• Editorial: Some Subjective Thoughts On Objectivity
    10 replies, posted
[url]http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RockPaperShotgun/~3/Eyg5EkvvrP8/[/url]
I never got why people clamoured for 'objectivity' in the games press. Objectivity is a spec sheet. Objectivity in the general news means they just report the facts of what happened that day (and like this article says, even that's questionable since reporting some facts and omitting others isn't quite objective either). In games, you shouldn't be looking for just that. Game reviews are about relating the author's experience to your own.
[QUOTE=Clavus;45985072]I never got why people clamoured for 'objectivity' in the games press. Objectivity is a spec sheet. Objectivity in the general news means they just report the facts of what happened that day (and like this article says, even that's questionable since reporting some facts and omitting others isn't quite objective either). In games, you shouldn't be looking for just that. Game reviews are about relating the author's experience to your own.[/QUOTE] Exactly. If you were going to ask for objectivity in, let's say, film reviews, you'd be reading about: "the sound sounded crisp and clear, the video quality was nice, the actors spoke nicely, and the film lasted a correct amount of time". It's impossible to give out any kind of criticism that is actually interesting if you want to reach out for "objectivity". Media reviews and objectivity are pretty much two mutually exclusive concepts.
It is wholly possible to be objective in a review, look at Greg Lisby's interview, he makes it plainly clear. "You've reached a conclusion through the objective analysis of facts, searching out information, and then you bring your expertise and you say 'This is what the truth of the matter is.'" That's what it means, you actually do your proper research, base your analysis in facts, and mitigate any bias you may hold before hand. To say that you can't be objective or that its mutually exclusive to doing a review is garbage, eliminating bias does not preclude that, it just means you will be treating the reviewed work on its own without letting outside factors interfere. Fuck, this is how most respected reviews actually do function.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45985259]Exactly. If you were going to ask for objectivity in, let's say, film reviews, you'd be reading about: "the sound sounded crisp and clear, the video quality was nice, the actors spoke nicely, and the film lasted a correct amount of time". It's impossible to give out any kind of criticism that is actually interesting if you want to reach out for "objectivity". Media reviews and objectivity are pretty much two mutually exclusive concepts.[/QUOTE] You've obviously never taken a film class if you don't remember mise en scene. Or taken a creative writing class. Where you analyze the structure, use of words and the prose. Or remember that art is usually judged and critiqued based on the format, the contents, and rules set in place by genres. Objectivity in journalism is about providing an unwavored and unbiased opinion. Editorials still follow journalistic ethics which are set up to provide a roadmap toward creating the most unbiased opinion possible. You're not expected to be a paladin about it. But you're supposed to follow it as closely as possible. ALSO, stop trying to tie in journalistic objectivism and philosophical objectivism. It does not work like that. [editline]15th September 2014[/editline] Also, they just admitted they're not a good editorial/journalistic source of information and are operating as an over glorified blog.
[QUOTE=Swilly;45986754]Objectivity in journalism is about providing an unwavored and unbiased opinion. Editorials still follow journalistic ethics which are set up to provide a roadmap toward creating the most unbiased opinion possible. You're not expected to be a paladin about it. But you're supposed to follow it as closely as possible.[/QUOTE] I think that being biased is not the same as being subjective and the two shouldn't be conflated.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45986962]I think that being biased is not the same as being subjective and the two shouldn't be conflated.[/QUOTE] But they are conflated because having biases can exaggerate or corrupt the subjectivity of the editorial piece. We all have biases, we all have our little group of postulates that we cling to. But journalistic objectivity and ethical guidelines are there to expose and force the writer to critically think about it. Its there to expose a light on the biases of the person writing the article and make them pause to think about whether or not they're biases will negatively affect the writing in the article. [editline]15th September 2014[/editline] Rock Paper Shotgun, has never done this almost infamously so. Same with Kotaku. Again, I'm not asking for perfectly and rigidly following ethical guidelines. I'm asking for is that if you're not going to try and be a journalist, [B]don't act or talk like one.[/B] Don't act like you have an authority over what is and is not, insert subject here. You most likely don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45985259]Exactly. If you were going to ask for objectivity in, let's say, film reviews, you'd be reading about: [B]"the sound sounded crisp and clear, the video quality was nice, the actors spoke nicely, and the film lasted a correct amount of time"[/B]. It's impossible to give out any kind of criticism that is actually interesting if you want to reach out for "objectivity". Media reviews and objectivity are pretty much two mutually exclusive concepts.[/QUOTE] Every example you just gave sounded like the opposite of objective.
[url]http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/counterstrike-go-review/[/url] A perfect example of pure, unbiased journalism.
[QUOTE=Wowza!;45989277][url]http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/counterstrike-go-review/[/url] A perfect example of pure, unbiased journalism.[/QUOTE] That's got to be satire, but I just can't find any admission to it yet. Objective "reviews" aren't exactly helpful. The only objective things you can claim about a game are relevant to what it delivers in comparison to what it claims. So you get that article, a list of features, an incredibly dry read, and no real description of how the game actually is, or if the features are any real good. Rather than striving for the literal impossibility of objective reviews that are worth a shit, why not strive for better control of subjective reviews? Rather than allowing a publication to set one reviewer off to review a game, have a small group provide their opinions, hopefully bias should be easier to pick out. Oh, and move away from number based review systems I guess, because it's pretty hard to quantify subjective things. Pro/ con lists have been used in magazines for ages, and they work really fucking well.
That's pretty much what I meant by dividing Journalistic Objectivity and Philosphical Objectivity, while the journalistic has its routes in the philosophical thinking, its purpose as been reduced to controlling and maintaining your bias as best as possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.