Your Bias Is Showing

In a word, the recent uproar over Killzone 2, its numerous early reviews and the reaction of the clinically insane has been silly. I have watched Adam Sessler’s acerbic and foul-mouthed rebuttal, have read the inane commentary posted on PSXtreme and read a measure too great of posts from the dramatically uninformed and deeply paranoid. I wash my hands of it, and have no interest in using this space to dive into the unholy scatological mire that has been stirred.

I do, however, want to take this opportunity to open debate on the topic of bias.

It is a word with many meanings, but most commonly it is used as a pejorative designed to discredit dissenting opinion. It is the ammunition packed full in the clips of angry readers, and often shot indiscriminately in the wake of controversy. It is rarely used accurately or correctly, and usually comes with very little evidence in support.

It is also entirely accurate to accuse every writer of bias, though what that actually means may be far more benign than common commentary suggests.

I have a bias; an inclination or partiality. Show me a gamer or writer who doesn’t, who has no preference about the kind of game or the platform they play on, and I’ll show you someone whose opinion I care nothing about. Bias informs. Bias gives context. Bias humanizes.

Bias is a good thing.

This kind of outlandish statement may make me the Gordon Gecko of games writing, but my impression is that the most passionate people want everyone else to talk about games as if they were emotionless robots. What may seem even stranger is that I would not describe bias as the problem with these vocal and imperturbable brand advocates.

My bias is toward the PC. That inclination informs the way I think about other games, and gives me a perspective that, say, a passionate console gamer might not have. I think about all gaming in some relation to my bias, sometimes overtly and sometimes in very subtle ways. I can’t, for example, play a console shooter without being intensely conscious of the control scheme and the sometimes sluggish feel to turning and movement with a thumb stick. Detached from previous experiences though I might wish to be, my muscles are too deeply trained, my concept of the genre too firm.

I suppose some would say that I am, therefore, a poor fit for having an opinion on a console shooter. I’m sure there are some who would rail endlessly against my unmitigated lack of credibility, because I can’t look at Gears of War without thinking about Quake or Counter-Strike. And, that’s exactly the kind of fanatical zealotry that makes me want to tear tufts of hair straight from my head.

The problem is the synonymous nature of bias and prejudice. There is a fine line between the two, and I could probably spend a couple of paragraphs distilling the definitions of the two words in what would be, I think, an incredible exercise of the epically boring. Sparing you the etymological study, I will say that I see the key difference as bias describing inclination and preference where prejudice brings preconceived, usually negative barriers. In concrete game terms, it is the difference between these two approaches –

Bias – I have a fundamental problem with the controls of Gears of War 2 because I like the way shooters play with a mouse and keyboard.

Prejudice – Console shooters suck.

I have a PC-centric bias; however I have played numerous console shooters that were able to elevate themselves above that bias. I don’t believe I would have been able to appreciate those games the same way if I had a prejudice.

I realize this whole argument may seem tantamount to saying that insane console fanatics are screaming bias when what they actually mean is prejudice, but the underlying point that I want to drive home is that we need to stop feeling like any preconceived notion that informs a game opinion is an automatic negative. Bias is an inescapable phenomenon. Bias gives weight and history to our opinions.

Bias is good.

Comments

Pages

If Elysium is Michael Douglas, does that make Certis Charlie Sheen?

Nice article, and I'd agree. Everyone has a bias, and that's really not a big deal. I get tired of seeing that word thrown around in video game discussions like some sort of scarlet A.

Now we're going to have console fanboys punching out "your teh pregudess" on their keyboards rather than "your teh biast".

The only games blog I read is this one - largely because I don't want to deal with the insanity that many major games sites have. So...

Can someone please sum up the controversy? I assume "Killzone 2" is a game, and that some people don't like it. Is that pretty much it?

[Rant]
I've never understood this pop meta-culture. People who like movie trailers. People who track game releases. People who care about review scores. Who cares? I'll see the movie when it comes out. I'll play the game when it's released, if it has a cool demo or gets good reviews from a reviewer who seems to like the same things I do (i.e. shares my biases).

Ok, I admit I've googled 'Starcraft 3 release date' a few times - Blizzard has a good track record for releasing games playable with my other Mac-using friends - but largely to see if it was going to be available to buy as a present for someone's birthday. I try not to obsess about this stuff.

I think that it's this "culture of anticipation" that is shaping the popular debate. People don't want to see a game reviewed badly because they're so heavily emotionally invested in a game before they've even played it. This is nuts.

[/Rant]

Ok, sorry, please resume geeking out.

The variation I've always heard is...

I have preferences
You have biases
They have prejudices

Nathaniel wrote:

Can someone please sum up the controversy? I assume "Killzone 2" is a game, and that some people don't like it. Is that pretty much it?

The short version, as near as I can tell, is that Killzone 2 is a first-person shooter for the PlayStation 3 that a lot of PS3 fans have been looking forward to. It's been hyped in a lot of circles as being a game that will boost the market performance of the PS3 and as such reviews of it have, for some readers, become reviews of the console itself. Negative reviews, or even insufficiently positive reviews, of the game have lead to some forum fisticuffs and flame wars.

Edit: The Adam Sessler rant Elysium mentioned in the article has been discussed here. That forum post also includes links for you to view the rant itself.

Nathaniel wrote:

Ok, I admit I've googled 'Starcraft 3 release date' a few times

I like the way you think.

I hadn't thought of the differences between bias and prejudice like that before, but given how you've laid it out in your article - I agree that bias is a good thing.

I haven't been gaming for a long time (just the last three years with any regularity) and I can see that I am developing bias towards certain games and platforms.

So far, my bias leans towards RPGs on the DS (which is apparently weird, but I like my DS and I like being able to take my latest RPG obsession on the bus). I won't say no to a good RPG on the 360 or PS2 though.

Great article!

Would you say that (good) judges are biased toward justice then?

I feel educated. Thank you.

adam.greenbrier wrote:

The short version, as near as I can tell, is that Killzone 2 is a first-person shooter for the PlayStation 3 that a lot of PS3 fans have been looking forward to.

I'm kind of confused how we even got to this point, the original Killzone wasn't even a very good game as far as I recall. Bland, functional shooter with no real standout features.

Nathaniel wrote:

I've never understood this pop meta-culture. People who like movie trailers. People who track game releases. People who care about review scores. Who cares? I'll see the movie when it comes out. I'll play the game when it's released, if it has a cool demo or gets good reviews from a reviewer who seems to like the same

Seconded, just release demos people, I'll make my own decisions.

Nice article; great minds, I've been chewing over an article exploring whether prejudice = fanboy = soccer hooligan = thug of late. Other than bullying across a point of view, I guess I don't understand the mindset or what a waste of time and effort it is; beyond trying to justify their own choices/purchases/habits, do any of them really think the behavior is ever likely to change the opinion of anyone else?

Elysium wrote:

I suppose some would say that I am, therefore, a poor fit for having an opinion on a console shooter. I’m sure there are some who would rail endlessly against my unmitigated lack of credibility, because I can’t look at Gears of War without thinking about Quake or Counter-Strike. And, that’s exactly the kind of fanatical zealotry that makes me want to tear tufts of hair straight from my head.

Just to play devil's advocate here - can't there be some element of truth to this point? Not that your opinion lacks credibility, but that your opinion might not be as useful to the average console shooter fan?
It's a dilemma that's plagued review editors for quite some time - do you get a "fan of the genre" to do the review, or an outsider who may have some reservations (or biases) about aspects of the game ahead of time?
My personal opinion is that the former presents a more useful review, but that there is an audience to be served by both. This is why I liked the EGM 3 man reviews.

That being said, so long as a reviewer presents his biases honestly to the reader, readers have no reason to complain. There is no shortage of game reviews out there, and if you stumble across one you dont like because of it's "biases", then just accept it and move on.

These same people (fanboys) tend to not know how to use the word "bias" in a sentence. More than a few times I've seen comments like "Kotaku is bias!" or "Sessler loves Xbots, he is bias!"

It's basic freekin' grammar! Either someone "has a bias" or they are "biased". You cannot "have bias".

Argh!

Trachalio wrote:

These same people (fanboys) tend to not know how to use the word "bias" in a sentence. More than a few times I've seen comments like "Kotaku is bias!" or "Sessler loves Xbots, he is bias!"

It's basic freekin' grammar! Either someone "has a bias" or they are "biased". You cannot "have bias".

Argh!

I think that 'is bias' has now become a meme unto itself, and is even used without understanding of what the word means, let alone how to use it grammatically correctly

The accusations of bias that surround reviews, positive or negative, of marquee titles come from the different expectations of readers and the dual role that video game reviewers play—that is, of product evaluator and artistic critic.

Readers who want video game reviews to be evaluative reviews, ones in which they are advised on whether or not the game in question is a worthwhile purchase, are very sensitive to the idea of bias, and therefore more likely to accuse the reviewer of being biased, because they stand to lose money if they purchase a product on the recommendation of a biased reviewer. This is why console preferences are so frequently dragged into debates like these: because negative reviews of the marquee titles for a console reflect poorly on the purchasers of that console.

Readers who want video game reviews to be critical reviews, ones in which the games are reviewed as experiential works of art, are open to the idea of a reviewer's biases so long as those biases are made clear. For them, the review is part of a larger discussion about whether or not the game in question is a good gaming experience apart from the discussion of its cost or availability.

Elysium's bias toward PC games helps me to understand where he might be coming from when he discusses a console shooter, but it makes him unreliable when he's advising me about whether or not I should purchase the shooter for my console.

I don't want to get into a rabbit-hole discussion about whether or not games are art, or what "art" even is, but critical reviews address the artistic aspect of video gaming—is this game fun? is this game innovative? how well does this game tell its story or implement its mechanics—while evaluative reviews address the commercial aspect of video gaming—is this game worth purchasing, or should I rent it? does the game suffer from performance issues? did it launch with bugs? what HD resolutions does it support? Most products do not have to undergo both types of review; microwaves always receive evaluative reviews while books always receive critical reviews. (Movies generally receive critical reviews when they are released in the theatre and later receive evaluative reviews when released on home video.)

adam.greenbrier wrote:

...

Agreed; I think its one of the reasons Shaun Elliot would try use GFW Radio as an outlet for critical review, given the flak he would take on their message boards whenever he tried to apply such focus to the GFW magazine reviews, where many of the readers were looking for pure consumer reports dispassionate evaluation; laughable when imho, gamers tend to be far from dispassionate creatures.

Personally I'd prefer to see the two styles split out and dealt with wholly separately. I prefer the more critical approach, and just as with movie reviews, I gravitate towards the recommendations of those authors/reviewers who've opinions have historically been a closer match with my own. The evaluative approach always runs into battles when you get titles that do not fit well into a previously identified genre; who does the editor give the review to?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

If Elysium is Michael Douglas, does that make Certis Charlie Sheen?

Emilio Estevez perhaps?

I think what's really lacking in the online-fanboy-troll community is any sort of critical thinking. Responses are made based on knee-jerk reactions to reviews, sometimes without reading much beyond the headline. If there were to be any sort of real thought put into reading a review they didn't like, I feel a lot of people would respond as such.

This is the authors opinion...
I don't agree with this authors perspective...
I should probably look for other authors who are similar to me.

The sad state of affairs is that I don't think a lot of readers ever make that first step. They take the article as an attempt to state facts, not an attempt to share opinions and experiences. And I think that numeric rating systems exacerbate this issue by making it seem like reviews have some quantitative value.

adam.greenbrier wrote:

Elysium's bias toward PC games helps me to understand where he might be coming from when he discusses a console shooter, but it makes him unreliable when he's advising me about whether or not I should purchase the shooter for my console.

Yes, but not always. As he says, there are games that overcome his bias. I would consider the statement, 'I don't usually play console shooters, but (Insert generic shooter #8976 here) was enjoyable' to be a very strong recommendation. But if he was the only person from a magazine reviewing the game for print it would be problematic.

As long as bias is explicit it is helpful.

ShynDarkly wrote:

Personally I'd prefer to see the two styles split out and dealt with wholly separately. I prefer the more critical approach, and just as with movie reviews, I gravitate towards the recommendations of those authors/reviewers who've opinions have historically been a closer match with my own. The evaluative approach always runs into battles when you get titles that do not fit well into a previously identified genre; who does the editor give the review to?

I prefer the critical approach myself and would also like seeing them split out into different reviews. My eyes begin to glaze over when I'm reading a review that shifts from talking about the gameplay to talking about the frame rates or clipping or 5.1 surround; if those things don't impact the game's mechanics in any significant way, I largely don't care.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
adam.greenbrier wrote:

Elysium's bias toward PC games helps me to understand where he might be coming from when he discusses a console shooter, but it makes him unreliable when he's advising me about whether or not I should purchase the shooter for my console.

Yes, but not always. As he says, there are games that overcome his bias. I would consider the statement, 'I don't usually play console shooters, but (Insert generic shooter #8976 here) was enjoyable' to be a very strong recommendation. But if he was the only person from a magazine reviewing the game for print it would be problematic.

As long as bias is explicit it is helpful.

That's a good point. However, if I were reading a string of console game reviews written by Elysium (and was expecting these to be evaluative reviews and not critical reviews), I would wonder if he was the best source for purchasing information if he frequently admitted a bias against consoles. An endorsement of "this game is so good that I could forget that it was on a console" works well in fringe cases, but it doesn't help me in cases where he shows moderately high or moderately low enthusiasm.

That's a good point. However, if I were reading a string of console game reviews written by Elysium (and was expecting these to be evaluative reviews and not critical reviews), I would wonder if he was the best source for purchasing information if he frequently admitted a bias against consoles. An endorsement of "this game is so good that I could forget that it was on a console" works well in fringe cases, but it doesn't help me in cases where he shows moderately high or moderately low enthusiasm.

My problem, though, is that I content that you cannot eliminate bias. In short, there is no reviewer or writer out there who is either a) genuinely unbiased or b) has the exact same biases as you. You can only hope that a reviewer is aware of their bias - whether that they prefer PC games, or that they prefer shooters with real life weapons, or they want every game to have strong single player components, etc. And, that they are forthcoming with those biases.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that my bias in favor of the PC is any more or less a barrier than a console shooter fan reviewing GoW2 that has a bias in favor of or against other aspects of the game.

This is the internet. The title of this article really should be "YOU AM BIAS!"

Elysium wrote:
That's a good point. However, if I were reading a string of console game reviews written by Elysium (and was expecting these to be evaluative reviews and not critical reviews), I would wonder if he was the best source for purchasing information if he frequently admitted a bias against consoles. An endorsement of "this game is so good that I could forget that it was on a console" works well in fringe cases, but it doesn't help me in cases where he shows moderately high or moderately low enthusiasm.

My problem, though, is that I content that you cannot eliminate bias. In short, there is no reviewer or writer out there who is either a) genuinely unbiased or b) has the exact same biases as you. You can only hope that a reviewer is aware of their bias - whether that they prefer PC games, or that they prefer shooters with real life weapons, or they want every game to have strong single player components, etc. And, that they are forthcoming with those biases.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that my bias in favor of the PC is any more or less a barrier than a console shooter fan reviewing GoW2 that has a bias in favor of or against other aspects of the game.

That's completely fair, and I agree that you cannot eliminate bias. If I were an editor at a publication looking to print an evaluative review of a game, I would try to assign someone to write it who had as few biases against the game as possible; I would be hesitant to give someone with an avowed bias against console shooters the task of reviewing Gears of War 2 just as I would giving someone with an avowed bias against multiplayer games the task of reviewing Left 4 Dead. I still believe that reviewers should be frank about their biases, but I also believe that editors should be careful about who they assign to review which games if they are looking to publish evaluative reviews of games. You cannot eliminate bias, but you can minimize it.

Elysium wrote:

My problem, though, is that I content that you cannot eliminate bias. In short, there is no reviewer or writer out there who is either a) genuinely unbiased or b) has the exact same biases as you. You can only hope that a reviewer is aware of their bias - whether that they prefer PC games, or that they prefer shooters with real life weapons, or they want every game to have strong single player components, etc. And, that they are forthcoming with those biases.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that my bias in favor of the PC is any more or less a barrier than a console shooter fan reviewing GoW2 that has a bias in favor of or against other aspects of the game.

This. I was going to go off on a whole rant about how the hard sciences systematically cultivated a pretense of, and assumption of, complete objectivity in their work (under the blanket term of 'positivism'), which has eeked into some aspects of social science and even popular journalism. But now I don't have to!

Bias is context is people, people like you and me with their very own feeeeeeeeeelings.

The cries of "bias" - in every conceivable wrong way of using the word - flew thick when reading the comments on the Edge review of Killzone 2 (a blasphemous 7/10, which is, you know, alright in Edge terms). The review is in my opinion just fine, praising the game for its achievements and bemoaning it for its lack of imagination.

But that aside, how can a bunch of people take this review by some freelancer somewhere and turn it into Edge magazine's anti-Sony bias? What is wrong with everyone? Just because journalists have more Xbox 360 hardware to go around and the code tends to be in earlier than the PS3 code doesn't really mean that everyone is anti-Sony. How could they be "against" one of the major platforms and hope to keep plying their trade?

Of course you and me and every sane person on the planet realizes this, but just what is it about these kids? (I need to imagine they're teenagers. This keeps my world together.)

--

Once I had reviewed games for a year and a half for a magazine, I stopped caring about the scores entirely. (I still had to give them out, of course.) Games are so super subjective things, so entirely buried in the realms of personal taste, that any numerical value just doesn't tell you anything you should know. Did you have fun? Great. So if you can't judge them on a scientific scale, what are you left with? Personal opinion. Bias.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the article. Everyone has a bias, every review is a subjective creation, and the more people would admit that and actually revel in it, the better.

If I were an editor at a publication looking to print an evaluative review of a game, I would try to assign someone to write it who had as few biases against the game as possible;

A ha! But, then you are coaxing content. In fact, some might read that as being "in the tank" for the game. You're eliminating barriers to critical analysis that way, and more feeding a machine that tips in favor of a game. Don't get me wrong, game publishers would love your plan, and they'd certainly have a leg to stand on by saying "who better to review Gears 2 than a fan of Xbox 360 shooters with aliens who loved Gears 1?!" See, you've just set up the opposite extreme, where if that reviewer hates Gears 2 then I know there's something there, but what if, instead, he merely likes it, or even loves it. Do you actually have a better review? More information to work with?

I would be hesitant to give someone with an avowed bias against console shooters

Right. A prejudice.

Now we see the difficult to implement subtlety of the argument I'm making.

I think the only problem here is that we, the adults (including Sessler), take seriously the tons of teens and preteens on the interwebs who post dumb sh*t. If these were real life conversations, we would (a) not even be talking to any teens to hear this dumb stuff, and (b) the few we did hear we would laugh at and think to ourselves "ha ha, dumb kid has no idea what he's talking about." But since we don't actually see the people making these comments, I think the assumptions are usually that they are somehow mature and logical, or at least that they matter.

For example, Adam responded to one poster who had the spelling of a 3rd grader. In a forum, I wouldn't even read posts that have such poor spelling and punctuation, purely on the assumption that it's some little kid. And if it isn't a little kid, if instead it's an adult who spells and punctuates so badly, then I really don't care what they have to say.

Kojiro wrote:

For example, Adam responded to one poster who had the spelling of a 3rd grader. In a forum, I wouldn't even read posts that have such poor spelling and punctuation, purely on the assumption that it's some little kid. And if it isn't a little kid, if instead it's an adult who spells and punctuates so badly, then I really don't care what they have to say.

...Wordsmythe?! Is that you?

Elysium wrote:

A ha! But, then you are coaxing content. In fact, some might read that as being "in the tank" for the game. You're eliminating barriers to critical analysis that way, and more feeding a machine that tips in favor of a game. Don't get me wrong, game publishers would love your plan, and they'd certainly have a leg to stand on by saying "who better to review Gears 2 than a fan of Xbox 360 shooters with aliens who loved Gears 1?!" See, you've just set up the opposite extreme, where if that reviewer hates Gears 2 then I know there's something there, but what if, instead, he merely likes it, or even loves it. Do you actually have a better review? More information to work with?

Elysium, you are spot on here.

I think the key to being the reader of a review is to understand the reviewer's biases. Then you can read the review and understand how you might either agree or disagree with the reviewer and make an educated guess as to whether or not you will like it yourself. This is why I value reviews from friends more than any other. I know my friends well enough where I can spot a movie or game that I might like even though my friend hated it, because I understand the differences in our tastes.

Reviewing is not a universal thing. Just because G4 gave something 5/5 doesn't mean everyone on the planet will like it. That's why it's important to actually listen to the entire review and decide for yourself.

Elysium wrote:
If I were an editor at a publication looking to print an evaluative review of a game, I would try to assign someone to write it who had as few biases against the game as possible;

A ha! But, then you are coaxing content. In fact, some might read that as being "in the tank" for the game. You're eliminating barriers to critical analysis that way, and more feeding a machine that tips in favor of a game. Don't get me wrong, game publishers would love your plan, and they'd certainly have a leg to stand on by saying "who better to review Gears 2 than a fan of Xbox 360 shooters with aliens who loved Gears 1?!" See, you've just set up the opposite extreme, where if that reviewer hates Gears 2 then I know there's something there, but what if, instead, he merely likes it, or even loves it. Do you actually have a better review? More information to work with?

I find myself in the awkward position here of a.) debating something with Elysium, who scares the crap out of me, and b.) defending something that I don't really agree with—I'm not really a fan of evaluative reviews of games, but I understand that there are readers who are and those are the readers who are most sensitive to bias. I'm trying less to explain what needs to be done about this than what expectations might be leading to the reactions you described.

However, I have to call you on a fallacy here: if an editor is working to find a balanced review of Gears of War 2 and rules out one reviewer because that reviewer has said that he prefers to play shooters on the PC, it is wrong to assume that an editor's only alternative would be to assign the review to "a fan of Xbox 360 shooters with aliens who loved Gears 1." If you were wanting to publish evaluative or semi-evaluative reviews of games, the editor's job would be to find reviewers who were least biased in favor of or against a game.

Elysium wrote:
I would be hesitant to give someone with an avowed bias against console shooters

Right. A prejudice.

No. "Avowed" means to have stated, so you have an avowed bias against console shooters even if you're not prejudiced against them using the example of prejudice you used in your article.

I contend that it's humanly impossible to review anything without introducing some form of "bias". All of our opinions are based on a collection of life long experiences. Obviously some of those experiences are good and some are not so good. Any form of "review" or "evaluation" has to have some form of benchmark associated with it otherwise it's just an observation.

The key to me isn't bias but rather how objectively something was reviewed. That said, just because someone else loves or hates something doesn't usually have much effect on whether or not I like it.

Well said. Bias can't be eliminated. It should be examined, disclosed, and discussed. Critics who recognize and disclose their own biases (and, where they do exist, their own prejudices) are a lot more interesting than those who don't. And more credible. And the content they produce is a lot more valuable.

Once I know where someone's coming from, I have a basis for evaluating their statements--judging their judgments, so to speak. Their work also takes on a more personal tone. I can think of a handful of critics that I trust (including GWJ's contributors) because I know where they're coming from. They've let me in on how they think, what they like and what they don't like, and how that informs their opinions.

I think that critics/reviewers who don't engage in this kind of self-examination and disclosure are working on a level that is fundamentally arrogant. It betrays a lack of respect for the reader, not to mention the medium in general. And that arrogance ultimately undermines their credibility. I'm inclined to dismiss any evaluation that comes off as some sort of objective pronouncement from on high, or that purports to be the final word.

Pages