On Reviews

Reviews are not fact. Reviews are opinion. Good reviews are, in turn, substantiated opinion. Too many people expect reviewers to be objective and impartial, but that simply isn't their job. The reviewer's job is to provide an insight to the quality of a product or service, insight that made valuable by that reviewer's own knowledge and experience of the field. Any review that tries to be objective precludes the use of this valuable resource of experience, because experience itself is inherently subjective. Moreover, a review exists to highlight the qualitative as opposed to quantitative aspects of the product. Anyone can read raw figures, that doesn't require a reviewer. No, a reviewer is there to convey all the aspects of a product that raw, objective figures cannot explain. 

This is not to say that a reviewer should just make wild assertions. A good reviewer needs to be aware of their own biases, and should seek to find the reasons behind their opinions, as substantiation allows the reader to understand where the reviewer is coming from, and if the complaints being raised are likely to effect them. For instance, I often find that many FPS games have the problem of guns that 'feel' weak. Through a combination of sound design, animation and enemy reaction, it can feel like shots are having little effect, this is something that can really irritate me. By explaining this factor to be the reason why I 'don't like the gun play' though, others can work out whether or not they're likely to feel the same. Substantiating one's views, is key, in my opinion at least, to a quality review. 

Any views that a reviewer holds that can't be substantiated, should be clarified as such. To go back to games, if a game feels 'off' in some way that can't be explained by design or mechanical choices, the reviewer must decide whether it's a big enough gripe to mention at all. If it is, a good reviewer will make it plain that it is just a feeling. This is a two way street though, and if audiences want reviews that are well written don't have every tiny observation being framed with, "In my opinion...", then they need to have a modicum of intelligence when they read reviews, rather than taking everything written as pure, objective, fact. 

As someone who would very much like to earn their living by writing reviews, this is how I view the role of the reviewer. The reason I want to review is because I wish to use what little insight I have to help and inform others, and I feel very strongly that any opinion that I express must be substantiated in order to best reach this end. It's the experience and explanation that go with a good reviewer's opinions that makes them worthwhile. Without those, they're little more than a glorified pub loud-mouth.

Addendum: The gaming journalist/blogger Jim Sterling, a man whom I very much respect as a reviewer, wrote an example of an 'objective' review as a two-fingered salute to everyone who demands objective reviews. It's very good and highlights the problems of demanding objectivity in reviews. Find it here