When reviewing or criticizing a game, how do you sort the objective from the subjective?
I know sometimes when i get mad, like many people, I want to find some flaw in the game to blame for why I suck, and then I have to remind myself it may or may not be the game's fault but just my own lack of knowing the game's rules or my unwillingness to obey those rules. So is the question simply a matter of whether those rules are consistent?
Pic sorta related.
>Media critique.
>Objective.
You are starting waist-deep in shit.
>When reviewing or criticizing a game, how do you sort the objective from the subjective?
cuck
First I think about the creator’s political affiliation and move on from there.
I'm not too concerned with being objective in criticism because it's not interesting. I'd say you have 2 choices. You can try to remove bias by trying to fairly interpret a game's design goals and then basing all your critique on whether or not it achieves said goals while also looking at its actual reception among players and how effective the game is generally. This is fucking boring. The other, more interesting option is to understand your own bias in depth and come out with a set of consistent, well established core values and principles in vidya design you personally hold, then base your critique on those. This is actually very difficult in comparison and requires you to do a lot of thinking about your own stances/general introspection, reading about game design at large and just a lot of experience.
Real game critique is impossible for most reviewers, because their baseline criteria is "Knowing how to use a controller".
As far as sorting subjective from objective, objective would refer to things like whether the game is mechanically sound (both in a QA sense and in a game mechanic sense), plus whether the controls work well.
Subjective would be observations about the sound design or story, and shouldn't significantly impact the score (the reviewer's politics would fall into this category)
Graphics are kind of in-between, because graphical fidelity can be judged pretty objectively, but then, not all games use a realistic style, and some of the best-looking games are heavily stylized without any high-end graphics at all.
Do's:
>don't waste your time critiquing shit like video games
Don'ts:
>critiquing video games
>if you happen to critique them, feeling like you're contributing anything useful to anyone
There's no such thing as objective criticism
Oh, one thing that IS objective and SHOULD impact a game's score is the price/value ratio.
i.e. reviewers should absolutely be docking points for full-priced games with micro-transactions and such.
"This bleach tastes terrible."
You need to ask yourself what you think the game is going for and how well it excels at that
talk about game design choices and mechanics, not about your own personal narrative
You can't, enjoyment is subjective.
Rule 1: Don't start a Let's Play channel if you can't play games well
Rule 2: Don't play a game on said Let's Play channel if you've done a negative review of it - especially if you can't play said game
Rule 3: Don't act like a fucking bitch and blame the game for you sucking dick at playing it
Subjective and retardpilled.
‘Waste of time’ is a relative term. Depending on your aims, it may be a very efficient use of time.
Do
>talk about the game mechanics and how they contribute and work together/clash with the core gameplay experience
Don't
>be a limp-wristed cuckold that just reads off the game's wiki page to summarize the story only to say "I like/hate it"
So many people do the latter it's fucking boring. Joseph Anderson makes a killing off doing this shit for 3 hours straight for every video. Clemps also does it with his Nier """analysis""" videos.
>2 generations of children have grown up genuinely thinking there is no objectivity in art
It's sincerely painful. I feel like it's too late.
objective
>this object behaves like XYZ in this physics engine
subjective
>this behavior is great/shit for the core gameplay because ABC
>Game reviews
Who the fuck is stupid enough to listen to "online influencers" in the year 2019?
>that smut comic of not-suzie using a dragon dildo cause not-arin cant satisfy her and her fantasizing about being the not-GG crew's cumdump
Low-tier review
>talk about where game fits in its own series
Mid-tier review
>talk about where game fits in among its competitors
High-tier review
>talk about how gameplay, story and aesthetics mesh to for a unified, fun, unforgettable experience.
Make sure you clearly state when you start talking subjectively like It's extremely pedantic but really effective when you get the hang of it.Also stray away from emotive, nebulous words when objectively explaining things like "cool" "fun" "bad" "good" With out quantifying those statements; by showing evidence like videos etc.
>Resonant Arc talks about JRPGs
cool.
>All his vids are about the dev history and not the game itself
not cool.
It should be obvious, only retards pretend their opinions are objective. For example, while you can objectively say one game has a higher average framerate than another, that doesn’t make it objective better, as a “higher framerate is better” is a subjective conclusion. There is a general worship of “objectivity” by people who think their opinions can only be valid if they pretend they are objective. Obviously I prefer a higher framerate, as does almost everyone, but that doesn’t make a higher framerate objectively better, a fact is not just a higher form of an opinion. You can still call someone an idiot for preferring a lower framerate, but don’t pretend they’re objectively an idiot. All taste is subjective. All objectivity can do is describe basic facts about the game, which aren’t useless, far from it, but hardly the only thing these so called “objective” reviews cover.
That would be subjective. Being normative or the only opinion a not retarded person would have does not make it objective
The best you can do, is try to understand what the game was going for, and the test if it achieved that goal. However, this isn't as easy as it seems, because you first need to determine what the game was going for. And to do that, you need to test your notion against the opinions of others. So paradoxically, you need to know what others of thinking, before you can tell others what they should be thinking. However, the most reliable source, is the developer. So try to get any word out of them. And then mix it with opinions of others, add to that a bit of your own evaluation.
If done properly, then you should have a strong premise, that is difficult, if not impossible, for people to argue against. And then you present the evidence toward that premise, in such a way that by the time the viewer/reader understands it, they're already concluding what you want them to conclude, without you having to say it explicitly.
It's crazy how much Yea Forums will shit on postmodern art, and then turn around and say that there's no objective criticism.
Yea Forums loves postmodern art, and not just that Yea Forums as a whole probably produces more postmodern art than anything else
If it isn't a cold hard fact, then it is subjective. The very concept of good or bad is subjective. So trying to make an objective review is a brainlet's goal. You've already failed before you have started. The only real place for objective reviews is port reviews.
Instead you need to play a shit ton of games and develop good taste and understanding of games. You then need to be able to understand your own tastes, while also understanding the tastes of others. That way you can tell the difference between a game that is not for you and a game most people consuming your review will find bad.
>thinking there is no objective criticism is “postmodern”
The postmodernists didnt even think there was a difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Postmodernism isn’t just “anything /pol/ doesn’t like”.
>The postmodernists didnt even think there was a difference between objectivity and subjectivity
What does that mean exactly? And what's the distinction? If you don't think objectivity exists when evaluating art, then functionally, it's the same was saying there is no difference between objectivity and subjectivity in art.
Value statements cannot be objective, only normative
Cycle of the youtube video game critic:
-initial stream of OC youtube content where core of fame is garnered
-cash in on their fame, produce let's plays rather than content that made them worth a damn
-capitalize on new audience and gradually shift towards streaming, worse than let's plays because now they read donations every X minutes.
I think that gets fuzzy considering how much fun the game is and what you consider 'value'. There are tons of games that pad themselves with hours of mediocre content. I bought MGR full price and short as it is I was satisfied, even happy that it didn't overstay it's welcome with fluff
Yes they can.
To use an analogy. If you have a car, and the car is missing tires. If you say "wow, this car drives like shit." That speaks in reference to an objective quality about the car. The care drives like shit, because it's missing tires.
Now, you might try to argue that some fucking weirdo thinks that the car is "fun" to drive, so therefore his statement is equally as valid. But that's where you get into retarded postmodern "everything is subjective maaaaan" bullshit.
You don't, give your honest impressions of the game and people will value your opinion if they find anything of value. Attaching a score at the end only has meaning to you.
That's kinda flimsy because the price of games is constantly going up and down.
Leave personal life out
Arin used to love OOT
But then something happened...
When Arin heard for the first time that Suzy had cheated on him, he was playing OOT.
So everytime he sees OOT he is reminded that Syzy cheated on him.
What would a videogame example be then?
make sure to never play the games you are making critiques or reviews on
Blame Trump for turning you gay. Then tell your dad how you jerk it to trannies tonight OP
Your subjective preference and criteria for an object that drives from a to b more efficiently isn't objective quality, it's wholly subjective and depends on your circumstance, the guy's statement IS equally valid because he's using very different subjective criteria than you are. Most people using the same criteria when evaluating an object doesn't make that evaluation objective either. Objectivity is descriptive, for instance "this car that's missing a tire lacks stability", it can't say anything about an object's quality because quality is inherently subjective.
Just earlier today, I heard someone say 007 Goldeneye didn't age well, because of the old controls. And then someone else agreed with him, saying "N64 controls were bad."
Now, I can throw my subjective take at them, and say "well, I can deal with the controls just fine." Which is true. N64 controls don't bother me. However, the takeaway here, isn't my subjective opinion about Goldeneye's controls. It's the fact that dual analogue sticks controls objectively better. And if Goldeneye controlled like Nightfire, then it would be a far better game.
Same with short indie games. To the Moon gave me feels but if I'd paid more than $10 to slog through that shitfest gameplay just to have a cry at the end I would have been seething
No, the car is objectively missing tires, but the idea that this makes it drive like shit is still an opinion and not a fact. Like I already sad, just because only a moron would say that it doesn’t drive like shit does not mean that it isn’t still an opinion. Just because an opinion references or is based upon a fact does not make that opinion itself a fact.
Objectivity refers to nature.
Everything you can touch is objective.
Objectively videogames are multimedia and are programmed in a way to send visual and audio feedback.
When talking of the objective, you refer to what is.
When you're talking about theoretic ideals and what is preferred or "good", thats when it becomes ultimately subjective and practically all of critique based on subjectivity.
Use the objectivity like "this value for this thing is 4 and 5 and does X and Y" to substantiate your points but when youre going to say "This is shit" you better have a good idea of what youre talking about to back up that opinion.
>my mother works at a prison
>one of the inmates can't even be assigned cleaning duties because he drinks the bleach
>they've had to pump his stomach multiple times although he's said he drank it outside of prison and was fine
Not a counterargument, just some weird shit I wanted to share.
The objective statement is: "This car drives like shit."
The subjective portion, is whether or not I like it. Which in this example, I don't. And another person does. He likes it, because it drives like shit.
The use of the car, is not to drive that way.
This is where you accidentally bolster that retard’s position, they are not necessary “equally valid” because validity is subjective. They ARE both equally objective, which is to say they are both 0% objective
You're confusing postmodern with post-post-post-ironic.
First see Objectives were set by the makers of the car, when it came into production. Not the user of the car. The user who happens to think the car is bad for driving like shit, is observing the car's failure to achieve what it set out to do. The user who happens to think the car is fun for driving like shit, also probably believes in bullshit like death of the author.
Do you guys think people would enjoy a comprehensive review on games that aren't bloated with shitty reference humor and "Bits"
>To use an analogy
isn't fat aquaman there the picture form of how not to play/critique games in genrral???
If you can find a single person on the planet who thinks that the car does not drive like shit, then your statement was not objective.
Buts “this car drives like shit” is not objective, assuming you are using “like shit” as a value judgment akin to “poorly”. I suppose if you mean “it drives like a turd”, that is, not at all, then you would be correct, but that’s only if it is missing all of the tires that would allow it to move on its own.
whatever you do don't pander to fucking Yea Forums of all people because it just makes you look like a spineless cuckold and half the people who browse this shithole can't agree on anything for more than 5 minutes
Ahh, so you're a postmodernist.
They car is supposed to drive straight swift and steady. Which the missing tires causes it to be unable to do.
I'm disgusted but still want source
It’s not even that, everyone agreeing on an opinion does not “upgrade” that opinion to fact. Imagine I think the best color is red, if I then murder every other person in existence, thus making 100% of the human population think red is the best color, that wouldn’t make red objectively the best color.
>It's the fact that dual analogue sticks controls objectively better
Not really. The first dual analog stick shooter (Alien Ressurection) was met with dismay and the controls were cited as a reason for that.
Both control schemes are just as inaccurate, we just have had years of getting used to it as well as games being programmed to make up for the inherent inaccuracy of using 2 sticks.
>The use of the car, is not to drive that way.
See this is the core problem. The car doesn't have an inherent use, just one we assign to it based on our goals, which are subjective. Your Goldeneye example demonstrates this too, you don't actually outline WHY dual stick controls are objectively better, you just outright state that they are, and expect everyone to agree with your goal which seems to be convenience above all else.
The idea that something’s value should be judged by how well it does what it is intended to do (note that judging how well it does what it’s intended to do is also subjective) is an opinion.
Anything newly introduced, is going to take time to get used to. However, the learning curve for dual analog sticks is much faster, and in the end, produces much more accurate results. There's a reason we made it standard. Because once you try dual analog, the previous scheme just feels archaic.
The reviewers who ever doubted dual analogs look silly now.
Also, I turn off aim assist when possible.
All criticism is subjective. Good criticism just makes sure to have well reasoned and well supported points.
You can objectively prove that the car is of low standards as long as you set up criteria. For example "This car does not function properly because it has no engine thus the car is useless" Is an objective statement you can prove with facts, and if your opinion lines up with the facts before you you have an objective opinion.
(My definition of objective)
>expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
(My definition of Opinion)
>A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
>(My definition of Subjective)
>Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
These aren't postmodern ideas, you can go back to Plato and see him trying to make sense of a lot of the same core concepts with his essentialism, and then see the responses
Also not the same user
>However, the learning curve for dual analog sticks is much faster
You realize that is either an anecdote or made up right?
Not to mention the idea that something that is faster to learn is objectively better than something that takes longer to learn is purely an opinion.
its not an opinion, the car exists for a purpose, as does the wheel
>The car doesn't have an inherent use, just one we assign to it based on our goals, which are subjective
Goal setting is objectivity. Literally the entire world is based on goal setting. Or "intent" rather. If you have the intent to do something in some way, then you've created an objective. There is nothing in the entire universe that works without intent. Except maybe space rocks. But even that's debatable,, because the atoms they're made of seem to have their own ideas of how they want to be shaped.
>Your Goldeneye example demonstrates this too, you don't actually outline WHY dual stick controls are objectively better, you just outright state that they are
Improved accuracy. Easier to learn. More versatile. It really goes without saying. This is the problem with thinking everything is subjective. You will argue in favor of something as regressive as N64 controls, if it means you get to hold your opinions sacred. This is why postmodern art is often times so garbage. Because who is to say a white canvas isn't art?
>However, the learning curve for dual analog sticks is much faster
Not necessarily a good thing, a learning curve is what gives games their appeal and creates a skill gap between players. There are entire genres that are built around having a difficulty learning curve for controls, such as racing games and other physics based games.
>produces much more accurate results
Yeah because it's easier. A car having 1:1 controls to your inputs with no physics simulation or interactivity also produces accurate results, but it's so easy that most will find it boring.
Some opinions are facts. Kind of like how some rectangles are square. But not all squares are rectangles.
>It's the fact that dual analogue sticks controls objectively better
The 1.2 control option in Goldeneye maps movement to the C-buttons and aiming to the stick, analog movement in FPS games is often never used anyway since keyboards are digital input.
Oops, kind of lubed the square/rectangle thing. But you know what I mean.
I think a good reviewer can love a game and still point out its flaws and if they could recommend it to anyone and also on the other hand not like a game, but still point out good things about it and admit that it may just not be for them
I like SomeCallMeJohnny
>Improved accuracy
You can aim with the stick in GE, there is no increase in accuracy with a stick for movement.
>Easier to learn
Entirely subjective statement.
>More versatile
Meaningless statement.
Here's a huge don't
>use the word "soul" or "soulless" as a critique
>This is the problem with thinking everything is subjective. You will argue in favor of something as regressive as N64 controls, if it means you get to hold your opinions sacred
What's the problem with that? I will make a statement and then have to justify my statement with arguments based on reason, then you can consider them and dismiss them. Taking the subjective route gives no easy way out, I can't just appeal to an object's "inherent purpose and will" or appeal to popularity like you do, I have to make arguments for my position otherwise it will convince nobody.
It's the angle postmodernists need to chisel away at objective reason.
It doesn't make any sense. Because people will disagree with everything and anything.
That's simply not true in a medium where by the designers hand can the art form malfunction and potentially fail to work
>You realize that is either an anecdote or made up right?
You mean the anecdotes of literally every gamer ever, save for the hardcore nostalgiafags, who can't let for of the Goldeneye era?
There can be some objective criticism albeit there is very little as something like a video game is heavily subjective
Key points to raise for a review are
Gameplay and how it controls and flows. This is the most important, as it covers a wide variety of points, which one happens to be accessibility
Art direction and graphics
Story (if any)
Audio
These arent the end all be all though
Some objective points are
Matchmaking or server stability in online games
Game stability
The best thing i can say is that, is X game worth your time? For any multitude of reasons like it is much the same of a previous game or it improves on things within that genre greatly.
A game can have many flaws but if one finds enjoyment out of it, no matter where it comes from, is perfectly fine.
As an example to movies, look at The Room. Probably the most critically panned movie yet it is a cult classic because of how bad it is and people do enjoy watching it
If someone is actually so dumb they can't quickly comprehend using four directional buttons for movement and one stick for aiming, they might be retarded.
>2. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
Faster learning curves are better, because it gets more people involved in the game as quickly as possible. While other methods of game design can create sill disparities. Like how fighting games have special inputs to execute special moves. This is exemplified with the Xbox 360's D-pad. Where execution was made more difficult than need be, thanks to it's overly sensitive diagonal detection. The unfun part was failing inputs because the controller was poorly made. The fun part was practicing how to pull off special inputs like the game designed.
>A car having 1:1 controls to your inputs with no physics simulation or interactivity also produces accurate results, but it's so easy that most will find it boring.
A car is meant to be driven with a wheel. So of course an accurate wheel input would be better. And of course, anything that could accurately simulate the roughness of the car being driven, would be even better. Yes, there are objectively better inputs than dual analogs when it comes to driving. Because a wheel is more accurate to the experience it's attempting to replicate.
>You can aim with the stick in GE
1 stick.
>Entirely subjective statement.
If a single stick + face buttons is easier to learn, the all other console shooters would use a single stick.
>Meaningless statement.
You literally have 360 movement with analog, rather than octagonal movement with C.
>1 stick.
You aim with one stick even when using a second one for movement.
>If a single stick + face buttons is easier to learn, the all other console shooters would use a single stick.
I never said it was easier, I just implied the difference between the learning curve for the two is nonexistent.
>You literally have 360 movement with analog
No you don't, nearly FPS ever made uses the same eight way directional movement, I can't think of a single one that uses 360 degree movement. How would that even work?
You're fucking twisted, if you think subjectivity is the hard road. Objectivity is held to scrutiny. Subjective statements are always protected like sacred cows. All discussion comes to a halt, whenever someone pulls the subjectivity card. Because, following their logic. It's literally indisputable.
>i’m right so long as I just make up my own definitions
It's not that they can't. It's the fact that the alternative is far better. So why should they?
Criticism requires you to reach a subjective conclusion through objective observations.
>So is the question simply a matter of whether those rules are consistent?
No. Inconsistency is just a tool that introduces variety at various levels of a gameplay loop. Whether a given inconsistency is a good thing is a subjective question. E.g. weapons not having parity is an objective observation, that weapons not having parity is bad is subjective. Consensus backing a conclusion doesn't make it objective.
>some opinions are facts
this is the power of
Then you're just a bug reporter in that case
Son of a fucking bitch I didn’t even attempt the captcha and it somehow managed to post my unfinished statement
Faster learning curves do get people involved in a game quicker yet they also make for weaker long term engagement, you need a proper learning curve to create a skill gap which in turn creates satisfaction from overcoming challenges, and gives you clear paths towards improvement. And yeah obviously steering wheels are better for driving games but I'm talking about in-game physics which make sure your inputs will never be 1:1 with the car's movements due to basic physics. You can't turn at a whim, you need to carefully manage weight transfer, because it takes a while for a car to turn each action must be pre-emptive to varying degrees, and of course the road surfaces greatly affect your inputs. All of this is very inconvenient and prevents you from reaching the goal faster, yet it's also the main appeal of these games, the challenge. Then you also have manual shifting. You could easily have fantastic well made auto-shifting in games that makes manual useless (and some games indeed have this) yet a huge chunk of the player base will still opt to use manual simply because it's more challenging, based on their criteria.
Study the science of video game design
>It's the fact that the alternative is far better
How many times do you use the analog stick's input to walk in FPS games? That's literally the only mechanical difference between an analog stick for movement and any digital input in first person games.
Work your reasoning backwards from your gut feeling on the game, because taste is subjective.
Base it on convincing evidence, if there is no convincing evidence then you take the L, admit your opinion has no real basis, and avoid criticizing it in future.
>I can't think of a single one that uses 360 degree movement. How would that even work?
Do I have to draw a diagram for you? A thumbstick has 360 degrees of movement. Because it's radial. But if you're stuck in the N64 era, then you're probably thinking of the 8 grooves they made for the thumbstick. Which was really just to assist newbies, who haven't played 3D games before. In reality, the thumbstick is capable of full radial movement.
The C-buttons only allow for 8 directions. up, dow, lef, right, and the diagonals.
Come on dude.
Some opinions are facts though. But not all opinions are facts. The idea that something is either a fact or an opinion, really fucked up an entire generation. Because it removes the leeway for discourse. It removes the element for reevaluation.
>you need a proper learning curve to create a skill gap
Again, the way you create a skill gap is through well crafted game design. not "get used to these shitty controls, fucker". That's artificial difficulty.
>but I'm talking about in-game physics which make sure your inputs will never be 1:1 with the car's movements due to basic physics
That doesn't mean the controls are bad. It means the physics are more accurate.
So you're saying literally every gamer learned how to control with 2 sticks faster than every single other method?
You don't think that if someone went from 2 sticks to 1 stick they would take a long time to learn it because they are unfamiliar with it?
Especially considering you JUST said that learning something new is always going to take a while.
>How many times do you use the analog stick's input to walk in FPS games?
All the time. If it's a console game. Do you remap the controls so walking is on the D-pad or something? I'm confused.
>That's literally the only mechanical difference between an analog stick for movement and any digital input
Yeah, and it's HUGE.
Where are they protected like sacred cows? Certainly not anywhere online where topics are discussed because no matter how subjective the discussion is there will always be heated disagreements since humans use reason to justify their conclusions which will be scrutinized. It comes down to your outlining your values and questioning the values of others, acknowledging that values are subjective changes nothing.
Subjectivity is implied.
Aiming and movement is still restricted to eight directions because analog sticks don't use black magic you dumbass. Did you know Halo 1 has movement mapped to the control pad as well? I bet you can't tell when I started using it instead of the control stick.
>So you're saying literally every gamer learned how to control with 2 sticks faster than every single other method?
Yes, when you factor the level of accuracy as well. Your average dual stick user will reach a level of accuracy higher than that of a single stick user, in a shorter time.
If you're only factoring the basic understanding of movement, then sure, the learning curve is about the same.
>acknowledging that values are subjective changes nothing.
Oh bullshit. I've been in too many arguments, where someone pulls the subjective card, and no matter which angle you attempt to attack the matter, they will just repeat their same points about subjectivity. Because they're more concerned about protecting their opinion, than they are looking at things differently.
>Again, the way you create a skill gap is through well crafted game design. not "get used to these shitty controls, fucker". That's artificial difficulty.
Challenging controls can be good game design just as well as any other aspect of games.
>That doesn't mean the controls are bad. It means the physics are more accurate.
Which leads to what you call shitty controls, that is ones which are very hard to learn, even harder to consistently produce accurate results with and which do a lot to inconvenience the player for no other reason than challenge. Or are you going to patch it up with saying that shitty controls aren't shitty when they're the result of physics, and then add more and more exceptions to the supposed objective rules as they show up?
>I agree with the review
Ah, yes, what an objective, informative video, what fair analysis and peefect allegories
>I disagree with the review
I'm going to google the dictionary definition of subjective, take a screenshot, then look at definition number 4, repeat it word by word, and that's enough proof that the video is worthless garbage
:24
Sometimes you must take a step back from a game and even change subjects a few times before returning to it in order to give a space for proper contemplation and introspection. If your life revolves around something it becomes nigh impossible to remain objective.
>Your average dual stick user will reach a level of accuracy higher than that of a single stick user, in a shorter time.
Not only did you completely make up this fact but you have forgotten that "accuracy" is not always up to the player and is often modified behind the scenes to compensate or even make things less accurate.
And once again, the opinion that a faster learning curve makes something objectively better as a control scheme is completely subjective. Learning how to use an arcade stick having never used one is going to take a very long time to get used to but you wouldn't in your right mind try and imply that an arcade stick and thus objectively inferior to a D-pad now would you?
That's when I attempted to walk in a circle using the analog stick.
Look, I haven't played Halo in forever, so I can't speak to that. But I can load up one of my games, and feel rull radial movement for myself.
Having more than 8 degrees isn't black magic. But maybe if you don't understand basic math, then it might appear magical to you.
cocks
What games?
>Challenging controls can be good game design just as well as any other aspect of games.
yeah, I like said, with fighting games having special inputs as an example. Not the fucking d-pad being overly sensitive like the Xbox360 controller. One is bad controls, and one is thoughtful game design.
>Which leads to what you call shitty controls
Nooo, I said thoughtful game design that leads to the necessity for mastery of controls, is good. With a game's physics, you can learn how they physics work. You can learn how your car reacts to the road. You can learn the peculiarities of the track. That's all awesome.
Well those people are idiots who are using subjectivity as a get out of jail free card that means they don't have to explain themselves, that's just people more than a necessary part of believing value judgements are subjective. If you push them into explaining that "subjective things don't need explanation!" stance then they'll quickly out themselves as dumb faggots or just lazy/disinterested to justify something complicated
As far as objective criticism goes, I say look no further than Game Design Companion: A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4
>Not only did you completely make up this fact
Oh my bad. I guess the industry made dual analog standard, because they love making the experience more difficult for the consumer.
>but you have forgotten that "accuracy" is not always up to the player and is often modified behind the scenes to compensate or even make things less accurate.
The level of aim assist on goldeneye is bonkers, compared to newer games.
I don't know... Mario 64. You ever try to play Mario 64 with digital inputs? I have. There's a clear distinction between moving in free flowing 360 degrees. Compared to rigid full throttle 8 directions.
>The level of aim assist on goldeneye is bonkers, compared to newer games.
Aim assist in GE is dependent on difficulty setting, none of them set it to the kind of lock on aiming you see in games today though.
But their right in a sense. If you believe that value judgements can't be objective, then it will lead down the road to subjective opinions being indefensible. "Reasons" don't matter, because not one reason can have a greater value than another, if both value judgements are equal.
>none of them set it to the kind of lock on aiming you see in games today though.
Seriously? You can beat the entire game with hipfire. Maybe a nudge up or down. But really the level of accuracy required for Goldeneye is nothing.
And let's not get into hard modes. Just the normal difficulty setting. Which is what most people will play.
>video game """"critique""""
HAHAHAHAHAHA
*inhales*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAA
It's not as though normal Halo is particularly hard
Even speedruns use aiming in GE, you've obviously never played it if you think you can beat the whole game hipfiring, especially casually and not doing speedrun autism.
I have though. Just spray, collect more ammo than you spend, and keep moving.
I'm not talking about 3D platformers, I'm talking about FPS games.
Value judgements aren't equal, this kind of statement relies on your own value judgement, you discriminate as you see fit. I don't see how it could be any other way unless you're a theist, deist or have some other kind of similar beliefs where not only do objective values exist but they have been communicated to us and we are capable of correctly interpreting them.
>he says, wasting time posting on a korean rotoscoping messenger
Hang on. Let's first establish one thing. You implied that full radial movement is impossible when you called it "black magic". So before we go into first person games. How about you admit that dual thumbsticks at least have the capabilities of simultaneous character movement and camera movement.
This got a good giggle out of me
Underrated post
First it was >the guy's statement IS equally valid because he's using very different subjective criteria than you are.
Now it's
>Value judgements aren't equal
So did you contradict yourself, or are you a different user?
If two people use two different set of criteria, and there's no higher force to deem one greater than the other, then who is to say there is a disparity in opinions at all? According to rules of subjectivity, one can't be measurably greater than the other.
What exactly is "full radial movement"?
>How about you admit that dual thumbsticks at least have the capabilities of simultaneous character movement and camera movement.
You can press the c-buttons while moving, I don't see what your point is here.
Don't spoil the entire plot of the game like pic related. Only do it IF it's LITERALLY THAT BAD!!!
>What exactly is "full radial movement"?
I mean relative to a point. You have the center point, and then you have the circle round the center. And then the distance between the center and the circle is a radius. When you move a thumbstick, it's not limited to only 8 directions. There are technically and infinite amount of lines that can be drawn between the center and the circle.
I won't claim to know exactly how games calculate this. Probable rounds to a finite amount of points. Say, 360 points for example. I don't know. But what I do know, is that you can move in any direction with a thumbstick when you play as Mario. But if you tried to play with the C buttons, Mario would control like shit. Because 8 directions is too limiting, and there's no ramp up to speed. It's just 0 speed and 100 speed.
I seriously can't believe I have to explain this to anyone. This is basic knowledge.
Yeah I just fucked up there, the guy that replied to me corrected my mistake. It comes down to the individuals and groups to decide that for themselves, based on personal or collective values. If you're a christian or something sure you can say there's a higher force which dictates objective values but if you're an atheist or agnostic or whatever I really don't see how you could detach these value judgements from subjective human perceptions, needs, etc.
No critique is objective in and on itself, but you can come close to it by measuring how honest and truthful the critique is, for example combat systems evolve over the years and it isn't exactly wrong to say that the later implementations make sequels feel better, assassins creed 2 was a prime example of that back in the day, it's all very nuanced because if the gameplay changes at it's core it becomes more subjective, see the dark souls games, no one will ever agree on that series because it just changes so much every single game even if the combat and animations keep the same rules.
It's also very easy to fall behind optional and non problems, I have a big gripe with mr raptor's critique of OoT because he focuses on avoidable problems, personal difficulties with systems that work just fine and how he lacks basic knowledge about the game, I find those to be non argumments because it's not problems within the game itself, he just doesn't know how to deal with ~his~ issues with it that well.
The trick is making sure you know all about the game before making an opinion, then you can make a thesis on your thoughts just like any other argumment, and like so the more you understand it the better it will be.
Post it user
I disagree. I think that if you understand the work better than someone else, then your statement has greater value, even if they fail to acknowledge such. I mean, sure, they think they're right, that' why they hold the opinion they do. But the truth is independent from perspective.
>hello and welcome to this analysis of medal of honor warfighter. Over the next 9 hours of this objective analysis-
>When reviewing or criticizing a game, how do you sort the objective from the subjective?
there's no objective really