Garple

(IGN.com)

Recommended Posts

As a critic, he shouldn't be choosing what he thinks people want to see. He should be choosing what he believes is the best. 

 

I think that is an unfair assessment. Last of Us is actually a very good, cogent, and well executed experience (I gave it an 8 when I reviewed it) and people enjoying a good game is actually a refreshing change of pace. Aside from that I understand your argument but unfortunately it hasn't swayed me; I still feel he is entitled to both his personal opinion and a professional critical mentality.

 

Its a problem unique to gaming, in that no other medium is journalism considered "enthusiast" (ie journalists clapping during e3 presentations). I kind of wish we just went back to blogging about games, when its one person and not a corporate entity you know their recommendations are personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his choice has more to do with pandering to expected norms than it does with objectivity, but I can't really blame him for it either. When Gone Home won indie of the year or whatever it was at the VGX, there was a pretty big outcry from people accusing them of including it because it was "controversial" and would act as nerd bait to drive up viewership. Many people won't accept a pick as valid unless it's sufficiently gamey in a way that they're accustomed to, otherwise they'll cry fowl instead of considering that, hey, maybe they're the ones being pandered to and not everyone who doesn't share their tastes. The fact that people will still rail against a review for not being "objective" enough based on a set of standards they believe to be set in stone, when really it's just a norm which has been established by the glut of similar games released in the past, is telling of the level of thought many are willing to put towards the validity of games that might fall outside their wheelhouse. So people will argue definitively on what is or isn't a game, or whether it's game enough to be considered someone's top pick, instead of considering what a game is capable of being.

 

Last of Us is a solid pick, but it's also a really easy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "pandering" is a strong word for what's happening here. The "objectivity" thing is very real when it comes to IGN, where they draw no shortage of ire for every review that steps outside the general consensus. So having a personal GOTY versus a professional GOTY seems quite appropriate. Especially in the case of Gone Home, where I've seen such a wide gulf of opinions that seem largely based on personal, past experiences.

 

And not to minimize this "issue" too much, but it is just a GOTY award. Giving it much care over the "cool, this game won" or "darn, this game didn't win" seems a little silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DramaBeans has a scoring system of two numbers; how much they enjoyed it and how they rate it.
http://www.dramabeans.com/about/ratings/ 
I think there is a certain honesty to the idea (if you go ahead and accept that numerical scores have a social value). It's nearly impossible for someone with a fan-base to not take a larger cultural relevance into account when publishing a numerical score. But that cultural perspective can conflict with personal experience. Having a rating system that incorporates both allows me to look through a list and get a rough idea of what someone thought about each series. I would prefer something more similar to Pandora's system, but this is an easy way to nuance an established system.

 


 

This show is scored by two people; one is in black and the other blue. The first number is how much they enjoyed it, the second is how they rate it.

 

Master’s Sun(2013)
주군의 태양 2_master.jpg Smart use of ghost premise to drive the romance—a slow but steady burn, loaded with chemistry. Not quite crack-drama status, but satisfying and sweet. (9 / 8) A fantastic rom-com match-up in the leads. Everything else isn’t as sparkling as you want it to be, but there’s a lot to be said for a magnetic attraction. (8 / 8) –GF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that system. It beats the hell out of systems that attempt more objectivity by pointing out more details, like rating the audio, replayability, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of objectivity in a review makes no sense. Critiquing anything is inherently subjective; that's the whole point. A truly objective review would just be a list of things that are in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that arguing objectivity's place in game reviews is the ultimate red herring; objectivity is a misnomer for generality. Most of the people who complain about a lack of objectivity are instead complaining about how a review doesn't align with the general attitude towards a game. In other words, reviews would be "objective" if they were all a single score with no variation. That's what makes The Last of Us a "safe" GOTY; pretty much everyone agrees that it's great, with little to no variation (the low end of the review scale on this one was like... 7/10 or something).

 

I think the real problem here is that it's hard to talk about games with authority in this space. People perceive confidence about one's opinion as arrogance or holier-than-thou. For every person who praises a Rock Paper Shotgun as a herald of honest opinion and higher-level discussion, there's another that gives them crap for "being PC master race" or whatever. If you're a woman and state a dissenting opinion, you're struck down for not being experienced enough to review games or you have "too many feels" or some such shit. "Pandering" is practically required to get anyone to listen.

 

I don't know what the root of this issue is or what seems to make the gaming culture so coarse, maybe it's a combination of the time investment and money investment that causes people to violently strip away authority from any game reviewer that doesn't agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few objective reviews. This one and this one. There's an objective GTA V review somewhere but I can't find it.

Nicccce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a woman and state a dissenting opinion, you're struck down for not being experienced enough to review games or you have "too many feels" or some such shit. 

 

I caught on to it after its conclusion, but the Danielle Riendeau v. Dragon's Crown stuff absolutely infuriated me. Fuck the people who make those claims, sincerely.

(A conversation for a different thread)

 

 

Most of the people who complain about a lack of objectivity are instead complaining about how a review doesn't align with the general attitude towards a game.

 

So, for argument's sake, I generally agree with Polygon reviews, or more accurately, they often align with my own opinions. Unlike Gamespot or IGN I feel their standards for 8s-9s are a lot higher. That is my opinion. I recognize they aren't absolute in their scoring, and they don't determine a game's quality with their reviews (but that'd be a hell of a super power). This helps me extrapolate what I may feel about games I have yet to play. I respect the majority of their opinions (yes, even Gies) and it helps me forge my own.

 

Is me not agreeing with a majority of IGN or Gamespot reviews (aside from VanOrd) the equivalent of IGN goers who complain about Kollar giving Last of Us 7.5 or Gies giving Shadow Fall 5? Am I just experiencing this argument from the mirroring side? If so, it may explain why I agree with Miller separating his games based on personal appreciation and "professional" obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but see the ol' art vs commerce part of the original blog post. The Oscar and Grammys don't really represent a serious cultural critical perspective in giving their awards either.

 

I also agree with Jon about a lack of critical authority as well. For a medium as big as games I'm surprised we don't have an Ebert yet, though I think that might be due to a general lacking of terms to weigh quality. GH is wonderful in it's use of the medium to deliver narration, and it's ludic qualities support the narrative very well, but I can understand people also wanting a bit more active engagement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for argument's sake, I generally agree with Polygon reviews, or more accurately, they often align with my own opinions. Unlike Gamespot or IGN I feel their standards for 8s-9s are a lot higher. That is my opinion. I recognize they aren't absolute in their scoring, and they don't determine a game's quality with their reviews (but that'd be a hell of a super power). This helps me extrapolate what I may feel about games I have yet to play. I respect the majority of their opinions (yes, even Gies) and it helps me forge my own.

 

Is me not agreeing with a majority of IGN or Gamespot reviews (aside from VanOrd) the equivalent of IGN goers who complain about Kollar giving Last of Us 7.5 or Gies giving Shadow Fall 5? Am I just experiencing this argument from the mirroring side? If so, it may explain why I agree with Miller separating his games based on personal appreciation and "professional" obligation.

 

I think you're using reviews "how they're supposed to be used", in that you should find a reviewer or outlet whose general opinions align with yours and use them as a barometer for your own potential interest.

 

I think that this situation is not only the mirror perspective of IGN readers feeling IGN is "right" because their interests align with IGN, but also a self-perpetuating cycle in that IGN seems to purposefully tailor their content for the broadest possible audience, thus the largest number of people align with their somewhat bland "blow you away" reviews and reinforce the "pandering" review methodology. Also, IGN picks up a degree of (unearned?) authority due to their mass - Polygon has to choose what games to review, because their review team is something like 5 staff members and some number of freelancers. IGN on the other hand reviews nearly every game, so the have readers who have an adopted opinion of almost every game to argue about elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... and correct me if i'm wrong... it seems like the answer to all of our problems is "fuck ign".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love the idea that conceptually, there could exist a Best-Game-Eva that no one would pick as their favorite game. Are critical reviews that ignore personal circumstances evidence that we anthropomorphize gamer-culture? Does GOTY only exists as an artifact of compromise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're using reviews "how they're supposed to be used", in that you should find a reviewer or outlet whose general opinions align with yours and use them as a barometer for your own potential interest.

 

I think that this situation is not only the mirror perspective of IGN readers feeling IGN is "right" because their interests align with IGN, but also a self-perpetuating cycle in that IGN seems to purposefully tailor their content for the broadest possible audience, thus the largest number of people align with their somewhat bland "blow you away" reviews and reinforce the "pandering" review methodology. Also, IGN picks up a degree of (unearned?) authority due to their mass - Polygon has to choose what games to review, because their review team is something like 5 staff members and some number of freelancers. IGN on the other hand reviews nearly every game, so the have readers who have an adopted opinion of almost every game to argue about elsewhere.

 

Right, but I'd argue it goes a bit deeper than building consensus with the most people possible. A lot of people consume these reviews regularly enough that they've built a view of what constitutes an objectively good game, and they use that imaginary standard to dismiss any opinions that don't align with it. I've had conversations with people who can't accept that someone could give a game a 3, or a 5, or whatever the fuck, unless they were trying to be "controversial," because it objectively does not warrant anything less than a 7. On the reviewer's part, they might just be trying to cater to a wider audience instead of outright pandering to them, but I can't help but see it as the difference between reviews as an honest statement of opinion, versus grading them for competency as a consumer product. "How could they give Game a 5 when it has all the requisite bells and whistles and doesn't crash to desktop every 3 minutes? Fucking snobs, don't they know games are just meant to be fun?" Sorry if I seem kind of bitter, I just see this sentiment shockingly often.

 

There are a few objective reviews. This one and this one. There's an objective GTA V review somewhere but I can't find it.

 

I actually had that review bookmarked because I enjoyed it so much, but it looks like the blog is dead now. :(

 

http://nexoscluster.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/an-objective-apolitical-review-of-gta-v/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but I'd argue it goes a bit deeper than building consensus with the most people possible. A lot of people consume these reviews regularly enough that they've built a view of what constitutes an objectively good game, and they use that imaginary standard to dismiss any opinions that don't align with it. I've had conversations with people who can't accept that someone could give a game a 3, or a 5, or whatever the fuck, unless they were trying to be "controversial," because it objectively does not warrant anything less than a 7. On the reviewer's part, they might just be trying to cater to a wider audience instead of outright pandering to them, but I can't help but see it as the difference between reviews as an honest statement of opinion, versus grading them for competency as a consumer product. "How could they give Game a 5 when it has all the requisite bells and whistles and doesn't crash to desktop every 3 minutes? Fucking snobs, don't they know games are just meant to be fun?" Sorry if I seem kind of bitter, I just see this sentiment shockingly often.

 

Do we need to care about those people? If they can't determine that their standards != objective, they aren't really worth your care or attention.

 

I think that Greg's sidebar is advocating more for your/our point of view than the POV of that of people, because he didn't just let his TLOU GOTY nomination on IGN stand alone and instead make the point that Gone Home affected him on a personal, emotional level that isn't quantifiable "superior" or more "GOTY-ey" than TLOU. As far as I know, there is no editor-specific GOTY editorial planned for IGN so his post on Giant Bomb was the place for him to make that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I regret starting yet another internet argument about objective (critical) vs. subjective (personal) reviews. WHAT HAVE I DONE!!! (Actually this one has brought up some unique points I haven't actually seen before. Nothing that's changed my mind, but hurray for new things!)

 

My biggest problem really is that it just feels like he's pandering for his IGN audience, as some have said. I really, really don't want to accuse him of such, because I think that's one of the worst kind of accusations you can make - essentially accusing him of lying! But it does feel that way, and it bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't convince you to feel different about what Greg is doing, but I would like you to consider for a moment that part of this favorite/personal versus best/critical thing may be due in part to the rubric with which IGN votes for Best of 2013 awards.

 

They don't nail down the process in minute detail (this is one area where Giant Bomb gets it so right with their 12 hours of podcasts), but they do have this little bit on their How We Chose page:

 

What makes a Game of the Year candidate? It's the kind of game we'll remember for years to come – the kind that we predict will leave a mark on gaming history, which future games will draw from to make themselves better.

 

That's not precisely the definition of "best" or "favorite", more the most impactful or memorable. I can't personally say that that's the actual measure with which the editors nominated games, but I can also see where that measure may explain why Greg might say one thing on IGN and one thing on Giant Bomb without it being "pandering".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Last of Us, a game that is the same kind of game that's existed for many years - albeit very polished and high quality - will have more impact on the games industry than Gone Home, a game that is infinitely more unique and groundbreaking (at least as far as the games industry goes!). HM.

 

Well now I'm just spouting my own opinions, which is another matter entirely. But also it means that, even given that guideline, I think it's wrong to choose LoU over GH. Wokka wokka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than Game Of The Year, I wish people would just choose Games of A Year and not worry about trying to rank things on top of each other. As far as I can tell everyone's likes and dislikes (including mine) in any category are constructs of cultural conditioning; I prefer to go with the flow and just enjoy things and hate other things and then later decide I enjoy other things and the original things I liked were stupid but then go back and be nostalgic about the original things 10 years later.

 

Wait this is the drunk posting thread, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we need to care about those people? If they can't determine that their standards != objective, they aren't really worth your care or attention.

 

I think that Greg's sidebar is advocating more for your/our point of view than the POV of that of people, because he didn't just let his TLOU GOTY nomination on IGN stand alone and instead make the point that Gone Home affected him on a personal, emotional level that isn't quantifiable "superior" or more "GOTY-ey" than TLOU. As far as I know, there is no editor-specific GOTY editorial planned for IGN so his post on Giant Bomb was the place for him to make that point. 

 

Right, but by what rubric is he judging it be superior? I just feel like people fall back on this agreed-upon standard of what makes a game worthy of accolade, when really there's more bias to those assessments than is being acknowledged. The bias only seems more justifiable, or more objective to some, because it falls so snugly within the boundaries that have already been carved out by countless other games before it. I don't care about the individual people who hold this standard up as objective, but I do care that they help to perpetuate an attitude that makes this standard seem more real and binding than it actually is.

 

But anyway I wasn't actually aware the IGN award was a site-wide thing and not his personal pick, so my bad. GOTY(.cx) is a pretty dumb distinction in the first place, so maybe I shouldn't be getting so up in arms about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but by what rubric is he judging it be superior? I just feel like people fall back on this agreed-upon standard of what makes a game worthy of accolade, when really there's more bias to those assessments than is being acknowledged. The bias only seems more justifiable, or more objective to some, because it falls so snugly within the boundaries that have already been carved out by countless other games before it. I don't care about the individual people who hold this standard up as objective, but I do care that they help to perpetuate an attitude that makes this standard seem more real and binding than it actually is.

Well said. It does seem like some positive feedback-loop is haunting us; roughly, "Which game this year reminds us most of the GOTY of yesteryears?"

But anyway I wasn't actually aware the IGN award was a site-wide thing and not his personal pick, so my bad. GOTY(.cx) is a pretty dumb distinction in the first place, so maybe I shouldn't be getting so up in arms about it.

It's fun to have opinions. No need for self-inflicted smarm.

Oh god, I just used the worst word ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

So Last of Us, a game that is the same kind of game that's existed for many years - albeit very polished and high quality - will have more impact on the games industry than Gone Home, a game that is infinitely more unique and groundbreaking (at least as far as the games industry goes!). HM.

 

 

I'd actually argue that The Last of Us is quite an achievement in gaming. Not that it does anything specifically "innovative", but that it manages with such a large staff and budget to maintain a cogent and directed experience. I don't 'believe' the triple a gamespace is capable of a lot of innovation, but in everyday it can succeed, the last of us did. 

 

So, The Last of Us, IGN's AAA game of the year.

 

 

 

Right, but by what rubric is he judging it be superior? I just feel like people fall back on this agreed-upon standard of what makes a game worthy of accolade, when really there's more bias to those assessments than is being acknowledged. The bias only seems more justifiable, or more objective to some, because it falls so snugly within the boundaries that have already been carved out by countless other games before it. I don't care about the individual people who hold this standard up as objective, but I do care that they help to perpetuate an attitude that makes this standard seem more real and binding than it actually is.

 

Incredibly well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually argue that The Last of Us is quite an achievement in gaming. Not that it does anything specifically "innovative", but that it manages with such a large staff and budget to maintain a cogent and directed experience. I don't 'believe' the triple a gamespace is capable of a lot of innovation, but in everyday it can succeed, the last of us did.

So, The Last of Us, IGN's AAA game of the year.

Incredibly well said!

It is an achievement! It's the Blizzard sort of innovation, iterating and slowly evolving, ever so slowly, so they know for sure what does and doesn't work, with an absolutely enormous level of effort going into polish and presentation. Definitely an achievement, but one worth celebrating over a game that actually tried something new? Not in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now