“Git Gud” – You Don’t Want An Objective Review, You Want Your Opinion Parroted

in #gaming7 years ago (edited)

Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate was released last week. As someone interested in the game and franchise, I did what many others had done, and decided to read some reviews before the game was actually released. I set off to Metacritic's page for the game, and as I am wont to do, I opened a handful of posts, running the gamut from high scores to lower scores. Well, I found this review by Chapel Collins on Gaming Nexus, a site I haven't heard of before, and as I read the piece, I knew what the comments would be like. There were only two at the time (there are 151 right now), and they did not disappoint. A classic circling of the wagons by an indignant cult (or fandom), an all-out attack on the outsider.

git-gud.jpg

The best defense of the fandom - attack the critic.

(While this post is somewhat of a rant on fandoms and the search for "objectivity", it's also an editorial on the nature of reviews.)

Before we proceed further, a couple of words on what I look for in a review, specifically of something such as a video game, headphones, or a computer mouse, which is often not what I wish out of a "review" of a narrative, though video games can also incorporate that "other" part (see Austin Walker's post on Darkest Dungeon as an example). What I look for in a review of this sort is enough information on the product to tell me what it's like - what qualities it has, what it focuses on, what it actually plays like.

It may sound as if I'm looking for the "objective qualities" of the game, and to a degree one could argue that I am. I definitely am looking for the objective qualities of a gaming mouse or a pair of headphones, but even there, it's looking for personal experiences, which hopefully will be useful for me to tell what I would think of the product - is the mouse large? Is it useful for people who look for a palm grip? Are the cups on these headphones good for people who dislike bass, or who have large and sensitive ears?

If all I cared for were the so-called "objective qualities", I'd merely look at photos, and read the technical spec. I don't. I do care for what people actually thought of the product. When I read multiple reviews, it has two contradictory and complementary uses, especially relevant for video games. The first is that by reading multiple reviews, I can somewhat "eliminate" the variance for each reviewer, what they care for, and get a better composite picture, which might not exactly be what I care for. I get to see the same thing from multiple angles. That brings me to the other reason for reading multiple reviews, the fact that I do care to see multiple subjective perspectives on the product, that I do care to see what people like and dislike, and what they think overshadows the rest of the things.

And in a nutshell, that is the purpose of a review, for those who mistakenly thought that it's to give you an objective breakdown of a product, describing, as if in a list, its components. A review also does that, but that's not the true focus, the true focus is the judgment rendered by the reviewer, how everything the game does is filtered by the person who plays it. A game isn't really a game until it's played, it's just a set of rules and mechanics. The reviewer's baggage isn't an unfortunate baggage that comes along for the ride and must be eliminated, but the reason we actually pay someone to tell us what they thought, in their words, with our time, if nothing else.

And then we have the fandoms who turn on said reviewers, and some who accuse the reviewer for bringing their subjectivity front and center, making the review about them, rather than about what is reviewed. Two examples from recent years that had made waves are Carolyn Petit's review of GTA V on Gamespot and Danielle Riendeau's review of Dragon's Crown on Polygon. These reviews criticized the games about things they found personally troubling, not merely as part of a game, but as part of the world we live in, and got attacked for it. The nature of attacks on them was personal, and often referenced the fact they were female (and a transgender, in one case). This is where we slowly circle back to the Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate review in question.

It's hard not to focus on the supposed call for "objectivity", especially after GamerGate's part in the online discussion of games and reviews in the past year. But it's not a coincidence that just like some people who comment on some of my critiques with, "That's just your opinion" and "That's subjective", it only really happens when you're negative about something. So long you laud it, it's all peachy. It's also not a coincidence that the criticism levied against those three reviews focused on the reviewers. The "problem" is two-fold. First, their subjectivity's focus was negative (because had they been positive, it's merely the objective strengths of the game, right?), second, and most important - they're outsiders.

Some would argue outsiders are more likely to be able to give an objective analysis of something we take for granted (see defamiliarization), but there's always a subjective angle everything is seen as, which isn't a bug, but a feature, or at least a fact we have to live with. In game reviews, and especially the case of the aforementioned MH4U review (which was linked on the Monster Hunter subreddit, which further ties into the tribalism), where the most common complaint leveled against the reviewer could be (and often was by the "critics") summarized as "Git Good", or "Casual". But in its slightly more elaborate, and utterly nonsensical framing was, "You can't let a new player review this game!"

Wait, what?! A new video game, that doesn't have any real story ties to the previous ones, shouldn't it stand on its own merits? Especially for new players? That was actually one of the things that drew me to said review, as most reviews were basically, "This is mostly the same thing as prior Monster Hunter games, and this is where it differs, and why I still care for it," while very little was actually said about the experience as a whole. Most reviews, in other words, are almost useless if you're not already a fan of the series. That situation isn't healthy for the series, but fans don't really care about that.

As far as I'm concerned, this review is "objectively good", through my subjective definition of what a review "should" do earlier. It explores that strikes have weight to them, that drinking a potion leaves you open for an extended period of time, that the camera controls aren't as easy as they could've been. The "problem"? He thought of them as bugs, while the rest of the fandom thinks of them as features. The lengthy attack forces you to plan your attack sequence and not mash the button. The potion? You can't get help whenever you'd like. There's no real excuse for the camera, though it's been improved over time, but mostly by you buying better or supplementary hardware.

But why is it an "objectively good review"? Because he presented the data. He presented how the game plays. Had he mentioned all those things and given them a positive spin, then no one would've been bothered. It's not a lack of objectivity or perspective that's being attacked here, but not adhering to the way the game is "understood" by its fandom. I wonder how many of these aspects were accidents or mediocre design that gave rise to emergent gameplay and then kept as a form of the game's "identity". But even if something "works", it doesn't mean that it couldn't work better, and that it works, doesn't mean some people won't dislike it, and these people should know going in what they're going to get, which this review tells them.

There are two more points about tribalism that I'd like to reference here, as they arise in this discussion. The first is that this is very much what Howard Becker discussed in his paper, "Becoming a Marihuana User" (1953, American Journal of Sociology): If you smoke marijuana on your own, you may dislike it, because you'll ascribe a negative connotation to what is supposedly the draw of it. It's the same "feature/bug" divide. There is no "right" way to see things, there are points of view, and differing tastes.

The other is a memory I have from the 1993 movie Dave, where a common Joe has to step in as the President of the United States. At one section of the film the need for a budget-cut arises, and Dave, as the president, cuts out millions dedicated to assuring people who already purchased cars that they made the right call. The fandom's attack on the review is similarly telling, why do people who've already purchased, or will purchase it for sure, need to read reviews of something they aren't on the fence of? While you could say, "To put matters right," and some of the comments indeed try to do that, most don't. Most comments are a classic circling of the wagons, they're an attempt to constantly reaffirm one's love for something, one's fandom, as being worthy, of having been worthy all up to now.

These reviews attack outsiders, because they're not part of the "inducted", they're not part of the cult that many fandoms are. To question the fandom is to question one's life as a devotee up to this point, and outsiders are scrubs, outsiders are women, outsiders are subjective, and are to be shouted down. There's no call for objectivity in reviews, and honestly, there never is, merely the shouting down of dissenting voices. Dissenting negative voices, who dare put their different subjectivity in the spotlight.

Or, to put it simply, git gud scrub, and you wouldn't complain.

Separator line_smallEST.jpg

Check out my latest pieces:

IOW COLOR LOGO.png
art and flair courtesy of @PegasusPhysics

Originally posted on my blog here. You can verify I'm the blog-owner by scrolling to the bottom of the right sidebar.

© Guy Shalev 2015

Sort:  

Fandoms are cancerous since the first caveman broke another ones skull because of an argument on axe superiority over spears because muh durability over reach.

Fandoms have a purpose, of being a family to those who are part of them, which is why so many teens find their way into fandoms. But this sadly then leads into people identifying the object of the fandom with themselves, and then being unable to contain or listen to criticism on it.

Could it be different? I wonder. But fandoms are almost by definitions echo chamber that breed rabid attacks :(

There is a quote I read once and have never been able to find again (so maybe it was fake but it was true nonetheless) basically saying that people will not change their minds about the most clearly fictitious beliefs if they hold those beliefs dear, if those beliefs have defined who they are in some way. Your post is entertaining, but this tribalistic bent of humanity is unfortunately less so.

We see it in people's devotion to sports' teams, alma maters, even toxic family, neighborhoods, races, ethnicities, and of course, nations. Some degree of 'local loyalty' is of course good. I think it is only right that in practice a mother is more dedicated to the upbringing of her own children than to--say--flying to a third world country and taking care of other children while her own are neglected.

Because one can know those within a smaller sphere more truly, trust can be more rationally engendered on smaller, local (though of course the definition of local is changing with internet communities) scales. Only with trust can loyalty be rationally given.

But our brain still craves short-cuts and so great multitudes of people still throw rabid allegiance to anyone who seems "like" them in any number of arbitrary and essentially meaningless ways. Thank you for tossing a bit of reason into an unreasonable world ;)

This topic is one refrain that I've been repeating in my non-fiction writing for the better part of a decade now. It is everywhere, and it is deeply troubling. It is what leads to people attacking what others enjoy, the behaviour on Tumblr and 4Chan, and many others.

I am all for keeping your personality small. What I mean by this is not being humble, and I do not speak against empathy, but against tethering your personhood to outside things.

It is also evidently seen in politics and religions at times, where the one you completely disagree with? Not much cause to argue with them, because you're not even close. But the fiercest fights of doctrine are with those we agree on most things with.

And thank you for weighing in Jess. It's a tough fight to fight. But one of the more important ones. It deals with how we define ourselves, and how we relate to others. What more important things are there?

but against tethering your personhood to outside things

Yes, that's an excellent way to put it. I also think the the way we are schooled has much to do with it. At least in the US a school rarely teaches people how to learn things or how to examine a position critically. Most of the thirteen (now with pre-pre-school) sometimes 15 years of public schooling we receive is focused on memorizing a point of trivia then regurgitating it. Here's the important part: If you are right, you are rewarded. You are given a sticker, a homework pass, an ice cream, a special status. Most children spend their formative years being rewarded for being right and penalized for being wrong most of their day. Under such conditions how can one avoid having a significant part of one's self-worth entangled in the notion of being right?

Beep! Beep! This humvee will be patrolling by and assisting new veterans, retirees, and military members here on Steem. @shadow3scalpel will help by upvoting posts from a list of members maintained by @chairborne and responding to any questions replied to this comment.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Thunder_God from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.