Merus Posted January 31, 2014 I don't know if you know about Mirror's Edge (I'm an expert) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clyde Posted January 31, 2014 I wonder if you will lose your audience as they discover that game walk-throughs exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted January 31, 2014 Yet another person who says they know it's a joke and then takes it utterly seriously. So strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Merus Posted January 31, 2014 He seems like he is incensed that people are mocking the idea of objective reviews; he also appears to be conflating reviews with critical analysis, which is typically much more detailed and considered. I think he is also forgetting that we are talking about an interactive artform, and one that literally does not exist without a player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Berzee Posted January 31, 2014 The only truly comprehensive Objective Review of a game is the game itself, which contains all possible information about the game including all the pixels and the credits. Unfortunately most games don't include a review score and so aren't very useful in this capacity. Developers perhaps should release their game with a review score at the end of the credits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted January 31, 2014 Especially if it knocked their Metacritic score up to salary-bonus-garnering levels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TychoCelchuuu Posted January 31, 2014 FWIW he emailed that to me too. I responded with this: Hi Chris. We disagree with your assertions about factual errors in our reviews. For instance, at around 18:20 in this video, Faith punches open a door: Thank you for your other comments. We will take them into consideration when we write reviews in the future. At this time, Objective Game Reviews does not aim to cover everything in exacting detail. In general we try to keep our reviews short in a way that necessitates not mentioning some of the details you say we should mention. There is always a tradeoff to be made between including more information and making a review short enough to attract readers. If there is indeed a niche to be filled for more extensive objective reviews of games, perhaps Gather Your Party or some other website can handle it. Objective Game Reviews only aims to provide short, readable objective reviews of games, rather than large compendiums of every possible detail. Regards, Danny Lead Head Managing Editor in Chief at Large, Objective Game Reviews And he wrote back: Hey Danny, No, she tackles the door, which I mentioned in my prior email, "the exception being a shoulder vault possible when running at higher speeds, which is still not a punch." Did you watch the video or play the game? The camera angle might make it a bit hard to see in that instance, but if you fire up the game, you'll see that it's a tackle, not a punch. You're still factually incorrect on that point. I could shoot a video demonstrating it more clearly even, if that is necessary. Failure to cover the game in exacting detail necessarily creates a bias and removes objectivity by virtue of omission of information. That and the reviews aren't in enough detail to be worth a damn as anything other than a joke. At least have the dignity of dropping the review score thing if all you're going to provide is shallow summaries, it's disgusting. Try to improve the world instead of making lame jokes at other people's expense, and being willing to put up a whole website to do it with. Chris At this point basically every interaction I have with people that involves this site just reinforces my feeling that it needs to exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JonCole Posted January 31, 2014 I feel like he's just under the impression that stating more objective things makes a review more objective. Like, instead of saying "there are three guns in the game" he thinks it's more objective to say "there are three guns in the game. One gun is a pistol, which has a chamber of twelve bullets, a firing rate of one bullet per second, a reload time of two seconds, DPS of 15 and is manufactured by Colt Firearms which was founded in 1836, has a headquarters in Hartford, Connecticut, and is the sole source of M4 assault rifles for the US Military. The second gun is a pump-action shotgun, with a six slug...". Also, he's insane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BadHat Posted January 31, 2014 For reference, this is his idea of satire. http://www.gatheryourparty.com/articles/2013/04/01/the-future-of-games-as-art/ Edit: The best part of his open letter is when he says "in the interest of time and space." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SecretAsianMan Posted January 31, 2014 So he legitimately wants actual objective reviews to include absurd and pointless levels of detail but his idea of satire is a meaningful idea? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted January 31, 2014 Humor and nuance are, objectively, not his strong suit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeusthecat Posted January 31, 2014 Wow, that was a fascinating exchange. I think it's especially funny that he thinks you should "Try to improve the world" and implies that you could do that by including enough detail to be truly objective. This is an amazing joke inside of a joke. That's like someone being offended over someone making a joke site about unicorns because they didn't include enough factual information about unicorns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted January 31, 2014 "I am disgusted by my own objectivity." - Not Chris Remo, the Idle Thumbs Podcast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hermie Posted January 31, 2014 He seems like he is incensed that people are mocking the idea of objective reviews; he also appears to be conflating reviews with critical analysis, which is typically much more detailed and considered. I think he is also forgetting that we are talking about an interactive artform, and one that literally does not exist without a player. Yeah, the Wario thing he linked is just a detailed analysis of every single aspect of Wario Land 4, which is far from useless, especially in an academical setting. I've done similar film analysis, but always with a second half of either personal interpertation and analysis or referenses to studies or academic texts that talk about the why's, how's, feelings, etc. But why the zeal? Why is this the only right way to talk about a game, and everything else must be destroyed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted January 31, 2014 "given that this site is supposedly objective, every review on it should be matching the format of this book precisely." THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SAY ANYTHING! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted January 31, 2014 I don't know, how does one actually tackle a door? Wouldn't that involve being able to grab it from the sides which is not possible for a closed door still on the hinges?Looks like some serious punchan to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Berzee Posted January 31, 2014 nice thanks there is a lot of misinformation out there about punchable doors just doin mah part to spread the word #DoorPunchStreetTeam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted January 31, 2014 If I can make a suggestion: in the about page you could publish a rubric that maps hundreds of individual features to arbitrary, and often redundant or contradictory point values that are used to make up the objective score. These point values then feed into an impenetrable formula that, readers are assured, has been empirically determined to map to the experience of playing the game. The rubric metrics could also invoke other, equally non-existent metrics (Polychromaticity > 50%: +0.5 points) Bonus points if you can make the explanatory text invoke Metacritic's weighting system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted January 31, 2014 I think the joke works so well because there is no explanation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SilentBtAmazing Posted February 1, 2014 I think the joke works so well because there is no explanation.agree! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BadHat Posted February 1, 2014 But why the zeal? Why is this the only right way to talk about a game, and everything else must be destroyed? "If you want to continue making shitty satire intended to mock people who want better reviews then you can go fuck yourself." Better. Nuff said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SecretAsianMan Posted February 1, 2014 I love that one of his insults about the site is that it should try to make the world a better place, but what he wants is more detail on guns and punches while apparently his idea of "satire" is shitting all over the idea that games can be art. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites