/vr/ - Retro Games

>>2138082

I've honestly never understood this argument. A game review cannot be "objective." Even if you stick to very basic, mostly agreeable observations ("this game controls badly;" "this game has below-average graphics"), which are still subjective evaluations by the way, you can't actually write a game review that way.

Like if your game is a buggy mess with shitty graphics and awful controls then sure, there you go, but if your game is just average, or has interesting aspects in spite of technical limitations, how are you supposed to write about it "objectively"? Do you really want to read an "objective" review of XenoGears or Katamari Damacy? Hell, an "objective" review of anything would be boring and unhelpful as shit.

"This game has reasonably agreeable controls. Its graphics quality is what one would expect from this console generation. It is an action game with RPG elements. The protagonist is a male with a hat. It lasts roughly 12 hours."

Wow. Whenever people use this argument I can't help but assume they really mean "I want opinions that are more in line with mine." When they say "objective" they really mean "subjective evaluations that me and other 'core gamers' will mostly agree with." It's basically another "waaah other people are ruining my video games" screed.