This video is good. Unless you think it's bad. Then it's bad.
This video is objectively fantastic.
This video is a video.
Actually, it's about ethics in GRPG journalism ;)
After many years of being absent from commenting on this comment board. I decided to comment on this comment board... just to say that this is the worst Final Fantasy game I ever played.
what do you think of what has been shown of FFXV? I think it's going in the right direction. Although I'm not a fan of the main characters because they look like a boy band or Japanese pop singer idols.
I once was the opinion that the FF battle system should go back to how FF1-10 was i.e turn based ATB, in order for the series to be successful again. And I always thought, "Dont fix it, if it isnt broken". But Now I understand most people probably would prefer action rpgs over turn based ones, especially since the battle system is more exciting and engaging. So I think the action rpg direction is now the right choice. I think FF will rise again after they get the story and battle system right.
this Jim Sterling guy really annoys the hell out of me. He always take thing to the extreme to prove his own biased point. Before he even published his FFXIII review he was already trashing the game and even admitted that he didn't even play half of it. That's what people were complaining about. And I'm not defending FFXIII in any way, I freaking hate that game and all its sequels but what Jim Sterling did was very unprofessional. And here we are years later and Jim's still trying to use the same flawed rhetoric to convince people of his mad views.
Yeah I am not really a fan of this guy either and I don't like the call for objective reviews being belittle in this fashion. There actually did use to be objective reviews before reviewers started taking money from every other influencing source like it was no big deal and turning their reviews into a place for their political agendas. I didn't mind FF13, but I get why people don't like it. However, there where a lot lies told about FF13 because reviewers never bothered to complete the damn game. If you don't like something that is fine, but be upfront about the fact that you didn't finish the whole game and don't try to hide it. I don't think that is asking too much.
Why should someone complete a game if it isn't fun?
There was an article in the Telegraph today about a Japanese whisky being named world number 1, with two bourbons taking second and third and not a single scotch in the top five. Of course this was just one guy, and critics rightly pointed out that maybe he just had a thing for bourbon. Perhaps the Japanese whisky is the best, but without some form of formal objective methodology to prove it, his word is meaningless. The point is that we all have our own tastes in everything, but when it comes down to rating things for a diverse range of people to be able to have faith in, you have to use some level of objectivity underlined by a broader sensibility. There are easily rateable things such as music quality, visuals, gameplay innovation, gameplay depth, learning curve (tradeoff with depth here) and the sophistication of the writing (even if plotlines are "predictable" or "morally flawed" they can have a good script and be well-written. People can give their personal opinion, but this should not factor hugely into the final score and shouldn't dominate the analysis. I hate MMOs, but I'm pretty sure I'd be able to effectively rate some better than others by comparing certain objective features of the game. Jim Sterling is being childish here. A little maturity and respect for other opinions is all that is asked for when reviewing games.
Writing reviews and sharing opinions online (in the gaming community) has become dangerous. If someone writes a review and the audience doesn't agree with the score, that reviewer gets attacked. If you don't like this game, then you're not a REAL gamer. People get mad over small point differences too. In order to make everyone happy by eliminating opinions, you'd get a list of facts about the game. No real score or no list of flaws. Even in this state, after the review it's up to the reader to decide whether they want the game or not. Jim implies that gamers want the publishers to control what gets published (reviews and whatnot). While extreme and childish, he's acting the same way the gaming community is acting. He's just showing what people seem to want and what they seem to like. It's a parody and an opinion.
The irony of Jim being so smug about his "objective" review is that it wasn't objective at all. Not in the least. What a lot of folks don't understand is that media is not limited to what you write down or what's on screen. There's this whole other atmosphere that exists outside of the frame. You're still deciding what to focus on. You're still deciding what is important enough to publish. By not including something, any bit of information in your review, you're saying "this isn't important enough to mention." You're making a personal decision to remove that info. That's bias. That's subjectivity. I know Jim was pretty happy rubbing this "objective" review in the faces of those who asked for it, but he didn't do what they asked whatsoever. Quite frankly, it couldn't be done. Whether he knows this or not, Jim's celebrating the failure of his own mission. Objectivity can't be achieved, but that doesn't mean to turn your review into a personal diatribe. If you want to critique the political or social ramifications of Grand Theft Auto, do it, but not at the expense of the information that most gamers are looking for in a review. After all, they're the ones who matter the most when you're writing a review. Reviewers aren't writing for themselves. They write for their readers. If you're a public speaker/writer/videographer, you always, ALWAYS need to speak with your audience in mind. Communications 101.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.