-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Do you think the current pandemic should affect how reviewers rate Resident Evil 3?
- Thread starter SofNascimento
- Start date
Like many others seem to, you're worrying way too much about score. A review isn't just a number, and that number is pretty meaningless in the wider context of things.
Different people read different reviews for different reasons. I generally don't care for buyer's guide style reviews, it's the experience ones that interest me more.
Saying life isn't fair isn't an argument, it's a fact. Games and films have been pulled from release because of real world events. I'm not saying Resi 3 should be pulled, but they have to expect that releasing a game, the subject of which is a virus outbreak, might not go down well with some people during a real-life virus outbreak (admittedly milder, but still not exactly safe).
Them's the breaks. If this affects an indie title then it's a big shame but again, that's the risk you take.
There's always elements of realism in fiction. This isn't a counterpoint to the idea of escapism.
the movie Contagion is suddenly shooting up the steaming movie charts. Do you think it's because those people are looking to escape? If you asked those people their opinion of that movie do you think it wouldn't be colored by the current, real life crisis?
people come to entertainment for all sorts of different reasons. If you are looking for escape, cool. That's not right or wrong. Find one of the dozens of reviews for RE3 that will certainly share that same experience and expectation. That doesn't make someone who comes to the game with a different experience, or experiences it differently because of how the COVID19 crisis has impacted their perspective, wrong.
Purporting that everyone is looking for the same thing out of a piece of entertainment, and worse, that you know what everyone is looking out of a piece of entertainment, is way more ridiculous than anything asserted in the OP of this thread.
That sentence makes it a bad review? Okay, cool, that's how they felt about it. The fact is if it was higher than an 8 it wouldn't have garnered hardly any controversy, but we can all act like the majority wasn't upset it didn't get at least a 9.
Exactly this. Games, movies, etc don't exist in a vacuum and current social/cultural times will influence how works are perceived and absorbed.
Life isn't fair isn't applicable to every facet of life in a major way. This is why standards are agreed upon.
Saying "That's the risk you take" to an indie developer who would be making a living out of this just because "Life isn't fair" when that fairness is based on reviews that can be completely mitigated via a simple disclaimer or personal remark of current events is a misrepresentation of how to handle the situation.
Reviewers can review a game for its merits unhindered by current events and then say something off on the side without degrading a game and potentially it's sales.
If you can't understand a very simple fact that making objective statements about how a pandemic will make X game worse for 100% of everyone who plays is is bad, then you are a lost cause. That is by definition, bad writing.
I shouldn't have to explain this. It's very simple stuff.
So a critics review should not be colored by real life events, some of which could be impacting them personally, but should let their review be colored by how it will affect a games sales, or developer bonuses due to meta critic scores. Yeah makes much more sense.
Sales don't matter to a review, and examining a game in its current time isn't "degrading" the game. Do you think that reviewers who drew parallels between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and McCarthyism or War of the Worlds, 9/11, and the War on Terror were degrading those movies?
You don't seem to understand that not all reviews are there as a buyer's guide.
Other than giving out factually incorrect information, there's no wrong way to review something. A cultural critique style review (or even one that incorporates elements of this) is no less worthy than one that only goes through every mechanic and rates it good or bad. Neither are wrong approaches, both are valuable to different people.
I think that's what people are looking for. 100% objective reviews.
"Resident Evil 3 is a Video game. It contains guns and also zombies. It is available for purchase on Steam. You can interact with by using a controller or perhaps even a keyboard
Rating: yes/10"
There are very few objective statements in a review as they are inherently a subjective form of writing. There's nothing bad about that as facts can change the enjoyment of a work for many people.
No, this is about one domino affecting another. You give a fair review of the game based on it's own merits because that's what fair means. This then has the side effect of ensuring the game's sales/rating is fairly judged based on the reviewers subjective take of the game's merits rather than its merits + whatever is going on with that person in real life.
Again, a passing remark or off-comment is fine.
The concern trolling around the Coronavirus pandemic is getting out of hand. Jesus fucking Christ.
You should absolutely expect that Last of Us 2 and future zombie/pandemic movies will absolutely be viewed through the prism of this current situation.
So if a reviewer says "You're all going to have a bad day today because I had a bad day today" you'd agree?
I hope not, because that's nonsense. Are you instead just saying that this issue does exist, but that it's a minor issue because most of the comments made in a review are subjective?
Obviously the pandemic affects us all, but you can have someone delve into escapism for a whole day or get it out of their mind, and easily have a good day, which means that it is fundamentally impossible for them to pass off their subjective statement as objective, which is precisely what the reviewer did.
One and done.
Just that the thought of this has come up is utterly ridiculous.
Including your own perspective into a review is fair. And you don't get to decide what is and isn't allowed to shape a persons perspective of a game (or a book, or a movie, or whatever) in that point in time. That's all review are. Snapshots. If the current global climate affected how a person experienced a game, why do they need to put that "off to the side"? To protect metacritic? To protect sales? Because people on a message board can't wrap their brains around the idea of subjectivity or fair criticism?
In the case of a games own merits that is a meaningless thing if we are to review it in a vacuum. The idea of something being enjoyable, worthwhile or even just fun cannot exist without drawing on the critic's personal experiences. Aside from a game flatout not working reviewing a game in a perfect vacuum would make the idea of a review pointless.
OP
OP
That's what I think.
There is much truth here. At the same time, I feel that reviews are more than that as well. I remember recently Control's director or producer being really happy with the game's opencritic score. Surely he didn't do that because of any of the reasons you stated, which are all true for a lot of people (myself included in parts) but because it matters to the success of the game.
Reviews are seens as judgement of a game's quality, not simply an impression. There are many problems with that concept which are not worth to bring up now, but this is how they are perceived. That's why I mentioned it is possible to strive to be objective. Not because you can be, you can't, but you can at least try in some level. And when you are literally going to give a number that will be representative of the game quality, that's not irrelevant.
Why are you so concerned that reviewers should be cautious about impacting a game's sales?
what people on this site are looking for is validation for their incessant review "hype" and something that possibly gets them closer to being right about their "meta critic" score prediction. "CMON 92 LETS GO GETHYPE!"
I don't know why people are acting like this is impossible. There was a review for Hl:Alyx where there was a discussion about how the game came along at the wrong time due to the pandemic etc. Still gave it a good score, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if real life influences someones opinion of a game.
Your own perspective if it relates to the game, yes. Every playthrough of a game is subjective, and should be reviewed as such from the eye's of a game player, but bringing a complete real world pandemic into the mix and have that actually affect a review, no. That just isn't a fair take on a review.
What happens if we have a flat-earther play Universal Sandbox and then degrade the game because "I was taught for half my life that the earth is flat, so this game doesn't resonate with me" that's just.. absurd.
People want games to be seen as art and respectable but as soon as a subjective perspective comes in, the kind that every single kind of art has from movies to books to music, that goes against their preconceived notion of a game they haven't even played yet, then shit goes out the window.
they don't see video games as an art form, or criticism as personal. They see video games as tech, and they want technical reviews. Like checking Amazon to make sure what this blender does, how many options it has, the color, the noise. as close to objective as possible. Nothing personalable.
they don't see video games as an art form, or criticism as personal. They see video games as tech, and they want technical reviews. Like checking Amazon to make sure what this blender does, how many options it has, the color, the noise. as close to objective as possible. Nothing personalable.
It will, inevitably, have a read like that. Probably not on reviews, but in other pieces that will inevitably be much more valuable than reviews anyway.
I don't know, maybe developers, especially indie's rely on sales and want a fair assessment. Just a guess of mine.
That would certainly be an interesting review
Why do you keep using "degrade the game" as if those impressions are somehow literally ruining the game itself?
Well, they'd be called out for being stupid as they're a flat-earther...
This is comparing apples and hobgoblins.
critics should not "strive to be objective". As long as they are open, and transparent about what went in to their judgement of a game, there is nothing wrong with that. It's an informed opinion of a game, and no more or less valid than anybody else's, even if for you, it might not be as valuable. That's an important distinction. i do not anticipate that the COVID19 pandemic will have any impact in my experience with RE3. That doesn't mean their opinions are wrong. That doesn't mean they are wrong for including that in their subjective view of the game. If anything not bringing that up would be more disingenuous.
Degrading means to affect something negatively, to take away from it. That doesn't mean it literally ruins the game entirely, but it might worsen the game''s values.
I wouldn't say it's a bad review but I also think people shouldn't be forced to review a game they aren't in the mood for as that will inevitably affect their enjoyment of the game overall. The review opens up with the reviewer flat out saying he wished he didn't have to play the game in this particular moment.
Of course, if Metacritic wasn't a thing no one would care about that review but I also think a reviewer that goes into a review dreading having to play the game they are reviewing is something that should be avoided as much as possible.
That's not for you to decide. Telling people what views and experiences they are or aren't allowed to bring into their perspective with a game they played through is absolute lunacy. You are allowed to disagree with that review. You are allowed to not find value in that review or that persons opinion. That doesn't mean their opinion is wrong or invalid or worse, shouldn't be allowed to exist or be voiced.
How so? The game remains unchanged. This is like saying that those absolutely savage reception of The Thing that called it trash and schlock somehow took away from or tarnished that film's merits
A decade later, many of those same reviewers considered it a genre masterpiece
The Thing didn't change between the summer of 1982 and today, but the cinematic landscape and context surrounding how the movie was perceived did.
Games are no different.
OP
OP
I don't fully agree with this, but at the same time I'm not fully convinced of the reasons that make me disagree with some parts. When we talk about opinions and judgment of any kind of artistic work it gets messy.
As a general statement, opinions can be wrong and invalid. That's why they are opinions, not facts. Hence the opinion given in the Alyx view being invalid because it was passed off as objective which you can't do.
An informed opinion, a review of a game from a person who has actually Played it, is not invalid. You can disagree with it based on your own experiences and perspectives, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Seriously. It is obnoxiously inauthentic try-hard nonsense. The poll results in these threads have clearly shown that the threads are misguided.
I used that review as an example, and the opinion I'm talking about is by definition, wrong.
Yep. Take for instance Girlfriend Reviews. The point of view of someone that watches other people playing a game is a super valid one and targets an audience that do the same. Sometimes a game that feels really good for playing is boring to watch and the reviewer can talk about that and rate accordingly. It's fine not being the target audience of a review.
Facts can be wrong but opinions can't be.
(I mean some opinions are morally repugnant and factually ruin lives but that's a different topic...)
82 on Metacritic, critics destroyed it, clearly it should have been a 95 AT LEAST!
/s