TRULY Objective Game Reviews Don’t Exist.. #gaming

I feel like with big companies like Ign they should have two reviewers one for somebody familiar with a game series/type of game and somebody who isn’t and have them both give a review to get both perspectives on the same game from different eyes

see assassins creed is ok and doesnt run like a truck on sand with older hardware

IGN is the most biased though because they want to make sure they keep getting free review copies

Dragon Age Inquisition is the type of game I would normally spend my entire life playing. But it does suck in way too many areas, and I rate it very poorly because I can set my bias aside. It's not that hard.

Every time i hear anything about an ign review i remember the smtV one that the reviewer kept compering ot to persona 5 because they are both part of MegaTen, even tho they are COMPLETELY different games

Here when this banger only has 3.7k views can’t wait to see it with millions soon

this isn't a criticism of you, but i don't really like the argument that it's hard to be unbiased. if i enjoy a certain type of game, book or movie, then that means i understand it more and i'm in a better position to see what it does right or wrong. even if i love a game or developer, that doesn't stop me from criticising things that i think are objectively bad. if anything the more i like something the harder i have to try not to be too harsh about the problems because it frustrates me how good it could've been

There’s a lot of subjective things in gaming as well, many arts are applied. Also, numbers mean different things to different people. Someone might have a 5 be the average and go up and down from there while someone else might put 7 as their average. Which personally, make no sense, that give more nuance to how a bad a game is versus the 3 point of wiggle room for good games. Anyway, just listen to how people react, look at multiple sources and make you informed purchase decision after that.

Stop reviewing and get a real fucking job. Opinions are like assholes and everyone has one. None of you should get compensated in any manner for them

IGN and Kotaku are not even bias or anything.

IGN are muppets that gives reviews based on how much they got paid.

Kotaku are just morons with opinions and a political agenda that use video games as a platform to spew their hate and bullshit they are not even real game reviewer´s they should not be allowed to exist.

Yes but I am not about disbelief every review that says suicide squad is shit and spend my hard earned cash to find out if they are right. 7 and bellow /10 aren’t worth it

I created a rating system years ago where id consider various things from the world, the characters, the narative, if it had multiplayer, how was it implemented, how the sandbox felt, what the mechanics feel like, the graphics and performance, the variety and custimization, the replayability, the DLC, hell even the soundtrack.
Id grade each out of 10, if it doesnt have MP or a Story etc then it defaulted a 5.
Then id grade the game based 9n its entire score.

Skill up is trash. He's paid for

Biased? You are literally paid to lie

Have the exact same situation for AC Odyssey, one of my favourite historical periods and it’s my favourite game in the series probably largely on that alone.

that doesnt always happen tho. ive read reviews for shooters by a person who hates shooters haha

Before I ever started reviewing, it was Total Biscuit who enlightened me to the fact that all reviews are subjective. Everyone views a title through their own perspectives and biases. Trying to engineer a dry purely "objective" review won't create an audience, nor will if give people a real sense of the factor of the game that really matters: which is whether it's fun. There is no "objective" fun.

Gameranx is probably the only review I watch before buying a game.

I wouldn't want to see a review of someone who doesn't like the genre of game they're reviewing. That's the bias you want to avoid. The bias towards the genre from a reviewer is what you want.

This is completely different from a bias towards or against the developer, aesthetic etc.

Truly objective? No, but that doesn’t mean your review can’t be objective. It should be both, otherwise you can’t be seen as credible

The thing about game reviewers is that you have to find one who's likes and dislikes are almost the same as yours

And take into account mostly that person's opinion when you are thinking about buying a game

I like listening to reviews made by anyone, but the one whose opinion I take serious the most is skillup's

If he likes the game, most of the time I like them, if he loves it, I love it, if he hates it I do as well

You probably won’t see this. You have made several wonderful videos and although in the truth, I don’t have much interest in most topics on most of your videos. They are amazing I still watch them because the content and the way you convey your ideas are worth listening/watching on YT.

Problem is money bias.

And sometimes the editors assign people games to games they hate to play if they want a game to score badly.

I’m so happy for skill up that people know who he is because Aussies never get the recognition like he has.

That is why, when a game is out of your wheelhouse, you have a friend that has this wheelhouse play it and talk with you about the game because they will be honest about it. It still blows my mind that people think they need to bite the bullet to play something they don’t like. You guys are professionals, well, as professionals as one can be doing the thing. You have to know someone who plays each type of game, even casually. Have them play the game for the technical, his game is fun, this game sucks donkey, you can go, this game is pretty, the sound is good, the UI isn’t crap. There’s nothing wrong with working with other people and sharing what you know and don’t know and it doesn’t have to be a full collab.

Hey, this is Luke and I brought it Pete here to give Bob’s nuclear warfare RTS a play. How does it play Pete? Well Luke, it’s got a good skill escalation to it and there’s a lot of quality of life improvements over what we’ve seen like blah blah blah. Anything else we should know Pete? Nah, if you liked RTS Fracas, this feels better. Thanks Pete. As for graphics and sound, pretty solid stuff, look pretty, don’t stare into the nuke.

This is not the type of bias people mean. Its also not what people mean when they say that game reviewers are biased.

What they mean is that these sht eating college degree holding cringe lords force feed their ideological drivel into the medium by reviewing for social justice shibboleths.

I prefer watching individuals like Dunkey and gameranx and Jeremy Jahns because they're individual people and for lack of a better word more transparent with how they feel about the game in question.

whereas IGN is like yeah this game is revolutionary groundbreaking, and a narrative so complex and detailed it deserves a second playthrough, but it only gets a 6 out of 10. Maybe a 7.

CMON IGN WHAT THE FUCK?!

What is it with Gamer’s fixation on ‘objective’ reviews? Nothing in art is objective, that has to be the most boring and reductive way to talk about something you claim to be passionate about

What? You mean reviews are typically written by people interested in the product? Gasp! You dont say?? Are gamers really this fucking stupid they need this spelled out for them??

On the topic of Third Person Narrative games… I despise them 😀. Not wholly I've enjoyed a few but their existence is not ideal for Games as a medium.
And I firmly believe it is a step back to align a game with a more cinematic experience. That doesn't mean they can't be good, I really enjoyed uncharted and God of war 2018+. The frame work doesn't make a bad game, but the story and gameplay are in two separate rooms when they should be living together.

Do gamers really need the concept of implicit bias explained to them?

IGN likes bad games

Eh, kinda feels like coping. Ain't got no difficulty being objective towards games even with my biases, and I ain't special at all. My guess is that money and a lack of professionalism is the real reason here.

This whole problem would be solved if we could convince people to stop letting other people think for them.

This is true, that's why it's important to listen to the experience and not the rating. I started reviews years ago on another site, which obviously didn't get many views. The thing I did different was I wrote my experience via reactions. I watched TV, movies, and reacted to content, writing down every thing I pick up and have a reaction to.
I listened to someone say how PREY was a really good game, and how DOOM Eternal was the best FPS of all time. I loved DOOM Eternal, but hated Prey. Even if it's well developed, I just didn't get along with Prey because it felt too difficult. Likewise I feel the badly about Breath of the Wild because of pacing issues. One of the worst games I've ever played.

i mean, true but if then what's supposed to be the point of game critics then? If i am just gonna hear random subjective takes, I don't need to listen to any particular critic. I would imagine that, despite still having biases, a critic's job is to use their knowledge to offer as objective of an analysis as possible.

I always watch a bunch of reviews to get an idea of the game as a whole. I like Gameranx because they just show gameplay, talk about what the game is and what you can do in it. They give their opinions on the game but also give you the tools and information to make your own decision.

While it is nearly impossible to have an objective review. I think we need realize is that it’s somewhat up to the reader to discern those biases and determine the validity of the reviews with an objective mind disregarding our biases