Reviews are not Gospel

Sometimes opinions are just that, opinions.

Just over 3 weeks ago Crimson Desert came out and has been taking over a lot of people’s time since it’s so big. Which is great. Personally Crimson Desert doesn’t interest me because it feels far more generic story wise than I care to explore and massive open worlds are just boring to me nowadays. If I reviewed it I probably would have a lot of issues with it. And I’m not the only one who has had (or likely would have had in my case) issues with it, reviews have been rather varied, some adoring it and some just not enjoying it much. This is genuinely how reviews are supposed to be.

But now, people are trying to make the excuse the bad reviews from a wide variety of people are not them just not liking the game but are people having a vendetta against it. They do this through using other reviews from the same outlets as reasons for why to dismiss those reviews. Specifically people focus on Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Concord a lot, particularly when it comes to IGN. IGN has a variety of different reviewers and each of them have their own opinions on games, they experience them differently like all people that play games do. These “gamers” love to ignore that and say the entire outlet reviews the games as opposed to individual people.

This has thus been super bugging me because of the seemingly misunderstanding of what reviews actually are. So today, I want to go over how reviews are subjective, not objective. I’ll be talking about how you can’t use reviews for games you dislike that praise it to invalidate reviews for games you love that disliked the game. I’ll touch on how there has been, in the past, a disconnect between reviews and their scores, or reviews and the gaming community or reviewers and the gaming community. And finally I’ll finish with a plea to the broad gaming community and to reviewers like myself about how we can do better as a community for understanding how reviews are not Gospel and never should be.

Subjective, not objective

First, some definitions!

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now, moving on.

This is at the core of my issue that I believe too many people don’t want to or genuinely don’t understand. Reviews are not objective, even if they’re being portrayed that way. They never have been and never will be. The point of being a reviewer isn’t to stick the landing and say that a game is the best thing ever even if you didn’t like it just because you know other people will like it. The point of reviews is to give your honest experience with the game regardless of what that means to your score or to how it is viewed by the gaming community.

For instance, the main focus people use as context, including in several articles here on Substack, are IGN reviews. They focus on the idea that IGN has to review games “well” because they’re being paid or are trying to push certain games as opposed to those games were just something the reviewer genuinely enjoyed or genuinely didn’t. This is most apparent with Crimson Desert recently where the press played the game before the day one patch that added a lot of things so they had more issues, even more, they played before a more recent patch that helped with the janky controls that was a key complaint for a lot of reviewers. Crimson Desert got the short end of the stick because of how reviews are meant to be done before release, they’re meant not to be done in, often, their best states. Rather, they’re done in the games worst state. This impacts scores a fuck ton because more people will have different experiences with certain aspects of a game that get fixed early in the life of the game.

An example of the bad stock controls of Crimson Desert. It. Looks. Uncomfortable.

At their core, reviews are not meant to be something that pinpoints the absolute quality of a game, or that “pushes an agenda” they’re just an opinion. That’s okay, that’s even ideal. We should gravitate towards people that have similar tastes to us and that’s what makes, arguably, the idea of looking at a place like IGN or Polygon as all-knowing entities that review games so damn flawed. People are the reviewers, not a media company.

Even I gravitate towards people that I have similar tastes to. I have significant issues with many bigger reviewers out there who like to concentrate on some games in ways that, to me, seem incredibly unfair (I will not name them as I don’t like calling people out and making beef). Some I think are incredibly thickheaded with not getting themes or not understanding parts of the game or not being willing to view the game for what it is as opposed to what they wanted it to be, or even barely playing enough of the game in order to see all of the mechanics or something as simple as one day/night cycle, but this actually brings me to my next point of just because you disagree with a review and how that singular person experienced the game doesn’t mean you can use other reviews to invalidate that review.

Don’t just blindly invalidate

I’ve already mentioned the IGN of it all. Specifically, the IGN reviewer of Dragon Age: The Veilguard seems to have adored the game. They had a genuinely fun time with it and really connected with the characters and with the story. They saw that even though it wasn’t perfect, it still had so much there and was still a Bioware Dragon Age game. Many, many, many people disagree with that, even going as far as to call it Disney or Marvel-like and say that the reviewer was actually handling the game with kids gloves and couldn’t possibly have enjoyed the game that much. All of the same accusations that were lobbed at Veilguard are ones that were lobbed at prior Dragon Age games (back then it was Whedon-esque dialogue as the criticism buzzword), including the original, and even Mass Effect games. I remember all of the gaming community criticizing them at the time, shitting on Dragon Age 2 for not being a Dragon Age game, for getting rid of the edge. But now people find that game to be one of the better Dragon Age games, at least in the Dragon Age community.

Okay, I’m talking about Veilguard too much, I already went into plenty of detail about my thoughts on this here in an older article so if you want to know more then check that out. My point is people look at the review from IGN of Veilguard, a 9/10, and then compare it to the Crimson Desert review, a 6/10, and say that they have to be reviewed differently. That these can’t be adequate judgements of the games. “How could the gaming press be so wrong?” they ask. How could IGN give Concord a 7/10 and Crimson Desert a 6/10 when the latter is very clearly such a better game.

They use this discrepancy, which is explained quite simply by reviews being purely subjective, and try to invalidate the reviews of Crimson Desert. They say that the people that reviewed Crimson Desert have a vendetta against the game, that they hate Eastern developed games (despite many in the Korean press also disliking the game), that they’re going after it for the same flaws that exist in other games. This is, quite simply, horseshit. It’s not that there might be people who hate the game and take that to create a vendetta against it, those people exist for literally everything and in every industry out there. It’s that these games are designed in ways that sometimes gets under people’s skin in specific ways to them and if there’s nothing to redeem the game in their eyes then it will just pull down the whole experience.

As an example of this, let’s look at a game that I reviewed very early on in my time writing Cat’s Controller Corner, Kingdom Hearts 2 (linked above). A game that many many people adore. Well, I fucking HATED it. Now don’t get me wrong, it had good bits, but dear god did I have issues with it. From the irritating combat to the quite simply underwhelming use of Disney properties that completely ruin many aspects of that Disney property (specifically I mean different shots and aspects of the movies style, not because of the other Disney characters being interjected, I found that interesting and fun). To me, as a film person, it got under my skin and made me just hate the game. I wrote a lot about why I hated it in the above linked article but it is much different than my reviews that followed so I’d just recommend keeping that in mind, I would likely change some of it if I could go back and redo it.

Simply put though, my experience with Kingdom Hearts 2 is fueled by my time with other things in my life. But you can’t just take my experience and say that it isn’t valid just because you disagree with it. That’s not how opinions work. I have one that says that Kingdom Hearts 2 was a shit game to experience, but I also understand why people enjoy it and won’t begrudge people for liking it even if I will gladly point out my problems with it if they ask. You can’t blindly invalidate a review just because you can’t believe someone would think a different way than you do. Doing so is the fallacy Argument from Incredulity or the divine fallacy: a fallacy where someone says something can’t possibly be true because it doesn’t line up with your own personal expectations or beliefs.

Disconnects exist

I’ve been participating in the gaming community for 20 years, I’ve seen my fair share of contentious reviews. I know that there can often be a disconnect between the written review and the score. Those things give reviewers a bad rap. Essentially, there are many reviews out there over the last 20 years that give off the idea that they just generally dislike a game and have many, many problems with it, but then rate it rather high. It’s a confusing reality of how some reviews were written because of being afraid of larger publishers getting a vendetta against that review publisher and pulling early game keys from them. It can also come from people who try to nail that consensus idea of what a game will be to the wider community as opposed to what their experience is. This is but one of the disconnects that exists.

Not only that, there’s also the disconnect which is the “reviewers are bad gamers” of it all. Back in the day there was a reviewer who made a joke online posting a video of how he was having some issues with the tutorial for Cuphead. But it was a joke, the guy didn’t actually have the same amount of issues playing the game as the video would suggest. That joke though took on a life of its own and spread the idea that reviewers are just plain bad at games. That they’ll give some games bad scores because they just weren’t good at them so had a vendetta against them.

This does have some truth to it in that some reviewers are bad at some games, that’s called variety of experience. Not everyone is amazing at games and that, again, doesn’t invalidate that experience, even if it frustrates people who are plenty good at the games. The reality here is that reviewers are like everyone out there, are like steam reviews and twitch streamers. They all have a variety of opinions on games and that leads to disconnects sometimes between the review and some in the gaming community.

But, bringing this back to my main point here, there is this idea that the disconnects between scores and reviews written are actually because people are paid for the score they give, whether through money or other means. This was actually the whole basis for the original GamerGate dumpster fire where Zoë Quinn, an indie game developer, had a slanderous accusation thrown at her from a vengeful and abusive ex that she slept with someone for a good review. Something that was impossible as that reviewer never even reviewed her game and they had never met.

Highly recommend her book, it’s great.

Shills exist, don’t get me wrong, but the idea that everyone who reviews a game and gives it a score that you disagree with is a shill is just plain wrong. I completely disagree with a lot of reviewers out there, but I know they’re not shills and would never make that accusation. The gaming community needs to learn how to understand that these disconnects exist, both between the score and the review (which I personally believe is all about trying to nail that general consensus of the game as opposed to being rewarded for good scores), or between the review and many in the gaming community. That’s okay, it doesn’t mean you have to get upset, it just means you have a different opinion.

We can do better

That brings me to my final point. We as game reviewers, and as a gaming community, can do better. The broader community needs to let go of fixating on a review score being bad means that the game you adore is being slandered. Letting go is what we all need to do sometimes and that’s a large part of what capital G “Gamers” need to do. We need to start reading reviews as the subjective experiences they are, not as an objective Gospel on the reality of the game.

The gaming community as a whole have a responsibility to understand that reviews are opinions, not objective fact. They have a responsibility to not hold a grudge against certain reviewers or publications just because of one review they disagreed with. They have a responsibility to search for reviewers and publications that share their opinions and use those people to inform themselves on how they might experience a game. And even more, this responsibility reaches out to include looking at new games that you might not expect to like, but because of a reviewer you like enjoyed it you decide to give it a try. Going out of a comfort zone is a part of this responsibility as well. Seriously, people have been doing that a lot with a lot of games I love in the last year, seeing people play games like Veilguard and Avowed and actually love them despite them having believed the hate campaign working against them is awesome. More people need to go remember that there is more to the world than their little corner.

And then we as gaming reviewers, or at least other gaming reviewers since I’m already working on this and have done with my own review scoring system which you can find out more about here, need to let go of the 1-10 score. More so, we need to let go of what scores have meant for so long. Games are a subjective experience and, more so, they’re about fun. They’re not about the massive quality of the games story, or the perfection of the smooth gameplay, they’re about having a good time relaxing. That’s literally it. This applies to every type of entertainment media.

Seriously, Sharknado is a great time, watch it for the fun not for the criticism.

I had conversations in Film School about this very thing. Personally one of my favorite movies ever is Sharknado. Not because it was the most brilliant film around, or that it was amazingly well made. Instead, it was because I had the best time and the best memories surrounding it. That’s what games are about as well. We as reviewers need to pick up a new scoring system that focuses and pays attention to the broader enjoyment you had with a game not as something with more weight. Whats more, we need to drop the idea of a perfect game, or the worst game ever. Each game is a unique experience for every player, no game is perfect, no game is absolute trash. We need to drop the idea of there being 10/10 games that are perfect. We need to look at games as just an experience.

What’s more, we need to adopt a system that uses all the fucking numbers. Despite what people think, the review of Crimson Desert has legitimate criticism in it, but it also says very simply, the game isn’t for everyone. The writer knows that some people will adore it and some will absolutely hate it. A 6/10, similar to the Starfield review of a 7/10, is not a bad game. It’s just not the best game the reviewer has ever played or their favorite in a while, something that’s taking up all their time, and is a more mixed experience.

We as a gaming community and as writers can do better. Now, am I, the writer of this article who has her own unique review system that focuses on enjoyment of a game as opposed to it’s overall inherent quality, somewhat biased? Yup. But that doesn’t make me wrong.

Also maybe we should stop having reviews come out before the game is released when it is in its worst state, particularly for large games. I dunno, it just doesn’t feel like a good option. There’s many possible solutions here and I don’t have one right now because that’s not my job but the current idea of putting games out on release day or before release just isn’t fucking working.

The Conclusion

Overall, I guess I just wanted to say that it’s okay to disagree with a review, it’s okay to find flaws in it or to find something that the writer experienced as a flaw that you would love. These are perfectly fine things to have. What’s not okay is to look at a review and take it as a slight against the game that you adore. Unless of course that review is solely based around any kind of bigotry, a sadly prevalent aspect happening in some spheres of the gaming community. Then, you can dismiss it because bigots don’t have points, they just have shit coming out of their mouths.

Also ignore everyone that uses this word in a negative way. It’s fucking dumb and a disguise for bigotry.

I hope you have thoughts on what I said, that you didn’t dismiss it because of just one sentence you disagreed with (which would literally be doing what I talked about in the article). If you want to have a nuanced discussion in the comments that doesn’t devolve into me deleting your comment and blocking you, then please feel free to voice your opinion! Nuanced conversations need to happen more in the community and, as anyone who knows me personally understands, I adore nuance and see it everywhere. So to be able to have an adult conversation about this topic would be a joy and a lovely change of pace.

Meow,

Cat