I recently wrote an editorial on how game reviews need to further embrace subjectivity. You probably didn’t hear about it.
I just read another article with a similar sentiment. In it is a quote from my freakin’ idol, Roger Ebert, which pretty much sums up my entire editorial (and this other one) more gracefully and concisely than I could ever hope to:
“I have quoted countless times a sentence by the critic Robert Warshow (1917-1955), who wrote: “A man goes to the movies. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man.” If my admiration for a movie is inspired by populism, politics, personal experience, generic conventions or even lust, I must say so. I cannot walk out of a movie that engaged me and deny that it did. I must certainly never lower it from three to 2.5 so I can look better on the Metacritic scale.
I cringe when people say, “How could you give that movie four stars?” I reply, “What in my review did you disagree with?” Invariably, they’re stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don’t shine.”
Is it any wonder that this guy is my hero in the field of criticism?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nick Simberg
Oh Jamie, you love Roger Ebert more than Kevin loves Jim Sterling.
“What in my review did you disagree with?” I hate when people answer questions with other questions!!! But *ZING!* questions work. Who wins now? The same person that always wins: Roger Ebert! Yay journalism.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Robert Hastings
I’ve become more and more aware of the genius behind Roger Ebert’s words over the course of the last few years. I remember seeing television spots for movies throughout my childhood, hearing that voice over spout off something about “two thumbs” and whatnot. I used to think the man was just a self-involved individual that believed everyone should take his perspective to heart.
It’s amazing what plotting to become a professional writer can do to someone’s view on things. Now, I follow Roger on Twitter and read his reviews whenever it occurs to me that there might be some new ones around.
I’ve tried to be as subjective as I can within my own work. Reviewing games is my favorite part of writing about them simply because I enjoy the feedback. I love seeing someone agree with me, and I enjoy reading differing outlooks almost as much. Reviews are opinions, yes, and it’s nearly impossible to write an opinion piece from an objective standpoint and still have it be containing of any kind of integrity or entertainment.
It’s been foretold that gaming criticism is dying. I believe that’s true, but we can avoid it if we simply adapt to what’s demanded of us. We live in the age of the internet and blogging now. People reading our work want to read our opinions on things. Our writing needs to shift to meet those expectations.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Carl Anderson
I guess I have to ask. If reviews are entirely opinion pieces, and have no bearing on what the player/reader/viewer will experience, why have reviews at all? If there’s no subjective standard, and the reviewer refuses to make an estimate about what his audience will actually like, why should I care what he or she thinks?
It just keeps coming back to the idea of whether games and similar media can be judged against some abstract standard. I’ve been taught they can, but everyone seems to disagree. Since I’m not willing to just throw $60 at something I have no idea if I’ll like, this leaves people like me with no information.
March 21st, 2010 at 8:16 PM
Mark Davis
Your article and the ones linked to here are all fantastic. Although I don’t review games often, I don’t see how you can give a game a score before the review is written. It seems backwards to me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 AM
Jamie Obeso
kyoshiranui:
You’re asking why we should even have reviews at all if reviews are ‘entirely opinion pieces’; however, I’m not insinuating that. If you read my article, I state that there are certainly things that can be discussed objectively.
You can make an estimate about what your audience will like, but how is that helpful? If reviews were just a statement of what they thought Joe Everyman would like, or was purely defined by a set of standards that people needed to adhere to, then why have MULTIPLE reviews? As it is, so many reviews say exactly the same thing that there’s not a lot of point to reading many. The joy of having multiple reviews is multiple opinions. What video game journalism has is not multiple opinions; it’s the same opinion stated multiple ways.
Like Roger Ebert has stated (and as I have stated in my post), the most valuable things a critic can do are to tell you:
1. What to expect (I’m not sure why so many people think that subjective = biased fanboyism that doesn’t tell you what the game is about, but tons of people share that notion)
2. How they feel about it (otherwise, what are you getting out of a review that can’t be garnered from news pieces or the instruction manual?)
What helps a reader is to see variety in opinion, not to read the same thing over and over again, which is what happens when game critics adhere to this ‘mysterious universal standard’ that people bring up on occasion.
The variety is how a reader will get accurate, well-informed picture of whether or not they’ll like something. So, if anything, it would be much easier to make intelligent choices on how to spend your $60 dollars if game critics embraced more subjectivity – not the other way around.
But, if you care to test me, show me an ‘objective’ review that meets the set of standards you’re talking about. Cite me some specific examples in the review on how their objectivity helps you make an informed choice. I’d be willing to bet that there are maybe 2-3 things worth objectively discussing in a game review. So, if you’re up to it, I’m all ears.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 AM
Carl Anderson
That makes more sense than your original statement. I think our disagreement was on how reviews should be read by consumers: most of the people I discuss gaming with believe adamantly that comparing reviews is idiotic, and therefore everything should count on one reviewer. If we assume that reviews should be consumed individually, like they said, then objectivity is critical. Your way of comparing reviews makes more sense.
So more or less, under that assumption, I’m agreeing with you.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 AM
Jamie Obeso
@Robert Hastings: Hey dude! I haven’t seen you around here since I started writing for GamerLimit, and that was like 11 months ago! Where do you write reviews, man?
@kyoshiranui: Yeah, if there were only one review of a game, things would be different. I do think it’s a good idea to find a writer that ‘speaks to you’, though. Not because they’ll always agree with you, or always be fair; but rather, because they talk about information that you care about, and they talk about it in a way that makes the most sense to you.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Robert Hastings
I used to write reviews on my own blog for something like 30 daily readers. Now I write for Brave New Gamer. I’ve been keeping my eye on the recruitment page here at Gamer Limit for a month or so. Alas, it doesn’t look like there’s anything opening up anytime soon. I’m patient, though.
And yeah, I did cease to be “active” around here quite a while ago, though I never actually stopped visiting. I’m thinking about blogging and stuff here again. You know, maybe.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:01 PM
The Weekly Recap: Poke-Walkin | Gamer Limit
[...] a lot of conversation on this site and others. In light of that fact, he’s written up a short addendum. Some may even call it… super [...]
March 25th, 2010 at 11:40 AM