Diablo Immortal - Stay awhile and play on my mobile


Oh, look, who came out of hiding for a cheap jab. Well done!

So you honestly think that a review should not rate a game’s quality of art? How consistent the art style is, if it is well done, if resources are wasted (by using 2k textures for door knobs, yeah that happens), if graphical glitches happen, there are MANY important aspects here. All of that can be done objectively.
It should not rate the game’s mechanics? If they achieve their purpose, or if they just downright do not work, if they are well-balanced (if that was their goal) or is one build (in RPG terms) totally dominating? Again, all of which can be objectively analyzed.
It should not rate the audio quality? If the voice over is well done, or just read by someone without emotion? If the sound makes proper use of the channels (3D/2D positioning) or is just blared through like mono sound? If the music follows a composition or is just slapped together open-game-audio with no coherence? All of which can be told objectively.
It should not rate the game’s setting, worldbuilding and story? If it is coherent within itself, objects, cities and NPCs have a convincing reason for doing what they do and aren’t just there because they need to give you a quest? If actual thought was put into WHY something is there, or if the entire world is just a theme park with no logic to it whatsoever? If the story develops in a convincing matter or is just full of deus ex machinas? Of course, this cannot be applied to every game (for example, puzzle games), but where it can be applied, it can be rated objectively.
Then there is the tech (bugs, loading times, etc.), there is the UI, etc.

All of that is factual information, that can very well be rated. If someone liked it (or not) is, at best, important for the petty ego who wants to put his opinion out there (hey, I do/did that myself, I just won’t pretend that my opinion is valuable information, but my facts sure are) and useful only for those knowing their own bias in relation to the reviewer’s. So it isn’t fully useless for some, but nowhere near as valuable as factual information about the game’s quality.
Of course, writing a proper review requires actual knowledge about game theory, game development, art, music, etc. Not everyone can do that, or should do that. Why do you think games journalism is in such a pitiable state? Too many people doing something they are bad at…

I’ll fully admit there are things about games that can not be objectively rated. Humor, for one. You can tell a game is humorous, but humor is so subjective it is pretty much impossible to objectively rate it.
But the vast majority of what makes a game can and should be rated as objectively as you can. Nobody says you can’t say if you liked it or not in addition, but if that is the focus of all you do, what useful information did you actually put out into the world?

Opinions are mostly useless due to how subjective they are (including my own, just to make that clear), though they can be fun to discuss. Facts are never useless and therefore superior information.
Some reviews try and do a separation here, by having categories like art/audio/tech/story etc. and then something like “fun factor”, which is of course mostly useless (what does it tell me if someone I don’t know had fun with a game? Not much, that’s for sure). That’s a step in the right direction, as it at least separates facts from opinion. Of course, some just use them to say “I like they graphics, I don’t like the audio, I like the story”…


Oh, look, someone holding forth about objective reviews in a thread that has veered wildly from how much mobile games suck to gamersgate. Color me unsurprised.

I rate this thread a 7 on the 7-9 scale. However, it gets a fun factor rating of 7.1. Overall rating: 7.05.



Yeah, this thread is wild. In most places I know, mods would have either locked it as soon as it got interesting, split it up into its discussion parts (making new threads out of one thread) or told people to STFU or get back to Diablo Immortal. You guys seem rather laissez faire, so that’s an interesting change.

On the other hand, it is a nice example of how discussions are almost always bound to derail eventually.

I have definitely not seen a thread becoming some kind of CYOA from one moment to the next. Fascinating…


Subjetivity that is not trying to pass for objetivity is more honest. Talking about gut feelings is a ok thing, because we all have guts. Anyway good reviewers go beyond everything I mentioned.


I don’t disagree with that.

But to claim a review cannot be objective at all or as its main focus or to claim that objectivity is just disguised subjectivity is simply an excuse for those not willing to invest into research to gain the knowledge required to be objective as well as investing the time to clearly separate facts from what is just their opinion.
Objectivity isn’t some lofty, unachievable goal. If it was, we’d be in a lot of trouble in all sectors that do research of any kind, including art.


IThe theory of relativity of Albert Einstein introduce subjetivity in what was balls moving in a pool table.

Quantum scientist cant not change the outcome of a experiment if they look at it.

Maththematicians have found limits to math and that is not has pure has they previously through.

Communist failed. Teocracies have failed. Capitalism cant manage post scarcity or full employement. All big human narratives have failed and we live in the postmodernism world where we know everything is relative.

When Zarathustra was descending the mountain he found a monk praying to God. Poor monk, he dont know God is dead.


I do not know what facts you want in a review. Or how meaningless facts alone can be.

Number of polygons on the screen. Maybe Soldier of Fortune (2002) render more polygons than Super Smash Bros (2002) or Donkey Kong (2002). But nobody remember Soldier of Fortune, but people remember Super Smash Bros and Donkey Kong.

Reviewers do produce clarity and point to things that we have to pay attention. They also ignore things that are objectively important, but when you yourself are playing the game, are pretty ignorable.

Nobody reviewing Portal is going to lower the score because reuse assets from Half-Life. But somebody reviewing Fallout 76 can do so because reuse assets from Fallout 4.

What you say is has important what you don’t say, and by not mentioning a thing, you are already saying something.

oops, I may have taken the notes wrong, I was looking at the wrong part of the screen when checked these games release year


That is quite a feat, considering I gave many examples of exactly that in not only one, but at least two posts.
At first I suspected a general problem in reading comprehension, but that really doesn’t make sense any more. By now I’m willing to accept people just not reading my posts because “tl;dr! LOL!” as a reason.
I switched to preceding my Steam reviews with a “tl;dr:” so that people don’t give up right away, should I do the same here? That is a serious question.

Of course I remember Soldier of Fortune! The game was a gory blast to play and was (at the time) a good FPS. Not sure how well it would hold up today, though.

You also keep riding that number of pixels or polygons argument as a strawman. Please, stop it. That argument was never made by me, or anyone else here.

You are throwing random pseudo-philosophical things with no actual connection together in the hope that something sticks. If you got a point to make, please just make it and don’t waste time on the Chewbacca defense.


I prefer to describe my opinions has irrational or imaginative.

Heres a book you may enjoy reading:


All I read was (paraphrased): “things that are obviously subjective and opinions are facts” and stopped reading everything in the thread.

Also someone defended Gamergate at some point I think. Fortunately, I forgot who already.

Also also going after Teiman for being strange and vague is like yelling at a dog for having four legs.


When somebody talk about GamerGate, I just skip to the next post (no idea if thats unrespectful?). Whatever good or bad could be said about it, is polluted by politics, bad ill, and I have no fucking idea what. But It never produce a good debate between peers.

I am not saying GamerGate is wrong. Just that is a failed initiative co-opted by bad agents and a this point is best to ignore it. If somebody really want to talk about topics, thats ok, but the gg movement has a topic, is a open cesspit.


This is my favourite objective review: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/resogun-review/

Or maybe it’s this one: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/counterstrike-go-review/





What the fuck is up with Google Image Search now? The new lay out is garbage. It used to be if you clicked on an image you liked, you got a larger version of it and a link to go directly to the image, now it’s on the left, only somewhat embiggened, has a frustrating X in the upper left corner (as if you’d need to close the preview for some reason), and for the life of me I can’t figure out how to go directly to the image any longer?


They specifically removed it, because site owners were complaining that people stole their pictures without going to the site first, robbing them of revenue. You can still get the pic without going to the site by right clicking on it usually, or just dragging it out onto your desktop.


Can you help me find the objective standards that determine quality, consistency, and waste in art? I’m having trouble finding any, but you must have access to them, since you’re certain the art can be so judged.

Can you help me find the objective standards to determine whether a game’s mechanics achieve their purpose (whatever that means)? Or the objective standard of balance?

Can you help me find the objective standards for determining the proper level of emotion in voice acting? Or the standards for musical coherence?

Can you help me find the objective standards for coherence of setting? How many deus ex machinas are allowed?

Whoa, hey, you can’t just selectively apply your criteria when you want to. Subjectively saying that some games should be judged differently is a big no-no.

Yeah, we can’t have just anyone reviewing video games! Only real gamers with 30 years of context should be allowed to review games. You start relaxing that requirement, and next thing you know, women and minorities will be reviewing games!


+1 My thoughts precisely.


Yes, I’m using that next time someone derides Steam’s user reviews. “Why do you hate women and minorities?”


That’s silly. The content of a review should be the thing that determines its quality, not the characteristics of the person writing it. And by that measure, yeah, Steam reviews are mostly garbage. But when you start introducing arbitrary (and poorly-defined) gates that determine a “real” reviewer, (“writing a proper review requires actual knowledge about game theory, game development, art, music, etc.”), then you exclude folks you might not mean to. When someone says that the only valuable reviews are the ones written by people who have “actual knowledge” about game development, all I can think is “Why would you want to exclusively read reviews by old white guys?” and “Why do you get to decide what actual knowledge is?”

Er, apologies to Tom, of course.


They lost a lawsuit to Getty Images. Apparently there is a way to stop Google after all, court. Well it wasn’t technically a loss, but they were going to loose, they call it a truce.