able.  Share this post  Link to post  Share on other sites  I think objectivity is important when reviewing, but that doesn't have to mean it's exclusive to having an oppinion, or even being subjective during the review. If you take anything to it's logical conclusion it becomes useless.  Journalism is a trade and as such comes with the same responsibility that all other jobs come with - the Spiderman clause - with great power comes great responsibility.  When Reviewing a game and scoring it, rather than critique or commenting, you are putting a line in the sand and giving it a place in the world. As a professional journalist, you will often be asked to review things that you wouldn't normally play, and while a lay person will give oppinion, I would expect a trained journalist to review and score a game on it's merits irrespective of their personal preference. They really should know the difference.  I wouldn't want it to be souless and without oppinion, but I would want it to be fair when it comes to scoring.  If you hate StarWars would it be fair to mark the graphics on the new battlefield down because you are sick of X-wings?  Similarly if you are obsessed with starwars is it fair to score Battlefield High on Value when it feels like its the absolute minimum they could get away with putting out and is totally lacking in that area.  I think IF you are scoring a game, as a journalist, it should be based on your knowledge of the medium and you should know what is "your feelings" and what is "the game".  If you can't give a fair score on what the game is, then you stick to commentary and critisism without score.  I've noticed both Rob and Danielle manage to do this even when they are just talking about a game, they both recognise when they love something because it appeals to them personally vs what is a good game in general. This is the sort of thing I think we need to see more of.  You don't have to be objective to be fair. For example, I don't think it's "unfair" to judge Dragon's Crown on its creepy art, it's subjectively really gross, but these "Objectivity in vidgamz!" people decried that daring to talk about an art form's artistic content was being unobjective and thus unethical as a reviewer.  There's definitely ways to fairly or unfairly review a game, but I don't think objectivity comes into it as a factor. Like, the Stardew Valley experience in Idle Thumbs a couple weeks ago, where he played it like a depression sim and refused to leave the house, that was hilarious but I don't think if he wrote that up as an official review it would be a fair one.  Share this post  Link to post  Share on other sites  You don't have to be objective to be fair. For example, I don't think it's "unfair" to judge Dragon's Crown on its creepy art, it's subjectively really gross, but these "Objectivity in vidgamz!" people decried that daring to talk about an art form's artistic content was being unobjective and thus unethical as a reviewer.  There's definitely ways to fairly or unfairly review a game, but I don't think objectivity comes into it as a factor. Like, the Stardew Valley experience in Idle Thumbs a couple weeks ago, where he played it like a depression sim and refused to leave the house, that was hilarious but I don't think if he wrote that up as an official review it would be a fair one.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding objectivity, but I would say when scoring a game it should be fact based. You can talk about artistic merit, ethics etc in a review, but what I'm talking about is being aware of what is your "feelings" about the game, and what is actually there.  Reviews these days seem to be far more about how much the reviewer "likes" the game, and not about "how the game lives up to what it says it is". If they don't like a particular genre they should either avoid reviewing, or be objective and review it for what it is (putting there personal preference aside).  If you review with no score, no problem - it becomes a conversational piece - but when you put a score at the end you are saying this how good the game is with a level of authority - especially from places like PC Gamer, IGN etc.  You see Rainbow0 and Battlefront getting good scores, but missing the fact that they are killing multiplayer games, with the lack of server browsers, private servers with either ranks or the ability to unlock everything. They also have little or no content and it's difficult to even get to it (And I love R0 as a game, but don't play it because you can't just crack on and play it how you want).  Share this post  Link to post  Share on other sites  Maybe I'm misunderstanding objectivity, but I would say when scoring a game it should be fact based. You can talk about artistic merit, ethics etc in a review, but what I'm talking about is being aware of what is your "feelings" about the game, and what is actually there.  Reviews these days seem to be far more about how much the reviewer "likes" the game, and not about "how the game lives up to what it says it is". If they don't like a particular genre they should either avoid reviewing, or be objective and review it for what it is (putting there personal preference aside).  If you review with no score, no problem - it becomes a conversational piece - but when you put a score at the end you are saying this how good the game is with a level of authority - especially from places like PC Gamer, IGN etc.  You see Rainbow0 and Battlefront getting good scores, but missing the fact that they are killing multiplayer games, with the lack of server browsers, private servers with either ranks or the ability to unlock everything. They also have little or no content and it's difficult to even get to it (And I love R0 as a game, but don't play it because you can't just crack on and play it how you want).  So what you're saying is that Paint Drying game is a 00/00, because it perfectly does exactly what it means to?  Share this post  Link to post  Share on other sites  So what you're saying is that Paint Drying game is a 00/00, because it perfectly does exactly what it means to?  What I'm saying is if a game is the best example of a first person shooter it should be regardless of what the theme is.  