Objective Video Game Reviews - bestvideogamereviews.com

Objective Video Game Reviews

Sargon of Akkad
Views: 73065
Like: 4621
A video to teach hipster video game “reviewers” how to objectively review a video game.

For some reason, this video needed to be made.

Sources:

Want objective game reviews?

Hate gamers?

Want games without fun?

It’s vital games aren’t fun!

Want shorter games?

Don’t care about games?

Don’t know if you’re even playing a game?

Objectivity is a “silly thing to strive for” – Kotaku

What is objectivity?

Who ever said anything about being objectively fun?

Critics are important, say critics

Sexism!!!

55 Comments

  1. As someone who would, i assume so atleast, called himself a gamer in a time long forgotten now… I want to say so much, but, i can only utter a very heavy, sad, depressed sigh.

    this video does a great job of explaining it anyways, so i guess it doesnt matter if i say anything. It's just so infuriating going on the internet one day to find out a woman leeching money off of degenerates who blindly follow her explaiming she respresents you is trying to destroy that wich you hold dear. And what can you do as a sole person like me? Nothing, because self entitled bitches just happen to attract more money than normal everyday people i guess?

  2. OK, I think this is a bit to harsh to the new guys coming into games journalism. The old guys yeah they are fucked I'll agree completley on that, but telling someone they should "fuck off" if they want to focus on what they liked about a game when reviewing it. Sure focus on the things like replayablity and how the aspects of the game work but it's boring for you to talk about and people to listen to if you can't have passion in your work and include things you like along with the objective aspects.

  3. there is something that i don't understand. how come we just don't migrate to websites that give objective reviews? its not like there is a shortage of gaming websites.

  4. I do like your gaming videos but i do disagree with you on the basis that i think video games deserve to be seen/respected/analyzed as art to a certain extent. It angers me when AAA developers don't realize that every model, texture, gameplay mechanic, animation, ambient sound, line of dialogue all comes together to create a completely unique and creative experience, and instead try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and then rush their incomplete art out the door without fully realizing their creative vision. Your video on Far Cry 4 made it seem like you thought that fun gameplay is the end all and be all when it comes to games, but i think every little detail has to come together to make the experience enjoyable.

  5. Sure, but as you said at the end, the people who write subjective game reviews that don't have any value to anyone because the reviewer isn't a games hobbyist themselves, aught to just not write reviews to begin with. 
    I'll only ever read a subjective review of a game, and the reviewer will only ever be a person I know share my taste in games. 

    Jim Sterling quite rightly pointet out how asinine the concept of an objective game review is, so reading about objectively described graphics and narrative really won' get anyone anywhere when they are trying to inform their purchase decision.

    The whole rise of Gamergate was stupid, just don't read or watch reviews by morons, job done. It's true, I did find it hilarious and absolutely depressing at the same time, to watch countless gaming websites attack their core audiences because they had to take a stand on the whole Gamergate issue.

    On a whole unrelated note, I've probably spent a few hours watching your videos today, so I've probably reached the time at which a normal person would subscribe to a youtube channel. Subbed.

  6. For someone so stupid, you're certainly full of yourself. I'm guessing it's pindick syndrome.

  7. So game reviewers  who hate games  and want gamers to die,  so they can umm what?   Get another career?  Without gamers  there is no games  adn no reviewers of somethign that no longer exists, so  why don't they change careers  already andlet those who love games continue and those who love to review them continue without their stupidity?

  8. To these people who want to kill games:
    The difference between you and E.T. for the Atari 2600, E.T. was capable of killing the entire game industry. fuck off, video games are great.

  9. That fucking bitch doesn't deserve to play The Witcher 3 early. I want it so bad, and I actually like video games.

  10. I like that you've been putting out more vids sargon, keep up the good work.

  11. Sorry, my Englis his some bad, could anyone tell me What is the meaning of this Cutties Killing Video Games?

  12. It makes me wonder how many game journalists burned out or became jaded while looking for the next evolution of games then realised they had worked and educated themselves into a corner.
    Change is slow and people are impatient and short lived creatures so wanting more is understandable.

    Tearing down every attempt and iteration released because it does not meet the lofty "this is what games should be" standards set in a persons mind/hopes is disingenuous to the developer and consumer.
    The "new" console generation was an open page of history for this behaviour, because the new consoles did not instantly herald "new and advanced gameplay mechanics" a set of pretty but ultimately standard games were hauled onto the coals due to the failure to live up to expectation never promised (though marketing took a heavy hand in the "hype" drowning out any critical/cautious voice).
    If PC games were not innovating heavily in the 5 years where consoles were out-classes hardware wise, why think updated console hardware specs were the answer to the current plateau.

  13. You cannot really have a 100% objective review as a review will always have an opinion and opinions in and of themselves are bias.  The best way, at least imo, to review a title would be to present facts about them game and discuss how what one thinks of them and why one does or does not like a certain title.

  14. Actually … some shorter games with a lower price point might not be so bad. Look at Portal. Super short, but awesome. So I don't think the push for shorter games is an SJW thing

  15. I think game reviews ARE subjective. In just about every way.

    "The graphics aren't that good."
    I played the game and think they are amazing.

    "The story is banal."

    I play it and think it is innovative.

    "It's not very fun."

    I have a blast.

    Moreover, you could be more specific and it still be subjective:

    The controls are a bit dodgy.

    So I play it and the controls are perfect and I never have a problem.

    The character does not jump very high.

    I play and think he jumps the perfect height so about what are you talking?

    There are many side quests.

    Me? There aren't enough side quests.

    Just like with music, reviews are a good reference when deciding if you want to bother listening to determine if you like it, but tell you nothing about whether you will like it.
    Not only that, but what is more, if a person has not qualified his taste, then he might say something like, "This band has an Iron Maiden feel," so I don't listen to the band because I don't care about Iron Maiden, but it turns out that the band has more in common with Blind Guardian or Dragonforce.
    His comparison was useless because what HE thinks when he says "Iron Maiden" is likely not the same thing of which I think.

    When I think of "objectivity," I think of this: "I had fun playing the game, thought the graphics were charming and enjoyed the story; therefore, I am giving this game an 8 out of 10," and no one paid him or influenced him to say it; his opinion was formed entirely based upon his subjective enjoyment of the game.

    A game reviewer is not the same as a game journalist thought, is he? There are certainly objective facts that one could report in journalist, I presume.

  16. You know objectivity can only carry a review to a limited degree. Of course there should be standards but reviews are always going to have a degree of bias as games are based on personal taste and enjoyment of it. Even if a game is objectively well-made a reviewer might not enjoy playing it

  17. I expect objective reviews journalists.

    But there is a place for more subjective reviews. I mean look at Angry Video Game Nerd, Angry Joe or Spoony. A lot of being subjective for sure, but still great.

    Even details like how good are the controls can be subjective at times. As people don't like controls of Sonic R. While I liked it. Of course there technical faults. But technical faults at times can be considered a good thing. Such as straferunning turning from a bug to a feature.

    Reason why game reviews are often subjective and objective are because they art.

    It's the reason why doing an objective hardware review is easier then reviewing a game objectively.

    As main purpose of most part of your computer are to work correctly and efficiently.

    However I can't call it a review when most of your article is about sexism in that game and not any other qualities. At that point it becomes 100% subjective review and that is not good. As the point is to review different qualities of an object.

    It's like reviewing statue and only talking about how it's colors don't mix well. While ignoring craftsmanship and the materials, etc. That's not a review of the statue, it's a review of statues' colors.

    Though that article about Bayonetta 2 is kinda silly for a Journalist site. Even if it isn't an review. As I would assume game journalist would post something… I don't know objective?

    Journalist sites are not for 100% subjective articles. That is for blog sites.

  18. "All video games are stupid, of course." ~ Colin Campbell, a video game journalist.

  19. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! wipe tears from eyes I just spent the last 30 minutes dying over Grayson's afro. Did we go back to the 60/70s again?

  20. It amazes me how this man is trying to suggest you can review something objectively when the thing you're reviewing cannot be considered good or bad unless you subjectively explain why.

    Objectively, you cannot explain:why a game is good, if the game has a good story, if the game has good controls, if the game has good graphics, and a ton other things.

    You will have to suspend objectivity to explain why a game is good. Objectively you cannot say you liked something from the game, say the game did something good, or even say the damn game had a good story. You will only be able to say the most generic and vague statements.

    Jim Sterling's video on objectively blows this video the fuck up, hard. You cannot objectively review a game. 

    If you told me to review milk, that was unknown to actually be spoiled when I drank it. I would be forbidden to objectively say I thought the milked tasted spoiled. That's a subjective critique. I could only say that it was milk, I couldn't tell you if it tasted good or not. Is this what you want from games, a generic overview of what the game is without explaining why it's good or bad?

    This is an objective game review in a nutshell.

    Batman Arkham Knight
    It has Batman in it, the story is he's trying to save Gotham from Scarecrow, the Arkham Knight, and a few other villains, the game has combat system for fighting  and predator system for stealth, the games graphics fit the standard of the generation of gaming. Batman has gadgets he can use during the gameplay. He can glide around. The game offers side-missions. The game uses the Batmobile.

    Obviously, I didn't organize that properly but the point is still valid. Nothing I said about Batman Arkham Knight explained if it was a good game because to say it's a good game I have to say subjective statements. I cannot say it has a good or bad story objectively because that's a subjective experience. I cannot say it has good gameplay, bad gameplay, not enough gameplay, too much gameplay, ect..

    All those statement require me to suspend objectivity and tell you my personal belief. We aren't buying a car where performance can be objectively rated. A game is either good because our senses like it or it's bad because our senses did not like it. To review something like that is impossible objectively. Objectively pretty much states the synopsis of the game and whether the game is functioning. It cannot state if the gameplay is good or not because that's a subjective statement.

    Games are the same as movies. You cannot objectively review a movie and say it's good. You can only break down what the movie is and what's used in it. Neither of which tells you if it's good.

  21. At the end:
    "Honestly, though, why not just get a job doing something you like?"
    Haha, that's a good one. SJWs liking things? You're funny Sargon.

  22. Amazing job sir I have a little show on gameing where people can make their own opinion.

  23. I wonder how they're enjoying their unemployment?

  24. Anyone who says videogames should be shorter should not be playing videogames. videogames should never end. never never video game land.

  25. Leave videogames alone. leave my thing alone. Yes I've been drinking, fuck off.

  26. I suspect this is all a part of the phenomenon of video game industry people who are really frustrated film people.

  27. "You people"?
    Didn't have you pegged as a FUCKING RACIST, Sargon.

  28. "The Legend of Zelda is classist, sexist and racist"
    Of. Fucking. COURSE. It is.

  29. 45 years were given to Sargon of Akkad.
    A good deal short of Noah's lengthy career.
    I'm betting you are in the circle of Inanna's truth seekers.
    They often bare just.

  30. yeah but i like analytical shit as just an extension of liking stories and what not.

  31. I don't even play video games and I enjoyed listening to you tell the Fun (thought) Police to fuck off. Have you read the Ray Bradbury story Usher II? A man goes to Mars to be someplace where Thought Police won't bother him but they fly to Mars too, just to tell people what to do there, as well.

  32. FUN is quite objective actually. Art is not. A game can have a shit story; some people like it and some people don't. But it can still have FUN gameplay that most gamers WOULD like. COD for example: I haven't played through a campaign in years, but I almost always have FUN with the multiplayer.

  33. If a review was 100% objective, well watch this week's Jimquisition.

  34. Yep guess thats why she gets around 10'000 views at most on most of her new videos while sargon gets 50 k in a hour

  35. Get woke, go broke….go hooking and make me a sandwich bitch.

  36. There's no such thing as an objective video game review. Well, there is, but an objective game review would be boring as fuck and would tell you nothing useful.

    What Sargon actually seems to want is just more video game reviews that happen to agree with him, and he hilariously thinks anything that agrees with him is objective or unbiased, by default.

  37. "This game has guns. Guns bad, therefore this FPS game is bad"

  38. also best game reviewer ever = yahtzee, if you don't agree yer wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *