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.It's a conditional statement. If people were to tank the reviews because "it's a bad time to come out," That would harm their credibility to many. There's no denying that. People want to know if a game is good when they read a game review. Their experience is important, but it shouldn't be used as a launching point for something that's very loosely related (and couldn't sustain itself for much of the discussion without serious gymnastics), nor should real world events have a tremendous impact on the score.
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).It's an example score, and I did say frightened beyond belief. There will be people that if given the ability to review, would score lower for the same reason, and others that score higher.
Saying life isn't fair when it's entirely controllable by review standards isn't really a good argument.
Suppose this feeds into indie games all of a sudden? Now those sales start to get severely damaged if the reviews drop considerably for the same reasons. Indies rely on reviews more than AAAs for their sales.
There's always elements of realism in fiction. This isn't a counterpoint to the idea of escapism.Fiction writers regularly use allegories to wider social and political issues in their work. So yes, there are elements of real life in fantasy novels.
Do you read fantasy novels to experience real life? People use fiction as escapism to escape. It's in the word.
Probably the part where it says "You're all going to be forced into a worse time."
I've seen zero fan feedback so far that fits that narrative.
Exactly this. Games, movies, etc don't exist in a vacuum and current social/cultural times will influence how works are perceived and absorbed.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. Them's the breaks. If this affects an indie title then it's a big shame but again, that's the risk you take.
Life isn't fair isn't applicable to every facet of life in a major way. This is why standards are agreed upon.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 people during a real-life virus outbreak. Them's the breaks. If this affects an indie title then it's a big shame but again, that's the risk you take.
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.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.
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 i's merits unhindered by current events and then say something off on the side without degrading a game and potentially it's sales.
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?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 i's merits unhindered by current events and then say something off on the side without degrading a game and potentially it's sales.
You don't seem to understand that not all reviews are there as a buyer's guide.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 i's merits unhindered by current events and then say something off on the side without degrading a game and potentially it's sales.
Came here to say this...
I think that's what people are looking for. 100% objective reviews.What if reviews didn't have these things called opinions and maybe you could just rate graphics/sound/value/gameplay individually and then add up everything for a final score?
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
In terms of scores and final thoughts, no, that's pretty silly and just dates a review to a specific time and place (even more so than usual)
But I think it's more than fine for a reviewer to mention "given recent events, some players may feel uncomfortable seeing the pandemic unfold in-game". Arguing against that isn't too far removed from getting mad a youtube video has content warnings.
Some of the responses in this thread highlight the issue with how people, a lot on this site, view reviews. We are, for the most part, informed enthusiasts. We probably shouldn't be the target audience for a lot of these reviews, especially for these big AAA type games like RE3 where so many people already have their minds made up and are going to get a game day 1. Reviews here (and review threads in general) exist for the purposes of hype (why else would review threads be open like a week before any reviews even hit?), for ammunition in fanboy/console wars, meta critic circle jerks, and to validate their own preconceived opinions. When reviews are viewed through that lens and perspective, it's what gives you some of the warped opinions you see in this thread and on this site about how reviews should he objective, or what personal experiences reviewers are or aren't allowed to inject into their opinion of a game, or how disagreeing with a review means the reviewer is wrong or didn't do their job correctly.
Why are you so concerned that reviewers should be cautious about impacting a game's sales?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.
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"
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.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?
I don't know, maybe developers, especially indie's rely on sales and want a fair assessment. Just a guess of mine.Why are you so concerned that reviewers should be cautious about impacting a game's sales?
That would certainly be an interesting reviewYour 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.
Well, they'd be called out for being stupid as they're a flat-earther...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.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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 meritsDegrading 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Seriously. It is obnoxiously inauthentic try-hard nonsense. The poll results in these threads have clearly shown that the threads are misguided.The concern trolling around the Coronavirus pandemic is getting out of hand. Jesus fucking Christ.
I used that review as an example, and the opinion I'm talking about is by definition, wrong.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.
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.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.
Facts can be wrong but opinions can't be.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.