they damage the experience. For example, a player's arm disappearing and then reappearing in a second in FIFA is not something I'd bother writing about, but his foot disappearing, causing him to miss the ball? That needs mentioning. A LOT of the time, I notice what I would consider to be experience-ruining bugs being overlooked by reviewers. No, I don't expect that they all ran in to them, but if something happens forty times without fail while I'm playing, I'd bet that it happened to at least one other reviewer. It's surprising how many times outlets will spend four paragraphs on graphics and then not mention huge bugs.

Regards to corruption, I know enough to know when to suspect that something's going on. It doesn't happen nearly as much as people suggest that it does, and everybody chimes in with "everybody has their own opinions, yo!" and that's true, but there are times when my knowledge of specific companies and outlets sets off my alarm.

Summed it up pretty well.