Reviews on Yackson’s World are primarily an excuse for me to discuss the things that interest me. My reviews will essentially serve as an explanation of what the work is, its history, which parts I enjoyed, which parts I did not enjoy, and who I would recommend it to. However, an opinion becomes a review when it is graded on a scale. Because subjective experience is nearly impossible to quantify within a defined range, I find it necessary to post what I will call my Review Paradigm. This refers to the system by which I will score games, series, movies, music, and more.
Let’s start with the basics. When I finalize a review, I will give the subject a score that can range from 1 to 10. I will not grade on a decimal system, so I will never give a score of 9.5, 7.2, and so on. This is because it is already difficult enough to translate my opinion into a number, and expanding the scope of possible scores would make this task even harder. When you add precision, you also add ambiguity. If I ever feel torn between two integers, let’s say between a 7 and an 8, I will default to the number that better represents my overall opinion. In other words, I’m rounding rather than inventing arbitrary decimals.
Next, I want to explain what actually creates the score. As a framework, I’m considering two things overall when I derive a review score.
First, I’m considering what the work means on its own. This means that I will judge the work in the context of its own medium and lane, not in the context of all other works. When I decide what “lane” a work belongs to, I’m going off its stated intent, its genre conventions, and its era, and I only broaden that context when the work itself is clearly reaching for something bigger. For example, a punk rock album would be judged against other punk rock albums of its era. There would be no point in comparing it to anything outside of that context, since the intention of a punk rock band is usually not to produce a better work than Beethoven. They are not competing, and they should not be held to each other’s standards.
Second, I’m considering how the creator’s work fits into their trajectory overall. What this means is that I grade a creator’s work relative to their own potential. So a perfect 10 album is not necessarily the greatest album ever produced. It is the greatest album that this creator has produced, relative to what they have shown they can do. I do this to keep my critique specific to the creator(s) themselves, and inseparable from their own vision. If my personal taste conflicts with what they were going for, that is fine, as long as they truly nailed what they set out to do.
This kind of system has two obvious problems. It can be hard to judge a creator’s first work, because there is little or nothing to compare it to. It can also feel weird to give a 10, only for the creator(s) to later release something that is even better. Those are exactly the reasons that this is my second consideration, not my only consideration. If a creator has little or no work to go off of, this factor will be neutral. If they receive a 10 and later go on to outdo themselves, that is also fine, because the 10 was earned in the context of what existed at the time, and what their potential looked like at the time. Regardless, this factor is meant to nudge the score rather than reinvent it.
Finally, the format for a review will generally follow the same structure each time. First, I will describe what the work is. This includes its nature, intent, and context. Second, I will explain what I enjoyed about it, and what works about the craft and impact. Third, I will describe what, in my opinion, does not work, including any points of friction or distaste for me personally. Fourth, I will describe how it fits into the creator’s catalog or repertoire, exploring what it means for their trajectory and whether it meets, exceeds, or fails their own creative vision as I understand it. Finally, I will use those factors together to give it a score from 1 to 10. Yup, it’s that easy.
As a clarifying note, my recommendation is separate from the number. The score is my overall judgment of quality, while the recommendation is about who I think will actually enjoy it.
And if you must know what a 1 to 10 truly means to Yackson, I’ll spell it out clearly below:
10 - A creator’s peak work with no meaningful flaws, and an experience I will defend with absolution.
9 - An exceptional work that may have minor issues, but is easily recommended overall.
8 - A very strong work with clear value, with flaws that are noticeable but not central to its execution.
7 - A good work with very real strengths and very real flaws.
6 - An okay work with just enough strengths to hold it together as a defensible experience, despite its flaws.
5 - A work that I feel neutral about, and would have a hard time actively recommending to anyone.
4 - A disappointing work in which the problems clearly outweigh any strengths.
3 - An unpleasant work that I find misguided, and an experience with very little payoff.
2 - A deeply ineffective work that I will actively recommend against experiencing.
1 - A dysfunctional and inscrutable work that remains unreadable to me despite sincere effort, repeated attempts, or reasonable familiarity with the form.
Realistically speaking, most reviews will fall between 4 and 9. There will probably be a bias toward better scores, since I’m more likely to spend time writing about things that I actually enjoy. Let me know in the comments if there’s anything you would love for me to review, and expect reviews of all kinds soon enough.