• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles 2
  3. Xenoblade 2 is a massive disappointment

User Info: BlasterDark12

BlasterDark12
2 months ago#111
SmurfNextDoor posted...

Anyways, I'm done. This entire thread is a waste of time.

Pretty much any thread that a certain user details by his constant complaining about the game in multiple posts that really need to;dr's. Yeah I know he says he likes the game but he has yet to show it

User Info: SilverBassCross

SilverBassCross
2 months ago#112
GoodyBoo posted...
It's the moral good and bad which can't be objective

It depends on your moral code Many would argue that the basic rights of man is an objective moral code. Christians would argue their moral code is objective, just like people on gamefaqs would argue objectives, at least until they're called out on that bulls*** then it's all opinions.

"Depends" and "objective" do not go well together. Claiming objectivity does not make something objective either. Moral good and bad can not be objective.

I think a lot of the problem is with the people on here being so hyperbolic about it is that they're 1: new to the franchise, 2: Don't actually play many JRPGs 3: are pretty young and 4: don't know what they're talking about.

My exact sentiments on stories of XC1, XC2, and Persona 5. But that's still not objective. No matter how much objective stats you list like "plotholes" or "originality", the weight people put on those flaws will be different.
Mother 4 and MegaMan Battle Network Chrono X, two fangames that deserve more recognition. Please check them out.
www.mother4game.com / www.mmbnchronox.com
#113
(message deleted)

User Info: GoodyBoo

GoodyBoo
2 months ago#114
SilverBassCross posted...
"Depends" and "objective" do not go well together.

Multiple ideologies exist in the world. Such a shocker.

My exact sentiments on stories of XC1, XC2, and Persona 5. But that's still not objective. No matter how much objective stats you list like "plotholes" or "originality", the weight people put on those flaws will be different.

Originality isn't a problem in and of its self. It's the other things I listed. Being a generic shonen plot is fine, but it never exceeds those expectations and it doesn't even offer live up to the standards of a generic plot. This isn't one of those so standard it's forgettable, it's one of those "we tried really hard to be complicated and complex but didn't know how to do it properly"

The first game's story was amazing in that it was such a well put together plot with such amazingly unique characters that fit into archtypes without being defined by those archtypes.

The greatness in most plots are in the details and world structure, the characters, and everything in between those details. It's something X showed hints of, more so in the side stories, but the overal game left a lot to be desired in a lot of areas. X is one step forward two steps back from XB1 and XB2 is a half step forward and two steps back from X.

User Info: GoodyBoo

GoodyBoo
2 months ago#115
BlasterDark12 posted...
SmurfNextDoor posted...

Anyways, I'm done. This entire thread is a waste of time.

Pretty much any thread that a certain user details by his constant complaining about the game in multiple posts that really need to;dr's. Yeah I know he says he likes the game but he has yet to show it

Someone didn't enjoy essay writing.

User Info: SilverBassCross

SilverBassCross
2 months ago#116
GoodyBoo posted...
SilverBassCross posted...
"Depends" and "objective" do not go well together.

Multiple ideologies exist in the world. Such a shocker.

Yes, and none of them are objective. No matter how much lunatics claim god's will is the objective moral truth or something.

My exact sentiments on stories of XC1, XC2, and Persona 5. But that's still not objective. No matter how much objective stats you list like "plotholes" or "originality", the weight people put on those flaws will be different.

Originality isn't a problem in and of its self. It's the other things I listed. Being a generic shonen plot is fine, but it never exceeds those expectations and it doesn't even offer live up to the standards of a generic plot. This isn't one of those so standard it's forgettable, it's one of those "we tried really hard to be complicated and complex but didn't know how to do it properly"

The first game's story was amazing in that it was such a well put together plot with such amazingly unique characters that fit into archtypes without being defined by those archtypes.

Nice opinion, I disagree. XC1 had very standard and boring characters and many characters are defined by their archetypes. Especially Reyn, Fiora, and Dunban. Riki goes against the typical cute character archetype with unexpected maturity and such, and Sharla isn't really an archetype (just flat out boring), but others? Even their heart to hearts aren't things you couldn't imagine that sort of / archetype of character talking about.

The greatness in most plots are in the details and world structure, the characters, and everything in between those details. It's something X showed hints of, more so in the side stories, but the overal game left a lot to be desired in a lot of areas. X is one step forward two steps back from XB1 and XB2 is a half step forward and two steps back from X.

Yeah, you still can't say XC1 has an objectively better story. And, it was as much of a generic shonen story as XC2 (and 80% of all JRPGs out there), but it was generic shonen without the "discomforting" sides like harem stuff in XC2, and well executed. It's not a special story at all. I'd much rather take the world of XCX and many interesting things in it than XC1 and it's linear standard shonen story.
Mother 4 and MegaMan Battle Network Chrono X, two fangames that deserve more recognition. Please check them out.
www.mother4game.com / www.mmbnchronox.com

User Info: SmurfNextDoor

SmurfNextDoor
2 months ago#117
SilverBassCross posted...
It does not become useless, good "at" and bad "at" can be used objectively regardless of anything. It's the moral good and bad which can't be objective, or a certain thing being good or bad by the virtue of its existence. He can also make objective statements about XC2's story such as "it has plotholes", but they won't lead to an objective conclusion as to whether the story is good or bad, better or worse. When people say "it's his opinion", that's not because there being plotholes is subjective, but the story being bad because of those plotholes is.

TLDR: There are no things that objectively ARE good or bad. There are things that are objectively good or bad AT things.

You're preaching to the choir because I understand that. Most people when they say something is objective mean AT something/for the purposes of, whether that thing is stated or implied to be known due to consensus. It's impossible to get an outside perspective on existence itself. Objectivity, and by extension truth itself, for the entire system are unobtainable, so we create smaller systems and work within those.

The point of getting to the part where "it has plotholes" is objective is that it gives an explanation that people can understand about one another's subjective experience. When people wonder why Goody doesn't like the story and thinks it drags down the experience for the average player, they can see the flaws that bothered him. Then, of course, it's the question of "How bad are they?", which is subjective.

I honestly don't think you disagree on as fundamental a level as you think you do; I don't think Goody is trying to be as philosophically objective as people think.

---

For instance, when he said that some basic morals are objective depending on your moral code, you said "objective and depends do not go together." But that's just what we established. To say that things can be objectively good AT something is to say that the objective result depends on the goal of the system.

Goody is just extending that to morality,

"Depending on the goal of morality, some things may be objective."

If the goal is to reduce suffering and get us to all work together to further society, than a basic moral like "don't kill people for no reason just because you enjoy it", is objectively bad. There is no way to frame it that the action helps the goal.

It boils down to whether you debate the results of a system or the goal which produces the results.

I lean towards the latter because it helps us actually improve the systems rather than chuck them in the bin, as well as helps us understand what's important to each other, and so on.
"Why is there still a 4K [character] limit in 2018?" - Cyber Akuma Zero
"I am attempting to emulate the style of your posts." - FFnut

User Info: SmurfNextDoor

SmurfNextDoor
2 months ago#118
GoodyBoo posted...
It being bad and good is a collection of things that are individually bad and good. There was someone not even two pages ago that stated it clearly that good and bad are hard to pinpoint because an action that's bad for one person is good for another at the same time and it is up to each human to learn about and discern the good and the bad from the events and use our knowledge of similar events to finally judge the collective event. The event in this case being XB2, and it's individual aspects.

I wanted to mention this part of Goody's post because it's interesting.

It seems like he thinks a person can learn to be more accurate in discerning the degree to which something is good or bad. On one hand, that can be just a matter of taste. You might enjoy a strawberry, others might enjoy watermelon. But on Goody's hand, what he said is actually what many critics try to do.

They try to be "objective" by viewing things by what degree to which the "good" and "bad" things will impact the average person's experience... you could say that critical objectivity, for the subjective parts, is trying to avoid being prejudiced towards an extreme end of the spectrum of opinions and over- or under- stating how good or bad something is as it affects the audience as a whole. It's a pretty reasonable opinion imo, even if the usage of objective is slightly different, but it's one hotly contested and debated whenever someone says a reviewer is not objective enough, biased, etc.

Anyway, I really am done now, however, as it's taking more time than I can afford at the moment. I didn't really have as much time as I wanted to work on these posts even. Have a good day, guys.

Shaded_Phoenix posted...
SmurfNextDoor posted...
Anyways, I'm done. This entire thread is a waste of time.

I feel like hearing you speak in detail with such eloquence was well worth the rest of this thread that I didn't actually read much of, or spend any real time engaged with.

It's so rare to see someone on the internet who can make a detailed argument while fully comprehending the opinions of other people. With so many people yelling past each other, it's a wonderfully refreshing change. I feel more happiness from these posts than I did at the watermarked stock photo of a cat.

@Shaded_Phoenix Thanks! That's all I could hope for on a board such as this.
"Why is there still a 4K [character] limit in 2018?" - Cyber Akuma Zero
"I am attempting to emulate the style of your posts." - FFnut

User Info: goodJT

goodJT
2 months ago#119
He's still on this?
AKA Tykronos/Ryltex,The Glass Wraith of Gamefaqs.
https://i.imgur.com/78v9AxX.png https://i.imgur.com/1GEFq8L.png it's now a thing.

User Info: SilverBassCross

SilverBassCross
2 months ago#120
SmurfNextDoor posted...
You're preaching to the choir because I understand that. Most people when they say something is objective mean AT something/for the purposes of, whether that thing is stated or implied to be known due to consensus. It's impossible to get an outside perspective on existence itself. Objectivity, and by extension truth itself, for the entire system are unobtainable, so we create smaller systems and work within those.

The point of getting to the part where "it has plotholes" is objective is that it gives an explanation that people can understand about one another's subjective experience. When people wonder why Goody doesn't like the story and thinks it drags down the experience for the average player, they can see the flaws that bothered him. Then, of course, it's the question of "How bad are they?", which is subjective.

I honestly don't think you disagree on as fundamental a level as you think you do; I don't think Goody is trying to be as philosophically objective as people think.

For instance, when he said that some basic morals are objective depending on your moral code, you said "objective and depends do not go together." But that's just what we established. To say that things can be objectively good AT something is to say that the objective result depends on the goal of the system.

Goody is just extending that to morality,

"Depending on the goal of morality, some things may be objective."

If the goal is to reduce suffering and get us to all work together to further society, than a basic moral like "don't kill people for no reason just because you enjoy it", is objectively bad. There is no way to frame it that the action helps the goal.

It boils down to whether you debate the results of a system or the goal which produces the results.

I lean towards the latter because it helps us actually improve the systems rather than chuck them in the bin, as well as helps us understand what's important to each other, and so on.

The reason I say "depends and objective to not go well together" is because a statement like "That depends. [Something] objectively good to me." completely disregards what objectivity is.

You make things out to be more complicated than they are. Objectivity is not relative just because the same thing can be objectively good towards achieving one goal, while objectively bad towards achieving another. If there are 2 people with 2 opposing goals, who have 2 opposing opinions on a certain [thing] which contributes positively to Goal 1 while negatively to Goal 2, that [thing] isn't objectively good to Person 1, while objectively bad to Person 2. It's subjectively good to Person 1 because of his morals, while subjectively bad to Person 2 because of his. Objectively good towards achieving a goal =/= objectively good from a point of view that supports said goal. When "point of view"s come into discussion, that's when subjectivity begins.

For Goody: Still waiting on that kitten argument, don't think Smurf bailed you out.
Mother 4 and MegaMan Battle Network Chrono X, two fangames that deserve more recognition. Please check them out.
www.mother4game.com / www.mmbnchronox.com
  1. Boards
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles 2
  3. Xenoblade 2 is a massive disappointment
  • Topic Archived