Ordinarily, I wouldn't use my entire column to just talk about the English language. This space is supposed to be about video games, after all. Granted, I've sometimes stretched what that definition is about. But really, I don't think I've ever done it as much as I'm about to right now. Honestly, my sincerest hope is to get fan mail about this from a school teacher, and fifty flames from the people who will end up proving my point.
That said, this does all go back to video gaming, particularly reviews. There are a couple things that I can say that all video game reviewers have in common. We all have played thousands of hours of games. We've all played hundreds of games. We've all had major life moments related to video gaming. We've all had our own personal favorite games that we love no matter how much we know they're not good (mine is Sprung for the DS – I'll never vouch for its quality, but it's so hilarious). But more than anything else, we've all gotten complaints about how we don't write objective reviews.
Not only is every reviewer on Netjak nodding their heads in agreement with that last sentence, everyone who has ever reviewed a video game anywhere has nodded their head sagely. We've all heard it. It's on the Stock List of Complaints for video game critics. Along with "You probably didn't even play the game all the way through" and "You're probably just a stupid (other system) fanboy," it's like the Triforce of mandatory flames you'll get when reviewing video gaming. Heck, the day you finally get all three is probably the video game critic's equivalent of a bar mitzvah, confirmation, losing your virginity, or other such personal hallmark. It's the day you finally become an adult.
While others might take issue with one of the other stock phrases, the complaint about "objective reviews" is my own personal pet peeve. For all those who keep saying it, you know why it bugs me when you say it? Because I can't stand it to know that there are that many people in the world who can't even grasp sixth-grade English. I'd excuse you if, one and all, you were able to show me that you weren't native English speakers. Actually, I take that back. Netjak does have a few readers that aren't native English speakers, and every single one of them knows better than to say a sentence so blatantly moronic. I really try to say that video gamers use something more complex than their brain stem, but you're not helping.
Since I imagine that someone out there is wondering what I'm talking about, it's time to pull out the dictionary. Specifically, I'm going with my 2000+ page, Webster's Unabridged. When I look up "objective" in there, it specifically defines it as "not influenced by personal feelings, personal opinion, or prejudice." That means any personal feeling or prejudice whatsoever. Have you ever tried talking about a game without using any sort of personal feeling whatsoever? Just as an example, I'm going to give you a quick paragraph about Super Mario Bros., completely objectively.
Super Mario Bros. is a side-scrolling action game in which you try to save a princess from a fire-breathing anthropomorphic turtle named Bowser. You gain power-ups by grabbing mushrooms and flowers, and you combat enemies by either jumping on their heads or throwing fireballs with the flower power-up. You can only progress to the right and are unable to backtrack. It has a total of thirty-two levels, not counting the glitch level known as the Minus World. It was a game that sold over 60 million copies, including copies that were packaged with the Nintendo Entertainment System.
That was an actual, completely objective paragraph about the game – none of my opinions were interjected whatsoever. And you'll note that it's not even remotely a review – it's a recitation of statistics and features of the game without any discussion of whether or not any of them mattered in any way, shape or form. It's one half dry list of features, and one half dry list of statistics about how it did. Also, you'll note that if any video game site tried to just publish "reviews" like this, they'd go under faster than a submarine with a screen door.
The opposite of objective, at least as used in this context, would be "subjective", which Random House explicitly defines as the opposite of "objective". Now, me being subjective is any kind of expression of opinion. Good or bad, loud or quiet, difficult or easy; all of these are subjective judgments. These are the things that you need for a review to actually be a critical piece, as opposed to a laundry list of game features. Moreover, if you try to say that something is good, you can never, under any circumstances, say that something is objectively good. It's a rhetorical impossibility, as an opinion can never be objective.
The reason I harp on this is because I learned this back in sixth grade. My English teacher made sure to hammer this home, and that all of the class would never forget it. Maybe English teaching has gone downhill in the 18 years since I had sixth-grade English. Or maybe I keep getting complaints from mental midgets that were more interested in playing Pokémon during spelling instead of learning how to speak like a thinking individual. Maybe the best way to finish would be with an example of the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectively, I think that you'd have to be an idiot of incredible magnitude to complain that our reviews aren't objective. Objectively, I know that Netjak writers will give the link to this column and mock in the forums should anyone stupid enough to levy that complaint ever again. So either read the dictionary, or sit on your complaints. We don't have any more tolerance for people who can't even whine in proper English.
