Actually that's an Editorial. A review is a form of journalism meant to showcase the benefits and flaws in a product to help a consumer make an informed choice. While there is a subjective element to a good review, it is quite possible to create one without overly relying on opinion and speculation. For example, Angry Joe makes many satirical comments about content being cut specifically to make more money in DLC without any evidence that that is the case. This is part of his "entertainment" factor and his editorial. I can respect the entertainers who have made niches for themselves with one schtick or another (such as Angry Joe's rants and furries and his "You done F'd It up!" openings), but I won't confuse them for journalism.

A review is by and large a subjective personal opinion because everyone likes different things. As in, some players love grind. I do not. Some players love super skinny anorexic women. I do not. When determining if a game is "worth your time", it's all subjective personal opinion. It's just that most reviewers try to pretend that it's not and that they are somehow "above subjective personal opinion" as some sort of "holier than thou" complex. That, and it's harder to get people to listen to you when you remind them that you're paid to have an opinion and if you weren't paid for it, you probably wouldn't give it. Anyone with a brain has an opinion and a bias. We all bring our own personal opinions and biases to the table on every stance we take.

Which is what an editorial is. The goal of a Review is to provide ~objective~ assessments about a product. Some of it is going to be subjective, sure, but the goal of ~journalism~ is to present facts whenever possible and to flavor it with necessary personal accounts to provide context. A review can be subjective up to a point, but then it crosses into entertainment and is about the person making the review and their 'reputation' more than it is about being fair and unbiased. If you notice MANY online reviews also carry with them the tag "I was given this product free to review". This is something notability absent in the gaming circles which is how guys like Angry Joe became "respected reviewers." They have an entertaining gag they play over and over while they find ways to make a review fit that gag. I've seen enough of his reviews to know that he's not out to inform me: He's out to get eyeballs on his videos by being pissed off. That's not a review; that's showmanship. And he does it well. But it's still not a review.

So then, how do you objectively determine what is "fun" or "worth your money"? How do you make an unbiased assessment of a product? What if a game is absolutely fantastic, but the reviewer didn't have fun with the game and didn't enjoy it, so they rate it lower? Is that unbiased? Is it objective? Is it subjective personal opinion? The problem you're having is that you're thinking any review or any form of journalism can be "objective" and "unbiased". It can't. That's human nature. Journalism in general is biased to the hilt and that's how it's taught in college. People sign up for the classes in the hopes of "changing the world" instead of "reporting the facts". So much of news is pure sensationalism that it isn't even news or journalism. It doesn't even try to pretend to be. Reviews tend to be the same way. Let me give you an example here of how Reviews are subjective personal opinions: Brink got a ton of hate from pretty much every reviewer ever. Everything they blasted in the reviews I never had a problem with. In fact, I had a lot of fun playing the game. It was one of the better shooters I'd ever played despite the broken AI. But, it got a lot of bad reviews that blasted a lot of features as "broken" or "annoying" that simply weren't broken or annoying from my standpoint. The only way to make a review objective at all is to omit any and all personal experiences with the game. If something in the game works, it works, you say it works. If something is broken and doesn't work, you say it doesn't work. Trying to tell players its fun is subjective personal opinion. Trying to tell players its worth their money is subjective personal opinion. Trying to tell players that a story is terrible is subjective personal opinion. A review on a movie, book, or even video game is often the same as trying to determine what passes as "art" in a gallery. Opinions will vary wildly and there are no solid answers... Just people pretending there are in order to try to make their station in life seem more important than it is.

A fair counter argument but I tend to put things like Journalism and Objective Reviewing in the same box as the US Supreme Court puts Pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. There's a line out there where personal opinion crosses over from being "Flavor" and "Context" and becomes "Commentary" and "Editorial." Angry Joe's reviews (the ones I've forced myself to watch) qualify as entertaining and Editorial (at least as I understand journalism) because they are so heavily laden with assumptions, unsubstantiated accusations, and exaggeration. For example if he had taken his review and simply cut out the "Cobra Commander" bits I think he'd be much closer to having an objective review than he did. But he won't because those bits are what "sell" his personality and his brand. He can't just ignore the fact that he gets Ad Revenue through eyeballs coming to see him fume. Not people coming for an honest assessment of the quality of a product. I won't bash the man for making a buck, but I will point out that he's not really out to write reviews: he wants eyeballs, and he's willing to go to any means to get them.

So you defend one sad little reviewer using a quote from another sad little reviewer. Funny.

Defend a reviewer? Obviously you failed reading comprehension. Either that, or you didn't read my post at all and are trying to be clever despite delivering a reply that has zero context on what I just posted. Obvious troll is so obvious that it makes the 4chan people look sophisticated by comparison. If you're really enjoying the game, no review of it should affect you. If those reviews do affect you, its only because you know they are true and you're making yourself think you're having fun in order to justify your purchase.

Now that youre done wrongly assuming everything, as Im sure you do on the regular(haha look, an assumption), I shall retort to the least whining parts of your reply. I dont give half a shit about any review, good or bad, Im just tired of seeing this post for the eleven hundreth time today. And then you quoted Yahtzee, whom is just as irrelevant as AJ, to tell all the "moronic children" why their opinion is wrong.

Reading comprehension fail again?

Conprehended just fine, just dont agree.

No, you didn't comprehend just fine at all. If you had, you'd realize that you're arguing with me by agreeing with me. Let me explain this so that your tiny mind can grasp it: I made a comment on this topic where the only thing I said about Angry Joe was that I liked his reviews despite not always agreeing with them. I then quoted Yahtzee because he makes a fantastic point that most people don't quite understand about reviews and even reviewers. My mention of moronic children was in reference to allllll the posts down there, below mine, that basically impugn the people saying that Destiny isn't that great, or that they think Angry Joe is an idiot. A reviewer, whether you agree with them or not, isn't necessarily an idiot because they disagree. That, my friend, is the essence of what Yahtzee is saying in that quote. He's saying, "the only reason you care what a reviewer has to say about a game you like is because you think they might have a point and you're trying to justify your purchase by dismissing it". You then didn't read my post and made a reply based on absolutely nothing I'd said. So, I called you out on the obvious troll behavior (IE: Ignoring what I'd just wrote and going off on your own tangent in an effort to start an argument). So then, I asked if you failed reading comprehension again, because your reply was absolutely irrelevant to anything I'd just said. Now, here we are again, me asking you if you failed reading comprehension and outright saying you have because of how absolutely irrelevant of a reply you're making. Here I am, explaining to you how you're off on some tangent that has zero to do with what point I was making... Here I am, pointing out how obvious of a troll you're being because of all of that. It's facestairs level of stupidity here. I also don't see it getting any better... So... have fun trying to troll someone else. This is my last reply to you as I fear I'll lose brain cells from conversing with you further. Have a fantastic day!

Once again, comprehended fine, just dont agree. You dont find reviewers idiotic because they may disagree, I detest all reviewers regardless of their good or bad review. I can see you like to read your own ramblings and wall o text shit no one cares about. I just thought it was cute you quoted yahtzee. Im sure hes glad you took his dick out of your mouth long enough to type his quotes. Have fun not replying.

get shrekt m9

What the hell is wrong with you? He specifically said that you shouldn't give two shits about reviewers. I guess your post is slightly different in that you apparently arbitrarily hate ALL reviewers, but that's a ridiculous position, and you should feel bad for holding it.

[ i dont feel bad about holding that position at all. I actually only feel bad that a few of you actually enjoy that bullshit. Well that and having to read your reply.

I know you don't feel bad, I said that you SHOULD feel bad. That you lack the self awareness to do so isn't my fault.

Don't feed the troll. That's all he's here for. As you said earlier, I told him that he shouldn't care about reviewers and his reply to me was that he doesn't care about [b]any[/b] reviewers. He's just here to start an argument and he's not very good at it, as he's trying to do it by agreeing with me. If he wants to hate all reviewers, that's up to him. He's entitled to that position. Me? I can't afford to hate reviewers. I value my money and where I spend it. I, like most people, can't afford to simply throw my money at any new game that comes out and hope it's fantastic (though I do still sometimes do just that). I think his major issue is just that he doesn't like people who make a living by expressing their opinion on the internet. That, or he hopes to start some kind of argument by claiming reviewers are irrelevant. He's just trolling for posts in order to fill the empty void in his life. Better to just ignore him and let him crawl back to 4chan. EDIT: If you want proof that he's only here to troll, click his profile name. Click his recent posts. Every single one of them is him lashing out at someone in the most vicious way possible just to get a rise out of them. He isn't here for anything constructive. He isn't here for any kind of intelligent debate. He's here to start fights in an effort to feel better about his life. That's all. It's sad, but true. It's also nice to be able to check post history to see if someone has a history of such behavior so you can easily identify if they're a troll or not.