Objective Game Reviews Are A Thing That Exist

This is a good question that I didn't really see a good answer to in the replies, and since I'm procrastinating I figured I'd supply it.

An objective review would entail all of the indisputable non subjective info about a game.

Average frame rate, The mechanics, The plot if the game has one. The genre* etc.

*(what a genre is/can be, also be a matter of dispute, an objective means of categorizing it would be using the developer's self identification of the game and/or gauging public consensus.)

A review like that would be useful for people who only play games if their personal criteria is met.

eg,:

this game is only running at 15 frames I’m not playing it

This game has match 3 mechanics I don't like match 3 mechanics.

this game is a role playing game, I don’t play roleplaying games.


I do know weirdos in real life that live this way, as dumb as I think it is for them to do so.

But they would and do, derive value from “objective reviews".

The Jimquisition has a pretty good (if not a bit factious) example of an objective review here if you're so enclined.

Wait...airquotes?

Now the keen eyed among you will have noticed the air quotes around objective reviews last section.

That's because what objective means is subjective.

There are people who are legitimately just interested in basic information about video games with no interest in the reviewers response to said information. I think most outlets know that, which is no doubt why game at a glance sections exist at most outlets. Those interested in basic information about a game with no means of easily accessing this information would be valid in my eyes in complaining a lack of objectivity. (I assume these theoretical people are blind and/or don't have internet connections, but even then their request would still be reasonable.)

There are other people that simply didn't like what a reviewer said about a game in their review, and because they can't or won't, communicate that fact, they'll tell that reviewer to be more objective mixed in with some slurs(we are dealing with gamers after all).

Now gamers are my people. I won't defend their actions, but I do want to try and make it a bit easier to understand how they can get their mindstate so clapped.

A lot of gamers identify with the games they play, so an attack on their game is an attack on them. So they yell at the reviewer.

a lot of gamers might not see a particular point about a game talked about in a review and see the reviewer as a shill or sellout for the publishers of said game. So they yell at the reviewer.

A reviewer might make a legitimate error in their coverage of a game, and since reviews can be a big part of a games exposure to the world, some gamers might see that failure and yell at the reviewer.

And sometimes gamers are just terrible and yell at reviewers because of a bunch of stuff that happened in 2012 that I'm not gonna get into right now.

Assuming we believe in common decency, gamers yelling at reviewers is bad. How do we fix that?

The Answer Lies Inward

I personally think gaming news outlets are dumb, I don't go to news aggregators or large gaming outlets for reviews, I'm either reading player reviews are hearing about games via word of mouth.

No Austin I still haven't played crosscode yet.

I don't go to companies I go to individuals,

Greg Millar, Dunkey, Philip Defranco when he occasionally mentions a game, Ragnarrox, Grimbeard,  civvie, Jorelle, Kenny,etc.

I might disagree with these individuals on a take that they have, but they've earned my trust to the point where I'll seek them out over an outlet. cause I know them and they haven't laid off people after getting bought out by a larger new outlet.

so yeah everyone needs to go looking for their own people to listen to. that's the cure.

Here's dunkey's video on game critics.

So now what?

I dunno bro.

I gotta get back to work tho.

Goodbye.