You guys always wanted objective game reviews, right?

  • 71 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by c_rakestraw (14809 posts) -

Well, here you go.

http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

Enjoy.

#2 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6048 posts) -

I can't quite figure out whether the reviews are jokes or not.

#3 Posted by loafofgame (980 posts) -

Dude, Antichamber is not an 8. It's an 8.5 at the very least, but more likely a 9.

#4 Posted by Beagle050 (729 posts) -

Skyrim contains bows and swords. If you damage an enemy enough, you can kill them. You can design your character in the beginning of the game. The game contains dragons. 10/10

#5 Posted by loafofgame (980 posts) -

That website is full of shit:

"The sounds in Battlefield 4 are mostly things like explosions, bullet impacts, and weapons firing."

Lies! It's mostly footsteps and the sound of gear, together with weather and nature sounds.

#6 Posted by Chevolutionary (23290 posts) -

You've misunderstood. What gamers mean when they say 'objective reviews' is a review that agrees with them/what they've already decided.

Instead we get minimalist reviews, written by a robot, and opaquely scored. Look at what we have done. This is why we can't have nice things.

#7 Edited by loafofgame (980 posts) -

It also covers too many indie games. Biased hipster propaganda.

Alright, I'm done.

#8 Posted by c_rakestraw (14809 posts) -
@loafofgame said:

That website is full of shit:

"The sounds in Battlefield 4 are mostly things like explosions, bullet impacts, and weapons firing."

Lies! It's mostly footsteps and the sound of gear, together with weather and nature sounds.

Curses! We can't trust these reviews either.

The search continues!

#9 Posted by Chevolutionary (23290 posts) -

@El_Zo1212o said:

I can't quite figure out whether the reviews are jokes or not.

I think so. I hope so.

#10 Edited by turtlethetaffer (17256 posts) -

Lol. Funny site.

#11 Posted by c_rakestraw (14809 posts) -
@Chevolutionary said:
@El_Zo1212o said:

I can't quite figure out whether the reviews are jokes or not.

I think so. I hope so.

They are. It's one giant parody on the constant demand for 100% objective game reviews.

#12 Posted by Jacanuk (6040 posts) -

@c_rakestraw said:

Well, here you go.

http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

Enjoy.

hehe there is no such thing as a objective review.

#13 Edited by c_rakestraw (14809 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

hehe there is no such thing as a objective review.

There is now!

#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

#15 Posted by Jacanuk (6040 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

You are wrong, some people just doesn't make up their own definition and think that suddenly everyone else have the same idea that 2 + 2 is 3.

#16 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

You are wrong, some people just doesn't make up their own definition and think that suddenly everyone else have the same idea that 2 + 2 is 3.

So your idea that 2+2=1 is automatically correct.

#17 Edited by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

*Nervously raises hand*

Is it strawmanning?

#18 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@1PMrFister said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

*Nervously raises hand*

Is it strawmanning?

DING DING DING! We have a winner! :D

#19 Edited by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@1PMrFister said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

*Nervously raises hand*

Is it strawmanning?

DING DING DING! We have a winner! :D

WOOOOOO!

*Runs around the set screaming for joy*

#20 Edited by El_Zo1212o (6048 posts) -

The funny thing is, they really are pretty objective(except when they're snide). The score at the end pretty well ruins the joke, though, and just makes the whole thing confusing.

#21 Posted by BranKetra (50392 posts) -

I read the Battlefield 4: China Rising DLC and Battlefield 4 reviews. I did notice anything other than game content in them which earned them their scores.

#22 Edited by MirkoS77 (8732 posts) -

Haha! My search has ended!! See people? SEE??? Pure, objective bliss! A little dull in presentation perhaps, but hey, if a little flair is the only thing subjectivity adds, then I can do without.

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.

10/10. Objectively.

#23 Posted by loafofgame (980 posts) -
@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

You are wrong, some people just doesn't make up their own definition and think that suddenly everyone else have the same idea that 2 + 2 is 3.

So your idea that 2+2=1 is automatically correct.

Hmmm, deja vu. Also, 2+2=4. BEND TO MY WILL, MINIONS!

#24 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

@Beagle050 said:

Skyrim contains bows and swords. If you damage an enemy enough, you can kill them. You can design your character in the beginning of the game. The game contains dragons. 10/10

That's not objective because it was awarded a number in order to show a persons opinion of how much like they liked the game.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A OBJECTIVE OPINION.

#25 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Apparently, lacking any compelling argument, the subjectivists have now resorted to mockery.

Let's see, which logical fallacy was that again? ;)

The point is being made by posting those "objective" reviews is that it's absurd to have such an expectation in the first place; that's why the "objective reviews" come off as humorous. Any review that actually reads like a review and is useful to the consumer in determining quality will be subjective. If objective reviews really existed, they would be nothing more than a sheet of factual statements since objectivity can only deal in facts. A sheet of factual statements seems absurd (as a review) because we expect reviews to contain subjectivity. Subjectivity is the only way that we can move from an objective statement like "In Halo, you shoot aliens" to a subjective statement like "Due to its razor sharp controls and smart AI, Halo makes the act of shooting aliens immensely smooth and satisfying, making it an FPS that is worth any gamer's time." The latter is more useful to me particularly because it introduces subjectivity.

#26 Posted by loafofgame (980 posts) -
@Gargus said:
@Beagle050 said:

Skyrim contains bows and swords. If you damage an enemy enough, you can kill them. You can design your character in the beginning of the game. The game contains dragons. 10/10

That's not objective because it was awarded a number in order to show a persons opinion of how much like they liked the game.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A OBJECTIVE OPINION.

Also, you can design your character throughout the game (not just in the beginning), with clothes and by improving skills.

Many people simply want reviews to be based more on observable facts and less on a largely personal experience. Once you start understanding why people use the word objective it seems less important to discuss how they use it (in a sentence). I mean, from a definition standpoint I still can't agree with 'objective review', but I think the reasoning behind the use of 'objective review' is often valid. Which doesn't mean I agree with it, but still... I think it's less black and white than it might appear.

#27 Posted by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@loafofgame said:

Many people simply want reviews to be based more on observable facts and less on a largely personal experience.

I don't agree with this. I think they just want a more analytic style of subjectivity (which reviews by and large do a good job of providing) but are confusing that with objectivity. They still want to be told "how good" something is, which is inescapably tied to that reviewer's personal experience.

#28 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9: You guys are pinning absolutes on me which I never used. My stance on objectivity has been explained at great length in other threads and I'm tired of repeating it to every guy in line. Go read it there.

Suffice it to say that this "just a dude's opinion" mentality is what's holding gaming back from achieving the status of art form.

#29 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9: You guys are pinning absolutes on me which I never used. My stance on objectivity has been explained at great length in other threads and I'm tired of repeating it to every guy in line. Go read it there.

Suffice it to say that this "just a dude's opinion" mentality is what's holding gaming back from achieving the status of art form.

I'm not going to hunt for statements you've made about objectivity.

In the end, a dude's opinion is precisely what a review is. I don't see why acknowledging that would hold gaming back from achieving the status of an art form. "Art" is one of one most subjective, opinion-based realms there is.

#30 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

I'm not going to hunt for statements you've made about objectivity.

In the end, a dude's opinion is precisely what a review is. I don't see why acknowledging that would hold gaming back from achieving the status of an art form. "Art" is one of one most subjective, opinion-based realms there is.

In other words, as it's all in the eye of the watcher, there is no difference between "The Seventh Seal" and "American Pie".

I hope one day people will be able to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. Clearly it's not today.

#31 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

I'm not going to hunt for statements you've made about objectivity.

In the end, a dude's opinion is precisely what a review is. I don't see why acknowledging that would hold gaming back from achieving the status of an art form. "Art" is one of one most subjective, opinion-based realms there is.

In other words, as it's all in the eye of the watcher, there is no difference between "The Seventh Seal" and "American Pie".

I hope one day people will be able to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. Clearly it's not today.

I didn't say there is no difference between "The Seventh Seal" and "American Pie" (you probably shouldn't accuse others of strawmen and then employ them in your own argument). But the differences between them does not change that any review that makes a value judgement is an opinion. Some opinions are more analytic than others, some opinions are better supported, some opinions are better educated, some opinions are less emotional, some opinions are less biased. But they are still opinions.

The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities has nothing to do with whether a review is an opinion/not an opinion.

#32 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

I didn't say there is no difference between "The Seventh Seal" and "American Pie" (you probably shouldn't accuse others of strawmen and then employ them in your own argument). But the differences between them does not change that any review that makes a value judgement is an opinion. Some opinions are more analytic than others, some opinions are better supported, some opinions are better educated, some opinions are less emotional, some opinions are less biased. But they are still opinions.

The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities has nothing to do with whether a review is an opinion/not an opinion.

Didn't you just say that the value of art is purely subjective?

Answer this, if you will: what is the difference between The Seventh Seal and American Pie? Also, is it correct to assert that The Seventh Seal is worth more than American Pie?

#33 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

I didn't say there is no difference between "The Seventh Seal" and "American Pie" (you probably shouldn't accuse others of strawmen and then employ them in your own argument). But the differences between them does not change that any review that makes a value judgement is an opinion. Some opinions are more analytic than others, some opinions are better supported, some opinions are better educated, some opinions are less emotional, some opinions are less biased. But they are still opinions.

The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities has nothing to do with whether a review is an opinion/not an opinion.

Answer this, if you will: what is the difference between The Seventh Seal and American Pie? Also, is it correct to assert that The Seventh Seal is worth more than American Pie?

There are tons of differences, but one I'll offer is that The Seventh Seal is a medieval drama that takes itself seriously while American Pie is a comedy film that does not and is pretty aware of its immaturity.

The Seventh Seal might be worth more to you and most people serious about film, but it would a fallacy to assert that's factually worth more.

#34 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

There are tons of differences, but one I'll offer is that The Seventh Seal is a medieval drama that takes itself seriously while American Pie is a comedy film that does not and is pretty aware of its immaturity.

The Seventh Seal might be worth more to you and most people serious about film, but it would a fallacy to assert that's factually worth more.

So in other words The Seventh Seal has no more inherent value to cinema than American Pie does. Is this your stance?

#35 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

There are tons of differences, but one I'll offer is that The Seventh Seal is a medieval drama that takes itself seriously while American Pie is a comedy film that does not and is pretty aware of its immaturity.

The Seventh Seal might be worth more to you and most people serious about film, but it would a fallacy to assert that's factually worth more.

So in other words The Seventh Seal has no more inherent value to cinema than American Pie does. Is this your stance?

If you insist on using the word "inherent", then yes. Value is not inherent. Value is something that we, as consumers of art, place upon these films based on our standards (whether collective or personal), expectations, opinions, emotional/intellectual response, history of filmwatching.

If you don't insist on using the word inherent, then I would agree that The Seventh Seal is more valuable. But I also recognize that I am stating an opinion.

#36 Posted by Archangel3371 (16688 posts) -

Lol. That is so hilarious. I love it.

#37 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

"Didn't you just say that the value of art is purely subjective?"

Yes, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize differences between films.

How can "value" logically not be subjective?

#38 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

If you insist on using the word "inherent", then yes. Value is not inherent. Value is something that we, as consumers of art, place upon these films based on our standards (whether collective or personal), expectations, opinions, emotional/intellectual response, history of filmwatching.

If you don't insist on using the word inherent, then I would agree that The Seventh Seal is more valuable. But I also recognize that I am stating an opinion.

So if someone were to state that American Pie is more valuable than The Seventh Seal, that would be an equally correct statement as the contrary?

You can only push relativism so far. You are going to hit a wall sooner or later.

#39 Posted by loafofgame (980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

If you insist on using the word "inherent", then yes. Value is not inherent. Value is something that we, as consumers of art, place upon these films based on our standards (whether collective or personal), expectations, opinions, emotional/intellectual response, history of filmwatching.

If you don't insist on using the word inherent, then I would agree that The Seventh Seal is more valuable. But I also recognize that I am stating an opinion.

So if someone were to state that American Pie is more valuable than The Seventh Seal, that would be an equally correct statement as the contrary?

You can only push relativism so far. You are going to hit a wall sooner or later.

If you guys are going to maintain a comparison like this, at least choose movies in a similar genre. Now you are pretty much discussing whether an FPS is inherently more valuable than an RTS game.

#40 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

If you insist on using the word "inherent", then yes. Value is not inherent. Value is something that we, as consumers of art, place upon these films based on our standards (whether collective or personal), expectations, opinions, emotional/intellectual response, history of filmwatching.

If you don't insist on using the word inherent, then I would agree that The Seventh Seal is more valuable. But I also recognize that I am stating an opinion.

So if someone were to state that American Pie is more valuable than The Seventh Seal, that would be an equally correct statement as the contrary?

You can only push relativism so far. You are going to hit a wall sooner or later.

Neither statement is "correct." They are opinions and thus do not have negative/positive truth value. Only facts are "correct/incorrect." I honestly don't get why you're having difficulty with this concept.

Also, you say that "you're going to hit a wall," but you're not explaining what wall is being hit.

#41 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

Neither are "correct." They are opinions. Only facts are "correct/incorrect." I honestly don't get why you're having difficulty with this concept.

Also, you say that "you're going to hit a wall," but you're not explaining what wall is being hit.

The Seventh Seal contributed to the growth and evolution of cinema and is a landmark of existentialist art. Literally, cinema would not be the same did that film not exist. These are its inherent, objective, demonstrable properties. The fact that you would even deny it is simply disheartening.

#42 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

Neither are "correct." They are opinions. Only facts are "correct/incorrect." I honestly don't get why you're having difficulty with this concept.

Also, you say that "you're going to hit a wall," but you're not explaining what wall is being hit.

The Seventh Seal contributed to the growth and evolution of cinema and is a landmark of existentialist art. Literally, cinema would not be the same did that film not exist. These are its inherent, objective, demonstrable properties. The fact that you would even deny it is simply disheartening.

It is disheartening because you do not understand what is being argued and you're misusing the terms inherent, objective, and properties.

I am not denying the influence of the film. I am arguing that the effect the film had on cinema is not an inherent quality. Rather, the effect it had is its external reception/influence, which is based on collective opinion. The only qualities inherent in the film are those that are actually contained within it. Its legacy/importance is NOT contained within it.

If you still disagree with me, prove that The Seventh Seal is factually more valuable without using a statement of opinion. If you can't, then your argument falls apart.

#43 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

It is disheartening because you do not understand what is being argued and you're misusing the terms inherent, objective, and properties.

I am not denying the influence of the film. I am arguing that the effect the film had on cinema is not an inherent quality. Rather, the effect it had is its external reception/influence, which is based on collective opinion. The only qualities inherent in the film are those that are actually contained within it. Its legacy/importance is NOT contained within it.

If you still disagree with me, prove that The Seventh Seal is factually more valuable without using a statement of opinion. If you can't, then your argument falls apart.

No, the movie was made to be an existentialist, theological and theleological statement, it wasn't simply perceived as such. The minute you say that the film has no inherent value and that it's us who saw something in it, you basically say that one movie is worth another. See my previous point, which you accused to be a strawman. You may want to rethink that.

#44 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

It is disheartening because you do not understand what is being argued and you're misusing the terms inherent, objective, and properties.

I am not denying the influence of the film. I am arguing that the effect the film had on cinema is not an inherent quality. Rather, the effect it had is its external reception/influence, which is based on collective opinion. The only qualities inherent in the film are those that are actually contained within it. Its legacy/importance is NOT contained within it.

If you still disagree with me, prove that The Seventh Seal is factually more valuable without using a statement of opinion. If you can't, then your argument falls apart.

No, the movie was made to be an existentialist, theological and theleological statement, it wasn't simply perceived as such. The minute you say that the film has no inherent value and that it's us who saw something in it, you basically say that one movie is worth another. See my previous point, which you accused to be a strawman. You may want to rethink that.

Yep. It's like I thought. You can't actually prove that one movie is worth more than another factually. Nobody is ever able to because it's not logically possible. Value judgements cannot have negative/positive truth value. Only facts can.

The movie doesn't have inherent value. Value is something that is projected onto it by us. You have failed to argue otherwise. If you disagree, then demonstrate the notion of "factual value" with an objective source. Otherwise, don't waste my time. I'm not going to accept that value is anything other than subjective unless you can substantiate that claim. Simply insisting on your claim is not substantiation.

Also, it doesn't matter what the movie was made to be. That is something entirely different from value/influence/etc.

Your attempts to pretend that value is anything other than opinion makes me think that you're uncomfortable having an opinion without trying to artificially bolster it with a sense of objectivity that simply is not in the realm of judging things.

I, on the other hand, am comfortable with believing that certain things are more valuable than others, but also acknowledging that I can't be "correct" because I am not stating a fact.

#45 Posted by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

It's actually pretty funny, Black_Knight, how you stated that "relativity will always hit a wall", yet you can't get past the wall of actually proving one movie is factually more valuable than other without using statements of opinion, evidenced by the fact that you didn't even attempt to put your ideas into practice.

#46 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9: I just provided what you asked for. You choose to ignore it to serve your purpose, that's fine.

#47 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9: I just provided what you asked for. You choose to ignore it to serve your purpose, that's fine.

You didn't provide shit and to say you did is plain dishonest. I asked for proof, which means cold hard facts backed up by an objective source. Where did you provide that?

If I say that x movie is more valuable than y movie and you think that I am incorrect, what source and what set of facts would prove me wrong without a doubt?

If you are going to talk about what is correct/incorrect, you need proof and nothing less. So where is it?

#48 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9: I just provided what you asked for. You choose to ignore it to serve your purpose, that's fine.

You didn't provide shit and to say you did is plain dishonest. I asked for proof, which means cold hard facts backed up by an objective source. Where did you provide that?

If I say that x movie is more valuable than y movie and you think that I am incorrect, what source and what set of facts would prove me wrong?

Are you asking for links now? Links to what? I'll link you to Netflix, so you can watch the movie and realize you're wrong.

#49 Edited by GreySeal9 (25980 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@GreySeal9: I just provided what you asked for. You choose to ignore it to serve your purpose, that's fine.

You didn't provide shit and to say you did is plain dishonest. I asked for proof, which means cold hard facts backed up by an objective source. Where did you provide that?

If I say that x movie is more valuable than y movie and you think that I am incorrect, what source and what set of facts would prove me wrong?

Are you asking for links now? Links to what? I'll link you to Netflix, so you can watch the movie and realize you're wrong.

Saying that I'd realize I'm wrong is no substitute for proof. It's a cheap cop out and you should know better than to resort to such silliness.

I'm asking for a link to some source that will demonstrate that value is objective.

I am claiming that only facts are objective and value judgements cannot be objective. They are subjective by their very nature. If you disagree, you should be able to provide a source that shows me, without using statements of opinion or anything subjective, that one thing is factually and undeniably more "valuable" than another. The reason that you would be need to provide a source is because facts must be verified and corroborated.

#50 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19352 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

Saying that I'd realize I'm wrong is no substitute for proof. It's a cheap cop out and you should know better than to resort to such silliness.

I'm asking for a link to some source that will demonstrate that value is objective.

I am claiming that only facts are objective and value judgements cannot be objective. They are subjective by their very nature. If you disagree, you will be able to provide a source that shows me, without using statements of opinion, that one thing is factually and undeniably more "valuable" than another. The reason that you would be need to provide a source is because facts must be verified and corroborated.

You're pinning burden of proof on me when none is required or providable: I am claiming that inherent quality speaks for itself and you ask me to find an authoritative source to support that claim. That's a double logical fallacy.

Isn't it so, @1PMrFister?