Is It hard Reviewing Video-Games Objectively?

Raff: Objective game reviews are like urban legends. Rarely do you see or read about articles or videos that criticizes games the way they are intentionally made.

Most people may agree that current game reviewers are too opinionated and those thoughts contradict about what gamers really feel on a game. A reviewer’s experience during their play-through influences most of their article.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
strayanalog361d ago

I actually don't have a preference as long as you review it fair. In my opinion,‎ gaming journalism has went downhill since the last generation had the social critic boom, so objective went out the window,‎ but I don't let that deter me on reading someone's review.‎
If I need a score I generally go to a few sites and tally my own score. Admittedly, though, I hardly look at reviews nowadays as opinion swayers, they're more like road maps.‎

Soulst0rmer360d ago

Games are art and art has no standard for review other than "how it makes you feel from experiencing it." Like music or film, games are open to interpretation and there is no set guidelines across the industry for a true numerical grading system

strayanalog360d ago

Video games being art is always going to be highly debatable depending on who you talk to. I do think gaming can be experienced, but I don't think we're at the point of maturity in the industry for it to be an accepted art like film yet.
I do believe the gaming industry does need a shared grading system, though, something better than everyone finding their own framework or system and using it. Things would be more fair across the board, I'd imagine, but that would probably go against games being art since film is judged by your experience too.

thorstein359d ago

True. But I think stray is right about it going way, way downhill.

Example: Today (this week) games with loot crates/ mts will have a greatly diminished review score. This never entered the dialogue before and never detracted from a games score. The current object of hate is Star Wars BF II, which is actually a pretty great game.

Last year, the criteria used to trash a game was unpromised content. Yes. You read that right. A game that didn't provide content that was not promised was trashed by "critics" across the spectrum. It was quite hipster to do this (as it is now.) [No Man's Sky]

A few years ago, the criteria used to trash a game was length. Yep. Again, I am not misspeaking. Length was very, very important when trashing a game that was quite good and technically and graphically unparalleled. [The Order 1886]

Before that. Shallow and unambitious was the criteria to bash a game. [Ryse]

Point is. there are no set guidelines, but critics that refuse to at least stick to their own guidelines have now lost all integrity (if they had any.)

Darkwatchman359d ago

Uh gaming is definitely art. Games like Ico, Shadow of The Colossus, The Last Guardian, Hellblade, etc....prove that the interactive nature of the medium lends so much more to the experience when crafted properly. None of these games would be anywhere near as effective emotionally if they were passive films.

strayanalog358d ago

"Interactive" - precisely. You aren't reading or watching a role played; you are essentially becoming that role. Games are not so much art as they are something new, something that isn't easily defined or pure entertainment. Emotions are brought out in such a way that something as basic as Pong or Mario Bros can cause a more visceral reaction than just about anything shown in the gallery.‎

zb1ftw777359d ago

For looney fanboys and paid journalists yes.

For everybody normal, no.