I was responding to your general statement, not anything relating to Half Life, as I have not played that game and likely won't any time soon, so who am I to say anything about the opinion of someone who has?
-
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
I was responding to your general statement, not anything relating to Half Life, as I have not played that game and likely won't any time soon, so who am I to say anything about the opinion of someone who has?
...That's not how this works. X person can have an opinion on something, and it can be wrong. If it's logically proven to be wrong, then it is.
You keep bringing this up, but the whole "What you won't like" section of Venturebeat's review is standard across all reviews. It's their version of pros and cons. It's not a factual statement saying 'you will not enjoy playing this game right now' - it's still part of an opinion piece.
Nearly all objective looking statements in reviews are implied opinions because reviews are opinion pieces. They shouldn't need to state 'in my opinion' each and every time
Hence reviews, aka the justification and background for the opinion. Judge the reviewer's argument on a review-by-review basis
Agreed. Opinions often represent the lowest possible form of critical thinking, but are touted as irrefutable truths now more than ever in the era of alternative facts.
That, pretty much. Some people worry it's going to affect the metacritic score and can't deal with it.
I think the thread title is too loaded, becauae of how specific it is "affect the score" but there's nothing wrong with the general idea of commentary of news being in the substance of a review, whether it's fantasy or not.
There are no rules for reviews. A reviewer writes about their experience with the media, however they happen to interpret that.
If a reviewer's style doesn't work for you, read another review.
The existence of Metacritic shouldn't dictate how critics approach criticism.
If a reviewer's style doesn't work for you, read another review.
The existence of Metacritic shouldn't dictate how critics approach criticism.
Everything in a review reads as fact. If the reviewer had said "HL Alyx is such a masterpiece it is going to change the way everyone thinks about VR, and is going to make you want every game to be in VR going forward" would you be arguing that their review is wrong and invalid? These kinds of statements are extensions of their subjective opinion. That shouldn't have to be spelled out.
Most review are already completely subjective and should be that way. That's why I only read review write by the same people, because I know the taste of the reviewer and it will really help me knowing if the game is for me or not.
What's an objective review of Journey for exemple ?
You surf on sand while trying to reach a mountain, someone join you at some point, you reach the mountain, the end : 0.5/10.
It could also increase a score. Things can be scarier or more entertaining if they remind people of real life as well.
This, so much this.
Unfortunately, people don't seem to actually care about the contents of reviews, they just want conformity that aligns with their own personal biases, and anything that doesn't gets shouted down.
A review score isn't some mathematical reflection of quality. It doesn't even reflect the quality of a game. It's a reflection of that person's experience with a game at that time
The same person can review the same game at two different times in their life and give it two completely different scores. The game didn't change; their experience with it did.
That's the same reason why movies are reappraised. The context and lens through which a film is viewed changes with time. Same film, same person, different impressions.
They're not wrong to have have a different interpretation of the subject. Arguments can use logical fallacies or state incorrect facts but pure opinions/experiences of a game can't be incorrect.
Maybe you can argue whether a review is for the wrong audience but I that's that's not the opinion itself.
A game should always be judged on it's own merits. Imagine a world where people judge a game by outside facto... Oh wait.
For an example, see the current resurgence in interest towards Contagion. The current situation presents the film in a more resonant and terrifying light.
Similarly, elements that seemed extreme or more far-fetched in 2011 seem underplayed and almost prescient now. Jude Law's blogger seems almost quaint and unrealistically tame compared to how that situation would play out with today's social-media anti-vaxxer/Trump-cult personalities and a knee-capped CDC.
Film impressions, meet socio-cultural experience
This stuff is prime example of how humans are selfish. Every year Activision releases Call of Duty and not once this question is raised despite the Middle East being at war at all times. But the second it hits a little close to home (ie. America), we have two threads claiming the themes in Resident Evil, which are far more removed from reality than the previous example, might be a little too touchy these days.
Come on.
Come on.
I mean, it *will*. Whether it should or not is something I wish people didn't worry too much about.
There are other games out that won't make people feel uncomfortable that people can play instead like Doom Eternal. Right now, Doom Eternal is probably a better game 'for the times' than RE3. It is what it is.
Where I expect RE3 will probably not get much of this in its reviews is that it's such a known quantity. Even more so with RE2 remake having just come out last year.
Hell, some people might like it more because of what's going on in the news. If a reviewer has have a better time because they *want* to fight a virus right now, and this provides that, I don't see why that shouldn't factor in either.
I think RE3 of all games will probably not be very emotionally impacting, even for people suffering from the pandemic; its plot is too cartoony and b-series to hit very close to home. Games with more emotionally charged plots like The Last of Us may be harder to play, even if their pandemic is also very different than COVID. An hypothetical game with a more grounded virus that doesn't bring back its victims as murderous monsters may hit the hardest, but these aren't typically a staple of gaming.
There was quite a bit of it with the Modern Warfare last year actually. And there are always many many critiques on the series about it basically being an advertisement for the military and a brown person shootem up simulator. Then there's the big stuff like No Russian as well.
This one rides the line so subtly, I can't tell on which side you land on in regards to this topic, but I like your comment regardless!
You're right, reviewers should be asking that question of the Call of Duty games
So for example, you're saying flat-earthers are not wrong? I think you've just opened a can of worms for yourself here.
Obviously we're talking about games, but you seem to be under the impression that opinions in a general sense can never be wrong, which is... not a good statement to make.
This, it's hypocritical to advocate for games to be judged based on the current political climate and just yearly ignore the biggest offenders and tropes we see in western entertainment.
Resident Evil 3 of all things should not be taken seriously, it's a work of fiction that is set in a world somewhat similar to ours but filled with dumb logic.
The funny thing is I don't think the poll option 'relate their experience to the game' would be as provocative without the title. It might still be divisive because the monsters are fantasy but not anywhere as much disagreement.
You're right, outside elements should be discussed in games such as CoD as well if it detracts from (or even perversely if it adds to) the reviewers' experience
You're conflating different genres for the sake of your argument. Some people are going to be interested and looking for something like Contagion because their curiosity is peaked. Trying to make the claim those people are looking for the same thing as people looking to shoot zombies in a zombie apocalypse is asinine. People aren't loosely connecting that there are viruses involved and going to Resident Evil cause of COVID-19. I think it's fair to say that most people looking for something completely unrealistic to get lost in aren't looking for the same thing as the people watching Contagion. And if you feel what I said was the most ridiculous thing in this thread, you just topped it by a wide margin.
It's funny how so many of you try to be some combative over something so silly.
Flat earting isn't an opinion, it's a lie or self believing lie.
my point is you don't know or can't speak to what people want out of their entertainment, or what perspectives they bring to how they experience said entertainment. Not only is it not "fair to say" what you think "most" people are looking for with RE3, it's wholly useless.
For some reason this reminded me of this (just in longer form):
lol I need to find this.
I mean, absolutely. The portrayal of war per se is hardly a problem, a lot of the big games we all enjoy feature war in some way. But Call of Duty chooses to ground itself and try to portray a very real war in very irresponsible ways.
I think the pertinent part of that quote given the original question would be " If you asked those people their opinion of that movie do you think it wouldn't be colored by the current, real life crisis?"
which, going by the numerous new reviews and essays of the film within the last month or so, the answer is apparent.
Whether or not people look to reviews for escapism or resonating impressions or whatnot is a whole secondary discussion from whether current experience will impact how one views and relates to a game/movie/etc
Seriously. The idea that a review can be "objective" is inane, and what these people mean is they want only reviews that tell them their opinion.
The idea that critics are obligated to like a game you like is a foolish notion at best. Why even have critics at that point?
The one review for Half Life: Alyx claimed that it was too stressful because of social distancing and that Animal Crossing is the way to go instead.
Congrats OP, you've managed to top the previous thread about whether Resident Evil 3 should be delayed because of the pandemic.
You don't see how a game about a viris outbreak can have anything to do with a critics' experience of a real life virus outbreak? They're obviously not one to one virus outbreaks, and not all critics will consider it but I think anyone can see some of the parallels...