Are they right, Yea Forums?

Different people like different things
>Gamers like games
>Journos like money
>OP likes cocks

>No shit. Reviews are created by people based on their opinions of something. It's always 100% subjective.
Then what's the point of them? If it's just an opinion then it doesn't really tell me anything about the game, only what the reviewer thought of it.

>Why do white people always do the right thing?.

Does he think its some sort of committee?

Reviews have always been glorified thumbs up/down, user.

Yes. That is what a review is.

>It took him 24 years to realize this

Correct, retard.

ya finna mofuqa poo dick lmao

If that was the case, reviwers shouldn't ever try to review games from genres they don't like. There's no point to a review if he's already gonna dislike it just for being of that genre.

How the fuck can you call yourself a professional on a field you yourself discredit as purely subjective?

Attached: 1562698410078.jpg (480x362, 27K)

The whole point of reading a review is to get the opinion of the writer. And if you need other peoples opinions on video games to determine whether or not you like something, you're retarded. But, if you must read reviews, you should know what the authors likes & dislikes are so you understand their frame of reference.

By getting paid for it.

Of course not. The only subjective parts of games are art styles/themes/messages that some people may personally like or dislike:
>cartoonish vs. realistic graphics
>certain genres of music
>any political messaging
>sex/race/culture-specific appeal
None of these are relevant to to the OBJECTIVE elements of a game (i.e. how well the game does what it sets out to do), which should be the purview of a critic:
>level design
>quality (regardless of style/genre) of art/music
>functional game mechanics
>consistency of themes

A good critic may want to inform his audience of the subjective elements (especially if he knows his audience well), but it shouldn't factor into his final score, which should be based only on objective quality. There are such things as good games that some people don't like and bad games that some people DO like, and anyone with more than 5 brain cells can tell the difference.

Attached: onizuka.png (1175x876, 522K)

>he thinks reviews are objective
lmao
>it doesn't tell me anything about the game
that's the point, they tell you what the game is via their viewpoint

Fact:Sucking publisher dicks to get the most shekels out of them for your shit review requires a lot of skill. Other journos need professionals to show them the way.

Attached: TqYOLWe.jpg (700x700, 88K)

PFTTTAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA

How the fuck do you not know reviews are subjective?... Oh my motherfucking God, really?

source: your ass

I am of the opinion that games that are on a technical level fine (as in looks okay, normal framerate etc) should never get lower than a 5/10

Somebody raised that with their sweat blood and tears and this is what you get

Not even white but it's civilized writing.

I didn't know Brian Fargo was a fucking retard

never reproduce

Attached: 1542561115634.jpg (1024x576, 50K)

more like tears tears and tears

>I don't particularly like this subject, nor this genre. But the product is solid, no bugs or glitches, and I can see people who do enjoy games like these, having a good time.
Why is being objective so hard, dammit?

ding ding ding ding ding

there are things that are subjective like:
this character is good
this music is bad
there are things that are not subjective like:
the camera controls are shit
the framerate drops too often

Whats the point of assigning a number to it then? That implies its quantifiable; The subjective is not quantifiable.

Yeah, of course. Even if everyone could agree on whether one part of a game is "objectively" good or bad, reviews would still be completely subjective, because they're based on your overall impression, and how much weight in that impression you give to any individual facet of a game is going to depend on your own personal tastes.

Mostly I'm just surprised it took an adult having a brief conversation on Twitter to figure this out.

Because people like to see the big number, and have that as a talking point / shitposting ammunition or whatever the hell else. If this were a better world people would know better.

Are you too stupid to understand what reviews are, or are you just pretending to hold this stance because it's the opposite of what these game journalists believe?

Because they're not stupid niggers that don't know proper grammar?
What kind of stupid fucking question is that?
t. nig nog

because gaming companies use it to lure clodhoppers into buying their trash games and it works
>most reviewers are paid shills

Attached: 1530124759838.png (401x255, 24K)

>opinions are subjective
These are grown as people discussing this type of shit

you have people in this very thread struggling to grasp this

Okay so fuck the guys you are replying to for expecting better amirite? we live in a society after all

They are retarded and evil.

A lot of idiots out there are too lazy or stupid to read the contents of a review, so they just look at the score instead.

Friendly reminder that SJWs are still trying to kill Doug Tennaple's career because he "misgendered" that thing.

>sending a message that will be seen by tens of thousands of people for years to come
>casual writing

youre retarded, if youre famous and on twitter then you should be using proper punctuation.

because idiots don't want to read

remember the ebert and siskel show and how their banter and talk about the movie was the meat rather than thumbs up/down? it'd be like the braindead readers only looking at the thumbs up/down.

Professional reviews are supposed to be professionals examining the objective elements of the work in question. They are not supposed to be a platform for retarded children to rant about whatever stupid shit pops into their noggins. If your review is "100% subjective" with no intelligence or analysis behind it then why the fuck are you being paid for it?

If you're in the business of publishing game reviews you do the things that get you the most clicks, and one of those things is having a big stupid number

>Anons realize for the first time in their life that reviews are subjective things

Thanks for making me feel smarter tonight

The conclusion I got was that journos can't seem to rate anything lower than a 60.
FO76 got like a 70 something even though it was panned as being 100% awful.

Nevermind that he openly opposes gay marriage, he was already into shit

Even if we were to assume that there is some level of objectivity in individual elements of a work (which if you ask me is ridiculous), it still doesn't matter, because at the end of the day a review is based on an overall impression of the sum of these elements, and a person's own perceptions and tastes affect which elements they weigh more heavily.

look man, no one wants to agree with a tranny

but you're trying too hard here

>Then what's the point of them?
To sell a product.

I have an ideal reviewing system I wish a site would use.
Professional reviewers should have to give a percentage number at or before release. Their job is to tell the audience how good the movie is. If they aren't reviewing it for the viewing audience then who are they reviewing it for?
Viewers should have to give a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, like or dislike.

The objective value of the reviewers would be able to be measured by their correct appraisal of the percentage of the audience that liked the movie. Otherwise what is the distinction of a professional reviewer and a casual? If a professional reviewer were to review from his knowledge of current trends and audience taste, it would be a job that required some level of skill, and a job which gave some level of useful information. In the realm of idealism, the consumer would have to show proof of attendance.

Yes and it's not controversial or new of them to notice. /10 and /100 scales have always been pointless and result in stupid, counter-intuitive responses. There's no meaningful gain in information, AND the great bulk can't handle the numbers.

1-5 scale is fine for a simple assessment. 5 for outstanding gamechanging, 4 for good, 3 for middle, 2 for flawed and 1 for unredeemable.

Next step: do a basic gridchart with 3x3 axis for pluses and minuses. Top quadrant for great ups and no real flaws, bottom for the opposite, then a neutral row for mixed good and bad vs total meh.

On the one hand you'd have to expect mooks to navigate a basic chart. On the other hand, look at the popularity of DnD Alignment charts. And those are retarded.

>Even if we were to assume that there is some level of objectivity in individual elements of a work (which if you ask me is ridiculous)

You are a retarded worthless animal and I hope you die very soon.

>it still doesn't matter, because at the end of the day a review is based on an overall impression of the sum of these elements, and a person's own perceptions and tastes affect which elements they weigh more heavily.

It is possible to consciously acknowledge those biases and mention them in your review or GASP choose to not review shit that you know you aren't going to treat fairly because it has anime tiddies or straight white male protagonists or whatever the fuck these trannies feel like getting triggered by on a given day. Go fucking dilate and go fucking kill yourself, scum.

If its subjective then why do review scores matter at all?

>The objective value of the reviewers would be able to be measured by their correct appraisal of the percentage of the audience that liked the movie.

Transformers movies confirmed for the greatest movies of all time and anybody who say they're complete impossible to follow trash should be branded a terrible reviewer

I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just shitting on metacritic in a roundabout way.

You're right, the Mona Lisa is objectively the same as Sonichu.

Are they pretending not to realize different people have different opinions?

Who????

Did you actually think this was some kind of clever thing that was gonna blow my mind? The quality of mechanics and how much fun a game is is 100% subjective. Not everybody finds the same things valuable or fun. Some people are into walking sims, some people fucking hate them for their non-interactivity. They're going to review a walking sim completely differently

If the audience liked it then the audience liked it. Who are you reviewing for?

The information such a system would generate would be top critics who give an accurate percentage chance of the average attendee liking the movie.

So what if they're stupid for liking it? Stupid people consume too. All you vouce for is an elitist circlejerk with no value to the majority of people. Who are you reviewing for?

Fellow nig seconding this statement. The only way we get taken seriously is when we know how to talk/write. People's entire demeanor changes when they realize they're not talking to a room temperature IQ chimp.

>Ben Kuchera

Attached: 1359491123721.jpg (622x296, 30K)

Attached: 1359663697041.png (1408x451, 196K)

>why do educated people follow basic sentence structure

even if most people can agree that something is objectively good some fag can just say they don't like it because opinions

Attached: 1359523272513.png (1680x1050, 464K)

To some extent. There are objective dimensions of games, such as performance, graphics, and how buggy/glitchy it is, but those are rarely taken into account in the review process.
If you're just talking about the quality of the game, then yes I believe that's subjective.

Attached: 1359664146743.jpg (1348x480, 192K)

She's right too, this is why Yahtzee is legit a very good game critic. You know he's not a fan, and he soldiers through all that shit anyway.

>reviews are subjective

HOLY SHIT BREAKING NEWS

OH YEAH, IT'S TWITTER TIME
what's your favorite tweet bros?

can we just get a fucking /twat/ board already

>Brian Fargo
>a game (not mine)

Yeah no shit, this guy hasn't made a game in 80 years. Where the fuck's Wasteland 3 already?

>Whats the point of assigning a number to it then?
People are too stupid to read a couple paragraphs and need to see a big red number to know what to think.

A food critic is expected to like every kind of food enough to stomach it, assuming it's good. This allows them to get the "lay of the land" at a given restaurant, give people an idea of its highs and lows.
It is not OBJECTIVE, but their tastes are irrelevant- they should not have personal tastes or interests that interfere with their ability to judge the objective quality of the food.
The issue with this, aside from
> food analogy
is simple:
A movie critic is not expected to like every genre of movie. The great ones tend to enjoy a wide range of genres, because they LIKE movies, but they aren't expected to theoretically enjoy any movie in any genre, even assuming said movie is good.
That's because they don't review theaters or actors; they review movies. Single products. If a movie is in a genre they know they are not equipped to fully enjoy, they aren't expected to fucking review it.
Games are also single products, and so should fall more into this camp than that of food reviewing.

Obviously, a review is subjective, but in any official capacity, you should only be reviewing something you could THEORETICALLY like, knowing its genre and basic premise. If you're seeing major discrepancy in scores, it's possible that it's coming from a reviewer who hasn't gotten the message yet.
But then, a difference of 20 points below the average could just indicate that a critic is stricter or has significantly different criteria than most, and my entire post could be irrelevant.

>If a movie is in a genre they know they are not equipped to fully enjoy, they aren't expected to fucking review it.
The fuck? Professional movie critics reviewed everything, even b-movie trash in a genre they had no interest in. You're thinking of hobbyists.

subjectivity is always a factor, but that doesn’t mean you can’t look at certain elements objectively

The trick is to find a reviewer who's tastes in games generally align with your own, then stick with that reviewer. Also, never take a review as gospel. Always consider the reviewer's personal biases and general preferences when considering whether to follow their advice. A good reviewer will state these biases or at least make them apparent quickly.

If reviews are completely subjective, then how come some games get universal praise across the board (Either from reviewers, players or both) with little if any discrepancies, while others get the opposite reaction? Why do some games get consistently warm or mild reviews, with the obvious outlier saying it's bad or great? If a review is merely a matter of personal opinion and subjective taste, then the discrepancies in the scores should be even larger than the one Brian Fargo talks about.
Why is Devil May Cry 3 praised while 2 and the reboot are hated? Why were people more excited by WoW Classic, a re-release of a 2004 game, while not giving a shit about the new expansion? Why does Yea Forums like New Vegas while shitting on Fallout 3, despite both games using the same engine and mechanics and differing only in story, setting and characters? Why is Resident Evil 1-4 remembered fondly while 6 or 7 barely get any threads and 5 has been reduced to meme material? Why are said opinions held by the majority of the players in each fanbase? Is it just a mere coincidence? Or is there something more to it?

... they do? Well, then, I think games journalism is probably the exception. The level of skill required, and the degree of the game that's locked behind said skill, would require each reviewer to be a literal god to be able to fully understand and therefore fully appreciate every single genre.
It's probably best to have a small to mid sized collection of specialists, maybe adding more if you come across genres that require a significant amount of devotion to even scratch the surface of (WRPGs, more intensive simulation games, grand strategy, etc.)

That's reasonable.

>heather alexandra

why do trans fags never come up with normal female names and always pick ridiculous soap opera names? is it because they're just pretending to be women? that their idea of women is one of a man's?

Heather is a common girl's name. It's not really ostentatious.

How dumb are you?

I don't know who told you subjectivity means you now definitely get a uniform distribution but it does not.

he didn't just pick heather tho. it's always the full name "heather alexandra".

Is there where were at?

No it didn't, metacritic scores for Fallout 76 average in the low 50's.

What are the qualities of an objectively good game?

i like it

All big game review sites have multiple reviewers, I'm certain they would get people who are at least invested into the genre reviewing the game.

>?

It does 10/10 of the things I want it to.

Is there any gaming news website that is not complete shit? I unironically get my news solely from Yea Forums but where does Yea Forums get its news

He doesn't go by Heather, he goes by Heather Alexandra

Nintendo

From ecelebs.

Common core trash

people are by and large similar and like the same things

There are no properties that will guarantee your game is good.
There are properties that are objectively good, though.
Obviously, something being "good" isn't an exact science, hence the concept of so-bad-it's-good, but here:
> Characters, if there are any, are coherent and consistent, even if not necessarily believable
> Glitches, if present, are not intrusive on regular gameplay
> note: some degree of glitches may be bonus points for future speedrunning
> Effective, non-intrusive tutorial, or gameplay simple enough to not require an explicit tutorial
> note: "lol just play it and die 50 times learning all the shit the game didn't even try to teach you" is not good. if the game turns out good anyway, good for you, but don't pretend that having no/shit explanation of essential game mechanics is good
> Control is intuitive and responsive (even in games where reaction time is not a factor, it doesn't feel good if it's slow, unresponsive, confusing, or floaty)
> All playstyles/characters, if there are multiple, should be more or less balanced, allowing variance in playstyle
> note: certain games use character selection as an ad hoc difficulty selection, these are obvious exceptions

They are 10000% wrong

Objective only means your own personal feelings are not getting in the way of the evaluation of a product, a good example of game journalist not being objective was the extreme push for DmC Devil May Cry as a good game because they looked at it threw a subjective lens. It felt good to them because of their own anti capitalist beliefs so they chose to ignore creating an objective evaluation of the game and put it on a pedestal because of their subjective opinion.

Subjectivity has a small place in reviewing but by being subjective your view point tends to be skewed.

Attached: d3f.gif (500x214, 895K)

I fucking hate people like you so much.
It's okay to like a game daddy IGN didn't like and it's okay to hate a game baby girl Kotaku liked.

>Why do white people always put punctuation at the end of their sentences, even in casual writing?
>at the end of their sentences, even in casual writing?
>even in casual writing?
>writing?
>?
Fuck you.

Attached: 1567877580618.gif (189x189, 729K)

The only person misgendering that thing is that thing itself and anyone who plays along with his emperor's new clothes game

>journalism is filled with postmodernist idiots
STOP THE PRESSES

>Are they right

Yes and no.

Yes, in that individual tastes will color individual perceptions of quality. No, in that they're supposed to be goddamned professionals and able to put their tastes aside in order to critically evaluate a product from an objective (or as objective as possible) standpoint - which includes researching topics they don't know well, and as a last resort - excusing themselves from the review process if they cannot filter personal bias from their evaluation. Analysis first, Editorialization later... but these faggots skip analysis altogether (or only have the most basic surface level analysis) and then skip right to editorialization as if anybody gives the slightest fuck about their uninformed opinions.

Imagine if Car & Driver magazine hired a writer to review the 2019 Ford Explorer, and the asshole just bitched a little bit about the interior or not liking the placement of mirror adjustment buttons - then spent the rest of the article on a screed about how you, who are interested in the Ford Explorer, are the lowest form of cocksucker for not considering buying a Tesla and pretty much responsible for the regional conflicts in the middle east over oil. And to top it off, the guy can't even drive and hasn't had a license in over a decade.

But his "Opinion" is just as valid as a detailed breakdown of it's road performance, fuel efficiency under various conditions, price point comparisons, and potential histories of faulty components from contracted suppliers (like including Takata airbags). That's the state of games journalism.

Attached: pqzjc8J.jpg (625x625, 223K)

soul

People I hate don't like it.

Please stop using correct punctuation at the end of your posts, this board is for casual writing

God thats not the point.
Yes we all understand there is nothing wrong with liking products other people think are bad, hell there is nothing wrong with liking products that are objectively bad. But you cannot state your subjective opinion on a review piece and think it should be taken seriously as a evaluation of that product.

No.

This but unironically for the most part.

English is a white person's language.

Please stop using correct punctuation at the end of your posts, this board is for casual writing

Plez stop usig curreckt spilling in yur werds, dis bored is forr cazules

gramber allso fuk

In game reviews, 100 means good, 90 means okay, 80 means meh and 70 and everything below means just bad.

They get paid for it, so they call themselves professionals.

Shills need to be shived

Attached: 1548184468721.png (1184x1294, 483K)

Roleplaying is for nerds

If it's journalist review score & user score are equally as high, it's a masterpiece for fans of the genre

> Zelda: Ocarina of Time (Critics: 99.2/100) (GF Users: 100/100)
> SoulCalibur (Critics: 98/100) (GF Users: 96.3/100)
> MGS2: Sons of Liberty (Critics: 98/100) (GF Users: 99.1/100)
> Metroid Prime (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 99.6/100)
> Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 99.4/100)
> Final Fantasy VI (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 98.5/100)
> Chrono Trigger (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 99.6/100)

If journalists rated it high but there's a huge gap in the user score, then it's a mediocre game elevated by paid reviews or simply aged like shit

> Red Dead Redemption 2 (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 84/100)
> Grand Theft Auto V (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 87/100)
> Grand Theft Auto IV (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 84/100)
> Grand Theft Auto III (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 81/100)
> Halo: Combat Evolved (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 84/100)
> Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 (Critics: 97/100) (GF Users: 81/100)

If journalists rated it low, but the user score is really high then it's a fantastic game that critics gave low scores because they didn't actually finish it or generally just have terrible taste in games

> Xenoblade Chronicles (Critics: 92/100) (GF Users: 99.2/100)
> Suikoden II (Critics: 82/100) (GF Users: 98.7/100)
> Trials & Tribulations (Critics: 81/100) (GF Users: 97/100)
> Rune Factory 4 (Critics: 78/100) (GF Users: 97/100)
> World Ends With You (Critics: 89/100) (GF Users: 97.2/100)
> Dark Souls (Critics: 88/100) (GF Users: 97/100)

HOW CAN ONE MAN BE SO BASED!

The tricky part about games is they can reach a level of shit that other mediums mostly can't. When a movie or album or whatever is garbage that's all there is to it so it's easier to use a larger scale, while games can can face bugs or glitches that can hamper an already bad experience and even outright make it unplayable. A shit game might be shit but you usually keep that thought in the back of your mind that at least it's not some shovelware abomination that forces you to restart your console / PC.

opinions are subjective...opinions are quantifiable...conduct a survey. you fuckn retard

Ahahahahahahahahahaha

yes but hack bloggers like kuchera can't accept it

they hate themselves enough because no real journalist takes them seriously

Rather than taking a retarded 1-10 metric, just read through the review for anything in particular that stands out and compare it to others you've read to get a more comprehensive understanding before you get something

If multiple reviewers from different sources say there's not enough mobility options and that makes traversing the world a slog, that should give you an idea on what you'll be getting, same if you're seeing a lot of praise for a deep combat system, or hearing that it's floaty and unresponsive. It's up to you as a consumer to actually pay fucking attention to what your seeing, rather than taking a single review at face value. This goes for everything, whether it's a car, a video game, a book, or a new pair of headphones. Every review ever is going to have some degree of bias, no matter how hard they try to be objective

That being said, there's going to be a risk involved. That's the nature of the beast. Sometimes you're done a game to be enjoyable enough to overcome whatever flaws everyone brings up, and vice versa.
Thoughtful consumerism is important, but the caveat is there's no way to be sure 100% until you experience it yourself

>TRANSGAMERTHINK

Disagreeing is wrong think and you should be deplatformed and erased from history.

>@transgamerthink

that genuinely sounds like a parody

This is bait.

Attached: images(16).jpg (216x234, 14K)

Because reviews being 100% subjective is bullshit and games have objective qualities even though they're not easily mesurable. If you didn't like a game then either you are not the audience or the game is objectively fucking shit.