Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

The 100% Objective Review

This video is good. Unless you think it's bad. Then it's bad.

Watch Video

Jim, you once said that only a banana can give an objective game review, and Yahtzee once said that he is a banana, does that mean that Yahtzee gives 100% objective reviews?

Wouldn't a 100% objective review of a game be a genre tag and a benchmark?

Damn. I was hoping Jim was going to do this week's vid on the Slaughtering grounds meltdown that is currently ongoing.

Um.... didn't Jim already do this? Like on Polygon?

Captcha: Join the millions.
No thanks, I think I won't......

Edit: Ok, I get the fucking joke, but still.... We don't need more potshots at FFXIII. It's filled full of holes already.....

I get the message but this video was a bit disappointing. I know you've got a point to make, but I think you could've made it in a more entertaining way. Don't copy the mistakes of the industry, even to make a point.

Wait, Jim. Didn't you once say you were God?

And you just said God isn't real?

Then that means... YOU AREN'T REAL?!?!?!

Toblo1:
Um.... didn't Jim already do this? Like on Polygon?

Captcha: Join the millions.
No thanks, I think I won't......

I get the feeling you posted this before actually watching the video.

I appreciate the attempt at objectivity but this video really was really lacking in ethics.

Something something collusion something narrative.

Oh please, this review is completely drenched in bias:

* Mr. Sterling's choice to mostly show cut scene footage is a clear choice to give a better impression on the public since the cut scenes are FFXIII's strongest selling point. I also think he deliberately choose the best looking cut scenes.

* His choice to even acknowledge that there are upgradeable weapons as opposed to the other surface level features proves that he's on Square Enix' paycheck.

* His lack of FFXIII-music betrays that his overlords at Square Enix didn't think the music would help sell the game. Oh, and I think I heard FFIX music in there, clearly a ploy to remind us of a FF game with better music, leading us to a better impression of the game.

In conclusion,
shame on you, Mr. Sterling.

(Oh and in case it wasn't abundantly clear: this comment is not to be taken serious.)

Its like half the episode was narrated by a Sterling action figure.

Oh, uh...thank god For Jim. (F*cking Sterling son!)

I feel like I just heard a video game review by Perd Hapley. And that is the story of this comment.

Magmarock:
I get the message but this video was a bit disappointing. I know you've got a point to make, but I think you could've made it in a more entertaining way. Don't copy the mistakes of the industry, even to make a point.

Agreed. It's easy to see what Jim was going for but the joke went on for too long and kept going in circles. Still, the message was a good one.

Toblo1:
Damn. I was hoping Jim was going to do this week's vid on the Slaughtering grounds meltdown that is currently ongoing.

Um.... didn't Jim already do this? Like on Polygon?

Captcha: Join the millions.
No thanks, I think I won't......

Edit: Ok, I get the fucking joke, but still.... We don't need more potshots at FFXIII. It's filled full of holes already.....

Got the feeling he did this (which is a rehash of a review he did for dtoid a while ago) as filler, precisely to do a slaughtering grounds video somewhere down the line this week. It all happened yesterday and this morning, which won't probably be enough time to get a script going. He did state he'll do a Jimquisition on it, though.

sooooo TLDR: all reviews will have some bias in it (so what?) or they'll be boring speils that tell you nothing.

Also, some people are idiots and think that publishers should never ever ever be told they're doing something wrong or stupid.

TLDRTLDR: Some people are stupid.

Did I get that right?

[edit] removing cause i suspect pointing out the things i was going to point out will count as derailing despite being topically relevant

aegix drakan:
sooooo TLDR: all reviews will have some bias in it (so what?) or they'll be boring speils that tell you nothing.

Also, some people are idiots and think that publishers should never ever ever be told they're doing something wrong or stupid.

TLDRTLDR: Some people are stupid.

Did I get that right?

You forgot the bit where he's lampooning publishers for making the same thing, and in some cases, literally re-releasing the same game, and pretending it's new and exciting content that's worth 60 or $70

*sits down with my dinner* Yes, everything is going to plan. Soon everything will be the same! And then I can take over the world with a truly imaginative game! Muwahaahahaahahaahahahaha *pets evil white cat* It's all about ethics isn't it Sir Reginald Von Crooksley? Yes, ethics and my domination of the games industry! Soon, everyone will know my name!

*drops soup on the floor* Oh, damnit.

Thank God for you, Jim Fucking Sterling Son!

I remember reading your objective review a while ago, it was brilliant.

That's all good, but you need a sticker on your podium that says 'OBJECTIVE' on it if you want to really prove anything. Bonus points if it's a big, red bumper sticker. We won't believe you otherwise.

So apparently I'm a little out of the loop... where did this whole published running games media thing come from?

I'm sorry Jim, but I have to disagree with you here.

This isn't the way to review games (and to hell with majority. The majority of US citizens might think that the world is 6000 years old, but that doesn't make that true either).

Now I'm not gonna tell you how to review games (you do it professionally, I just play the games), however, I do still think that most reviews could still benefit from playing the devils advocate at every point.

Point is, to play the devils advocate I'm fairly certain that you actually have to wear your personal biases and opinions on your sleeve (like WoW styled combat. Some like it because it adds a strategic element. Now if I were to review WoW I'd mention that while I thought the combat-mechanic felt too disconnected, I could see why other people would like a more detached, more strategic mechanic).

Anyways, that's just my personal opinion of how you could make an "objective" review.

I don't understand either why people want a 100 percent objective review, if all they want is info on the game just read a Wikipedia article, just admit that you dislike that the reviewer gave a game you liked a low score and stop making excuses.

Objective doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be informative.

For instance you could've said that most maps in ff13 are lines with little to no junctions.
You could've said that the game expects you to read the codec textlogs to comprehend the story.
You could've said that the tutorial lasts around 16 hours and that your levels are capped as the game drip feeds them to you.
Those are all facts and you're only being subjective if you add a "and I (don't) like it".

You're missing the point on purpose and that just makes you look like a bufoon.

OH WOW

Was really hoping for an episode about the nonsense with the Slaughtering Grounds dev and instead we get you copy-pasting your old work. I mean, was this meant for people who hadn't seen this when you were working with Destructoid? Surely a link would have been fine since as you pointed out there was little need for an update.

And that's the joke? I think?

Just... buh. I'm just hoping you were squeezed for time because you were setting up this week's Uncivil War featuring Hyrule Warriors, because that would be an acceptable reason.

I think you need to release this video in a year in full color and call it the HD remix. Also add new music, frame it slightly different and add one extra clip and then charge us to view it. Really. I am begging you.

If this what some gamers want then I don't want it. Also Jim the joke was too long but the message wasn't lost.

Thank God for Jim Fucking Sterling Son the man of objectivity.

Dear Jim,

You're being facetious and it only makes you look bad.

Love,
Toilet
xoxo

Sorry Jim, but no. I know what you're going for, but it doesn't work because this wasn't an objective review, it was a review mocking the reader. "Some people like it, some people don't" is not objective criticism. Saying WHY people like it or don't is objective criticism. Saying "You can save the game sometimes" is not an objective explanation, because I have no idea how the save system is structured, and you can tell me how it works, objectively.

I'll repeat what I said before:

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.

Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.

No one says you can't have an opinion, no one says reviews should be 100% objective, but that opinion should be built on video game knowledge. When you talk about whether something works or not in a video game whether the combat system is fun or not, or balanced or not, it should be based on your experience in video games, not some personal vendetta or political nonsense that has nothing to do with games and nothing to do with whether or not the game is good. Because that's what we're getting out of reviews these days. People who don't even like genres or know something in the game is going to "trigger" them are being given games to review specifically so their review will generate controversy clicks or they can push an agenda.

This is of NO VALUE to us, the consumers. You're a consumer advocate, right? Then you should want what's best for the consumer too.

doggy go 7:

aegix drakan:
sooooo TLDR: all reviews will have some bias in it (so what?) or they'll be boring speils that tell you nothing.

Also, some people are idiots and think that publishers should never ever ever be told they're doing something wrong or stupid.

TLDRTLDR: Some people are stupid.

Did I get that right?

You forgot the bit where he's lampooning publishers for making the same thing, and in some cases, literally re-releasing the same game, and pretending it's new and exciting content that's worth 60 or $70

Oh right. I forgot that. XD

So TLDR: Lots of people and publishers are stupid.

MrFalconfly:

Point is, to play the devils advocate I'm fairly certain that you actually have to wear your personal biases and opinions on your sleeve (like WoW styled combat. Some like it because it adds a strategic element. Now if I were to review WoW I'd mention that while I thought the combat-mechanic felt too disconnected, I could see why other people would like a more detached, more strategic mechanic).

That's not objective, that's a personal opinion.

Worgen:

MrFalconfly:

Point is, to play the devils advocate I'm fairly certain that you actually have to wear your personal biases and opinions on your sleeve (like WoW styled combat. Some like it because it adds a strategic element. Now if I were to review WoW I'd mention that while I thought the combat-mechanic felt too disconnected, I could see why other people would like a more detached, more strategic mechanic).

That's not objective, that's a personal opinion.

That is a personal opinion, but it's a personal opinion marketed as a personal opinion.

Also, I made it clear that while I don't like the mechanic, it's well thought out, and it's not a dealbreaker (unless you're like me).

Aww, I really hoped this episode of Jim Fucking Sterling was about not acting like a 12 year old if someone calls your shitty game shit.

Would have been less embarrassing (and much, much funnier) if you'd simply shouted "STRAW MAN!" over and over for five straight minutes.

When I hear people wanting "objective" reviews, I feel like the word they're looking for is "impartial", which is something most reviews should indeed strive for. We all have our personal/political biases, but when you're representing your outlet and giving a review to a larger audience (which will also be submitted to aggregators like Metacritic and affect people's jobs), the reviewer's biases should be proportional to what a general audience wants to hear. I feel like more sites would benefit from having contributors write op-ed pieces about certain games (or games) and delve into a more personal critique (without a numbered score being aggregated) while leaving more technical or general criticisms for reviews.

All this video does is mock the notion of impartiality, and does nothing constructive in the process. Yes, people have personalities that get in the way of work, but people also forget their reviews don't exist in a vacuum, and injecting personal biases in a space where they're not needed can actively harm developers and coverage of their game.

I don't agree with the people clamoring for "objective" reviews, but god damn. I would rather ally myself with fools than the type of person who would make this video. It isn't insightful, it isn't smart, it doesn't bring a new and interesting perspective, it doesn't inform, it doesn't address the issue in any real way and it isn't even funny. This video is a failure on every level.

But that isn't why I care. I care because you are better than this. The appeal of Jim Sterling is that he holds opinions that are well thought out. I may not always agree with you, but I can trust that if I watch the Jimquisition I will at least get a well reasoned perspective on the issue you talk about. But this? Nothing but a stupid, straw man cheap shot. You are not this stupid Jim. You are not the idiot that completely misses the point. You understand the issue and you could have responded intelligently. But you chose instead to make this farce mocking a straw man.

This is by far one of your worst video's ever. You shut down, you stopped thinking, you cheapened yourself and sunk down to the level of straw manning and deliberate misrepresentation. I expect more from you. This sort of drivel is beneath your normal standard. I would like to think it is beneath you, but I guess I was wrong on that.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here