One of the things I dread in life is going to the movies.
Don't get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoy seeing a movie as God intended, but that isn't the portion of the movie-going experience that frightens me. I fear the post-coital Q&A session that inevitably follows. Five words is all it takes to invoke one of those rare situations where I am void of intelligent thought (you roll your eyes now? - I'm just getting started...)
"So, did you like it?"
I am the type of person who likes to think my comments through. Sure, I jump without looking nine times out of ten but when it comes to critiquing something I like to have my thoughts straight. My selfish self-image is that of a wise and learned individual who's word is taken as absolute law. Obviously this is rarely the case but I like to think that my critiques are, if nothing else, respected by those who ask for them. When Thugg (Calm Intensity) turned to me after the credits rolled on Iron Man and spoke those 5 terrifying words I simply shrugged my shoulders. This, unfortunately, gave the impression that I was apathetic to the movie when, in fact, I had enjoyed it a great deal. I just wasn't sure how much I enjoyed it. After a 10 minutes of reflection I was able to decide that I enjoyed it more than Spiderman 2 and it was well on its way to being more enjoyable (for me anyway) than Batman Begins (which speaks volumes to the quality of the flick.) This reply was met with surprise from Thugg. Not because I dared tread on the sacred Nolan Ground but because he thought I didn't like it. The shrug fucked me. To me, it meant that I enjoyed the film but wasn't sure how much... to him it meant apathy.
This idea touches on one that we had been arguing about earlier in the week concerning GTA IV and the reviews for it. Maybe you have read them, maybe you haven't so for those of you in the audience who have I hope you will excuse me a moment so I can, briefly, summarize the scores for those who haven't: "10." The Ten Point Oh score is riddled with more controversy than your average 911 "documentary": To some, the 10 means perfection, to others it is the high watermark of the genre, and, to (other) others (including, it seems, the majority of the reviewers out there) it means "really good."
I personally have no problem with a game receiving the highest honor a reviewer can bestow it. I find that any rating system that contains a value that is unreachable (IE: "10 = perfect" scale) is defective by default. (Why have an ruler so long that you will never measure anything that equals it in length?) Thugg and the others with whom I like to wax intellectual about the industry with, however, are appalled.
In the beginning I understood where they were coming from but, like any critique, the more I sat on it the more I disagreed with them. First, you must understand, I don't care for GTA games. When I played GTA 3 for the first time it was 20 minutes of pure elation followed by 2 hours of complete apathy. I won't bore you with my laundry list of reasons why I don't care for these games but, much like zelda, I understand that they are good games. I, however, will never be able to objectively critique them because they will forever be associated with an intense feeling of ennui in my head. Thugg (and his Ten Point Oh piss party constituents) are in a very similar mental boat with regards to GTA and, knowing that, I began to dismiss their arguments more.
Your Hero: You will never be able to objectively critique GTA because you have a inherent prejudice against it.
Villains: But it's not a Ten Point Oh
Well, what is? I'm not naive enough to believe that the people charged with "professionally" reviewing GTA IV were without a bias of their own. There are more fans of GTA than there are registered Jedi* in the world so hoping to find someone who can be completely objective when reviewing it is certainly a fool's hope. I am, however, naive enough to believe that "professional" reviewers are in the business of providing realistic assessments of their assignments and passing that assessment down to the reader. I think that a lot of reviewers were (like me in the first 20 minutes of GTA 3) downright giddy when playing through the majority of the game. This allowed them to ignore the obvious problems of pop in, sup par graphics and a (still) extremely loose driving model. In their eyes the pros trumped the cons and still had points left over and therefore justified (in their mind) the 10.0. Again, my feelings about "professional" reviewers aside, I can certainly empathize with them. There have been games that force me to look through rose covered glasses because of how much I am enjoying the majority of them. And I, like the reviewers, will list the problems with the game and still end up saying "Fuck, its the best game I have played this year" (COD4, Bioshock, and Portal - I'm looking at you.) Personal bias is a bitch and, unfortunately, will never go away so why not just cater to it?
The problem is the Ten Point Oh (or any number on the scale for that matter.) Why do we need a leveled rating system to begin with? The reviewers 9.0 will certainly differ with at least one reader so why assign a value to it?
Wouldn't it be easier to just use a binary system? A simple "Recommended" or "Not Recommended." If a game is good, its just good, bottom line. Grading it's level of "good" is purely subjective and silly to do when you know how vastly opinions of people can vary. Roger Ebert had it right all along. If a movie is good: Thumbs Up. Bad? Thumbs Down. Seriously, there is no flaw in that system. I know, I know, now you can't say that Halo 3 was rated better than Gears of War and is therefore a better game. What a terrible predicament to be in! But, before you send hate mail, just remember there are people out there that enjoy GOW more than Halo and, by saying you recommend both, you have satisfied them both rather than deflating one and empowering the other. You have given both an accurate review to accompany the recommendation and have not tried to show which game is better than another... just that they are both good.
Because games themselves are binary. They are either good or they aren't. Once you try to go into "how good" they are you start down a trail that will only lead to people, like Thugg, being angry at you.
So what is Thugg doing right now? Vigorously playing through GTA so he can write "an accurate review." From what I have seen, I would say he is probably going to recommend it.
*Statistic Made The Fuck Up
