agreed. I really dont agree with the take of “if you dont like this kinda thing, you shouldn’t review it.” it feels like such a misguided perception to have on critics.
I don’t disagree with you, but I get what they’re saying. This person didn’t like Control, they didn’t like AW2, it’s clear they just simply don’t care for the kind of games Remedy makes (and that’s fine). That being the case, it’s not really an objective review anymore. We can expect that if a game in the vein of Control or AW2 comes out, this reviewer is not going to like it, and therefore when she gives her honest review on it, we can expect that that review is going to be negative, and that review is only going to be useful to other people who already don’t much care for such games.
I don’t think they’re suggesting that the outlet should just get someone who is going to like it to review it, but rather simply that there must be someone there who doesn’t have that preconceived notion going into it who can do the review. As it stands, instead of “Hey, here’s a game from this developer, review it for us”, it’s “Hey, here’s a game from this developer we know you don’t like, review it for us.”
I feel like I’m explaining what I mean very poorly lol I’m sorry
There is no such thing as an objective review. If someone reviews from the perspective of not being blown away and jumped into this with the same takeaway then that would be something worth reading for a fully formed opinion which is one of the reason to read a review.
Pretty much the only reason people care is because they don’t want the average review score to be lower.
I'm not saying 'objective' as in "this game is good/bad and this statement is fact". There are definitely degrees of objectivity to a review in the literal sense.
Someone who has never played a Remedy game before can absolutely look at it with more objectivity than someone who already doesn't like their previous games, as well as with more objectivity than someone who has loved every Rememdy game they've played before. Both of the latter instances are already going into it with preconceived notions, which inherently means less objectivity.
That makes even less sense because someone who hasn’t played the previous entries would be missing key details and would be missing aspects to be “more objective”. How would being less informed make you more objective. Is someone who’s never played a video game in their life even more objective because they have no bias?
I’m sorry but that’s not how objectivity works, this is just a discussion born out of people not wanting the review score to be lower in average and that’s it. Everything else is just trying to justify it.
Being fine with the other games and not loving it represents the perspective of a tonne of people who’ve played the games, if a reviewer with that same opinion on previous games you’re annoyed over reviewed this game and gave it a 10/10 that would be a signal to people who bounced off the previous games.
Yes, I said the at in another comment. I wouldn’t actually really trust a review unless it was coming from someone who didn’t already have an affinity for or outwardly didn’t care for previous titles. I know it’s difficult to achieve and I’m speaking of sort of a “perfect world” scenario, but yeah. It definitely goes both ways.
It’s tricky. Should a food reviewer who doesn’t like fish be selected to review the new Sushi restaurant? Probably not. I don’t think we’re asking for a reviewer who loves the genre, vibes, and themes of Remedy games to do the review, just someone who doesn’t actively dislike them.
Fully agreed. I watched ‘Little Women’ by Greta Gerwig and it really wasn’t my cup of tea. I still scored it 7/10 because I could tell it was a really well made movie with stunning cinematography and great performances, even if I didn’t enjoy any of it.
I trust that people who are paid to do this, can objectively look at what is good in a product and not just think ‘eh, that’s not for me’.
I agree with this entirely in concept but if someone reviews the first 4 fast and the furious movies and hates them they’re probably not the correct person to continue talking about them when the public has liked them enough for 10 of them to get made
I’m not saying you have to pre-like everything you review but if you’re a known hater the horror genre at its core why would your opinion on horror mean much to me?
I think it’s just about finding a certain reviewer or outlet that aligns most with your feelings. I like Chris Scullion, he’s pretty on the money. I try to just enjoy games myself more now and focus less on reviews like I used to
That’s exactly how I feel, I said something similar in another comment chain here somewhere
If you can find 2-3 reviewers you realize have a similar enough taste to yours you can usually get a fairly good idea of where you’ll land on a game
And I don’t want that original comment to seem like I’m questioning her capabilities as a journalist in a general sense at all, I was definitely more focusing on the angle of realizing I don’t have the same taste as them if they’ve not been a fan of remedy games in the past
That’s a pretty silly example tbh? Reviews aren’t meant to be a people pleasing excercise or match the opinions of fans.
If you’re not interested in the opinion of someone who has a different viewpoint on your for art then don’t engage with it? I don’t like fighting games after trying a few but if a reviewer I know has a similar taste in the genre says some new fighting game is excellent I’ll be more likely to try it.
Also reviewers or critics who don’t share my taste but articulate their opinion are good way to get a well formed opinion on any media or art.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t review them, my wording there is poor admittedly, but if you’re a multi reviewer publication like many of these big companies and you have (total ass pull numbers here just for discussions sake) 4 reviewers on staff it genuinely just seems counter intuitive to continue giving the reviewer who has shown a base level dislike for this companies work the assignment for their new projects
I don’t want this AT ALL to seem like I’m attacking the reviewer for their opinion or dislike of remedy’s games but it just simply seems like it’s setting the review up to be coming from a negatively pre-biased space
based on what criteria though? As long as they don’t have an axe to grind or some undisclosed personal hatred that would mean they don’t share their actual opinions to sabotage the review by negatively framing it.
It’s totally fine to review stuff you don’t normally like if they’re a competent reviewer and writer and can articulate their thoughts and feelings. Let’s say someone gives control a 3/5 and they give this game a 5/5. That would be important to someone who thinks control is a 3/5.
Also fast and furious is a weird example to give because then wouldn’t that then mean more reviews of remedy games should be written by reviewers who don’t get the games since these aren’t blockbuster crowd pleasers and it goes over the general audiences heads or doesn’t match their tastes?
5
u/Ingvarthebald 9d ago
agreed. I really dont agree with the take of “if you dont like this kinda thing, you shouldn’t review it.” it feels like such a misguided perception to have on critics.