Well, having been known for being wildly out of line on many of my reviews, I certainly don't hold by majority opinions and feel a review is wrong simply because it differs.
The one exception would be when the review criteria are problematic like some of the Christian game reviews. I think most gamers would agree that a score should be based on game quality and not on game appropriateness.
Actually, Erik, I'd suggest that the example is quite reasonable and certainly not wrong.
Ultimately a set review sets out to consider the subject reviewed. You can review a given subject on many different levels. If you specifically set out to review the appropriateness of a given title then it's quite reasonable to go ahead and do so. Like it or not (I err on the not side) the video game, movie, and television rating systems are all forms of "review"; they're not reviewing the quality of the media, simply certain aspects of the content.
Ultimately an opinion in a review can only be wrong if it can be shown to be factually wrong. Of course, if it can be, it really isn't an opinion. So, "I found the control scheme so cumbersome that the game is unplayable" cannot reasonably be disproven (short of showing that the review didn't have the problem and lied). However, "Most gamers will find the control scheme so cumbersome that the game is unplayed" could be challenged and the opinion found to be wrong.
That said, a reviewer should try to minimize his opinion and maximize the facts. Instead of saying that you found the control scheme cumbersome, describe the scheme and explain how you think many gamers would dislike it. The reviewers opinion is ultimately unavoidable, but by minimizing it you make a better review. A review that's all opinion ("This game sucks. It's no fun. The controls suck.") is not, "wrong", but it is a crappy review.
This is really a dumb "debate." Of course reviews can't be wrong; there's no standard objective criteria for measuring the quality of videogames, or movies, or music, or books, etc.
A reviewer shouldn't try to represent and reflect what the audience thinks/feels. Guess what? You're probably wrong. And your readership isn't some monolithic entity that holds only one view.
(As an aside, I think reviewers do this all the time, which is why there's so much grade inflation. Reviews are cowards, basically; they don't want to challenge reviews, so instead they'll think, "I hate this, but I can see how fans will like it 7/10.")
"That said, a reviewer should try to minimize his opinion and maximize the facts."
I couldn't possibly disagree more, and I think your main example shows exactly the oppoiste of what you say here.
You give extreme examples of bad approaches ("it sucks, it's great!"), but giving me the facts and describing the mechanics of how a game controls isn't as useful as telling me why you hold some opinion of its quality or lack thereof.
A bad review gives opinion without explaining the "why." A good review gives opinion while delivering just enough factual information so that the reader can make up his or her own mind.
But overall, a review should still be more opinion- than fact-based. Don't summarize, analyze.
Yeah, I agree with the anonymous comment above... reviews need a strong opinion to be worthwhile. That said, a review shouldn't be _all_ opinion... it needs to be backed up with description of the game and facts to back up the arguments. But a game review that's all facts is just an instruction booklet. A good review needs to strike a balance between telling people what the reviewer thinks and explaining why the reviewer thinks that way, so the reader can extrapolate whether or not they'll feel the same way.
I always appreciate it when reviewers are open about their biases. If a reviewer admits to hating RTS games, it might explain why they gave Age of Empires a lousy review. Rather than attempt to provide an unbiased opinion (not that there is such a thing), reviewers should be up front about their biases so their readers can evaluate the review (and reviewer) for themselves. I'm not sure there's such a thing as an accurate opinion, just an opinion we agree or disagree with.
I don't really read them for opinion, I read them for facts and generally form my own guesses about them. If people want opinions, there's a dozen forums that will be happy to fill their cup.
Course, that cup will be 75% full of D3 sux cuz its DARK!
a) no taste, and b) no business reviewing RTS until they can break from that mindset
I thing opinions can be wrong if they are illogical, internally inconsistent or unsupported.
But sometimes reviewers will admit that they blew a call, in which case they are admitting that they got a game wrong. Look at all the mea culpas after Black and White - the poster child for gushing reviews and sober second-guessing.
By this metric, reviewers know that they can get a review wrong. The problem, of course, is that you may never know until you play a game.
The best thing to do is to find a reviewer you can count on, even when they break with the general opinion. A reviewer that I trust panned Deus Ex, but he was also one of the first to bust Master of Orion 3. The fact that he has been reliably congruent with my own opinions is enough to make up for those times he over or under rates a game.
Very tough call.. I read the conversation you two had and I've got to say both of you make valid points but i have to agree with you Kyle.. An opinion is an opinion and is only truely wrong when facts are eaither no where in sight or are totally wrong...
My thought on Reviews is that they are adivce. Advice with out facts arent worth my time. Sadly many reviewers don't like to give the facts any more and some take an easy out on the facts by jus comparing a game, weither it's similar or not, to another game.
The thing about it is that we can't be sure if the writers always have all the facts when they right and we also can't garantee that the readers will take it as only advise, they just as well can take a review as cardnal law (which is bad) and that also makes this a very hard call indeed
This is funny because I remember something along these lines a while back being discussed. I think someone brought up that one must be "factual" by presenting news, not opinion. But, as I replied, no matter how something is written or who is writing it, there will be opinion. It's human nature. That's why we have editors...to make it as objective as possible. The reader should be able to understand the opinion and agree or disagree.
Well, having been known for being wildly out of line on many of my reviews, I certainly don't hold by majority opinions and feel a review is wrong simply because it differs.
ReplyDeleteThe one exception would be when the review criteria are problematic like some of the Christian game reviews. I think most gamers would agree that a score should be based on game quality and not on game appropriateness.
Actually, Erik, I'd suggest that the example is quite reasonable and certainly not wrong.
ReplyDeleteUltimately a set review sets out to consider the subject reviewed. You can review a given subject on many different levels. If you specifically set out to review the appropriateness of a given title then it's quite reasonable to go ahead and do so. Like it or not (I err on the not side) the video game, movie, and television rating systems are all forms of "review"; they're not reviewing the quality of the media, simply certain aspects of the content.
Ultimately an opinion in a review can only be wrong if it can be shown to be factually wrong. Of course, if it can be, it really isn't an opinion. So, "I found the control scheme so cumbersome that the game is unplayable" cannot reasonably be disproven (short of showing that the review didn't have the problem and lied). However, "Most gamers will find the control scheme so cumbersome that the game is unplayed" could be challenged and the opinion found to be wrong.
That said, a reviewer should try to minimize his opinion and maximize the facts. Instead of saying that you found the control scheme cumbersome, describe the scheme and explain how you think many gamers would dislike it. The reviewers opinion is ultimately unavoidable, but by minimizing it you make a better review. A review that's all opinion ("This game sucks. It's no fun. The controls suck.") is not, "wrong", but it is a crappy review.
This is really a dumb "debate." Of course reviews can't be wrong; there's no standard objective criteria for measuring the quality of videogames, or movies, or music, or books, etc.
ReplyDeleteA reviewer shouldn't try to represent and reflect what the audience thinks/feels. Guess what? You're probably wrong. And your readership isn't some monolithic entity that holds only one view.
(As an aside, I think reviewers do this all the time, which is why there's so much grade inflation. Reviews are cowards, basically; they don't want to challenge reviews, so instead they'll think, "I hate this, but I can see how fans will like it 7/10.")
"That said, a reviewer should try to minimize his opinion and maximize the facts."
I couldn't possibly disagree more, and I think your main example shows exactly the oppoiste of what you say here.
You give extreme examples of bad approaches ("it sucks, it's great!"), but giving me the facts and describing the mechanics of how a game controls isn't as useful as telling me why you hold some opinion of its quality or lack thereof.
A bad review gives opinion without explaining the "why." A good review gives opinion while delivering just enough factual information so that the reader can make up his or her own mind.
But overall, a review should still be more opinion- than fact-based. Don't summarize, analyze.
Yeah, I agree with the anonymous comment above... reviews need a strong opinion to be worthwhile. That said, a review shouldn't be _all_ opinion... it needs to be backed up with description of the game and facts to back up the arguments. But a game review that's all facts is just an instruction booklet. A good review needs to strike a balance between telling people what the reviewer thinks and explaining why the reviewer thinks that way, so the reader can extrapolate whether or not they'll feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI always appreciate it when reviewers are open about their biases. If a reviewer admits to hating RTS games, it might explain why they gave Age of Empires a lousy review. Rather than attempt to provide an unbiased opinion (not that there is such a thing), reviewers should be up front about their biases so their readers can evaluate the review (and reviewer) for themselves. I'm not sure there's such a thing as an accurate opinion, just an opinion we agree or disagree with.
ReplyDeleteI don't really read them for opinion, I read them for facts and generally form my own guesses about them. If people want opinions, there's a dozen forums that will be happy to fill their cup.
ReplyDeleteCourse, that cup will be 75% full of D3 sux cuz its DARK!
Well, if a reviewer hates RTS they have:
ReplyDeletea) no taste, and
b) no business reviewing RTS until they can break from that mindset
I thing opinions can be wrong if they are illogical, internally inconsistent or unsupported.
But sometimes reviewers will admit that they blew a call, in which case they are admitting that they got a game wrong. Look at all the mea culpas after Black and White - the poster child for gushing reviews and sober second-guessing.
By this metric, reviewers know that they can get a review wrong. The problem, of course, is that you may never know until you play a game.
The best thing to do is to find a reviewer you can count on, even when they break with the general opinion. A reviewer that I trust panned Deus Ex, but he was also one of the first to bust Master of Orion 3. The fact that he has been reliably congruent with my own opinions is enough to make up for those times he over or under rates a game.
Very tough call.. I read the conversation you two had and I've got to say both of you make valid points but i have to agree with you Kyle.. An opinion is an opinion and is only truely wrong when facts are eaither no where in sight or are totally wrong...
ReplyDeleteMy thought on Reviews is that they are adivce. Advice with out facts arent worth my time. Sadly many reviewers don't like to give the facts any more and some take an easy out on the facts by jus comparing a game, weither it's similar or not, to another game.
The thing about it is that we can't be sure if the writers always have all the facts when they right and we also can't garantee that the readers will take it as only advise, they just as well can take a review as cardnal law (which is bad) and that also makes this a very hard call indeed
This is funny because I remember something along these lines a while back being discussed. I think someone brought up that one must be "factual" by presenting news, not opinion. But, as I replied, no matter how something is written or who is writing it, there will be opinion. It's human nature. That's why we have editors...to make it as objective as possible. The reader should be able to understand the opinion and agree or disagree.
ReplyDelete