• 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: SmurfNextDoor

SmurfNextDoor
3 weeks ago#121
It was made far more complicated than it had to be before I got involved, honestly. It's basically just that Goody got a little irritated at someone calling the game a masterpiece and used "lol no", Azure called his opinion s*** and all subjective, then Goody brings up objectivity behind his words, which judging by how he uses the word means that he feels he has reasons for his opinion that rely on flaws that are widely pointed out in narrative criticism and fairly widely applicable beyond his individual experience, while escalating by claiming Azure can consume trash and claim it's great, but he won't.

Then it became a mess of him saying XYZ is objective, you saying it's not, with both of you, from my perspective, not using the same definition. i.e. I'm not saying that his examples are objective in the exact same way you think things are objective, or disregarding your meaning of objective. You use objective to refer purely to the philosophical concept of existing without our subjective perception, he clearly uses a broader definition. Maybe you don't think that's a useful thing to do, that whatever form of objectivity he feels he has doesn't have the same weight as yours in an argument, but I just feel it's being tackled from an angle that will never result in any movement on either side.
"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: GoodyBoo

GoodyBoo
3 weeks ago#122
SmurfNextDoor posted...
but I just feel it's being tackled from an angle that will never result in any movement on either side.

That's basically his way of arguing. He's not arguing against my points, he even said he agrees with some of them. He's just arguing over examples now and I don't see a pointin continuing this really. He's just looking for a fight.

User Info: BlasterDark12

BlasterDark12
3 weeks ago#123
GoodyBoo posted...
SmurfNextDoor posted...
but I just feel it's being tackled from an angle that will never result in any movement on either side.

That's basically his way of arguing. He's not arguing against my points, he even said he agrees with some of them. He's just arguing over examples now and I don't see a pointin continuing this really. He's just looking for a fight.

Pot meet kettle, he says your black

User Info: Shaded_Phoenix

Shaded_Phoenix
3 weeks ago#124
SilverBassCross posted...
For Goody: Still waiting on that kitten argument, don't think Smurf bailed you out.

No one cares about the kitten argument!

You don't like small fluffy things, fine. You don't want to call small fluffy things liked by everyone everywhere in all the timelines. Fine. It's even true - small fluffy things are only liked by the overwhelming majority of human beings on the planet Earth of this timeline. Maybe you just don't like that kittens poop. But no one cares about your semantics.

If that is literally the only thing you have worth mentioning. Just stop. If this was real life, you and Goody would have tried to kick each other in the balls and then never speak again. So just pretend that happened, and leave Goody as he is.

Or block him, I don't care.
Operation Latex Turtle is a go.

User Info: SilverBassCross

SilverBassCross
3 weeks ago#125
Shaded_Phoenix posted...
SilverBassCross posted...
For Goody: Still waiting on that kitten argument, don't think Smurf bailed you out.

No one cares about the kitten argument!

If that is literally the only thing you have worth mentioning. Just stop.

Clearly not since you cut out the rest of my post. Goody clearly doesn't know what objectivity means, because he made the claim kittens are "objectively good" which is something a 1st grader would think.
Mother 4 and MegaMan Battle Network Chrono X, two fangames that deserve more recognition. Please check them out.
www.mother4game.com / www.mmbnchronox.com
#126
(message deleted)

User Info: SilverBassCross

SilverBassCross
3 weeks ago#127
SmurfNextDoor posted...
It was made far more complicated than it had to be before I got involved, honestly. It's basically just that Goody got a little irritated at someone calling the game a masterpiece and used "lol no", Azure called his opinion s*** and all subjective, then Goody brings up objectivity behind his words, which judging by how he uses the word means that he feels he has reasons for his opinion that rely on flaws that are widely pointed out in narrative criticism and fairly widely applicable beyond his individual experience, while escalating by claiming Azure can consume trash and claim it's great, but he won't.

Then it became a mess of him saying XYZ is objective, you saying it's not, with both of you, from my perspective, not using the same definition. i.e. I'm not saying that his examples are objective in the exact same way you think things are objective, or disregarding your meaning of objective. You use objective to refer purely to the philosophical concept of existing without our subjective perception, he clearly uses a broader definition. Maybe you don't think that's a useful thing to do, that whatever form of objectivity he feels he has doesn't have the same weight as yours in an argument, but I just feel it's being tackled from an angle that will never result in any movement on either side.

"Oh it's all about you using different definitions of objective."

No it's not. He doesn't know what objectivity is, there are things he claimed are objective that aren't.

You said this:

1) "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
"events should be reported objectively"
"encourage people to look at the information objectively and see how it will affect them"

2) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually.
"the physical world we think of as objectively true"

He (Goody) is using the first one. You are using the second."


This isn't an answer to anything at all, and I don't think it's true either. How can you say that's the definition Goody is using, when he's saying extremely dumb s*** like "Kittens are objectively good and murder is objectively bad"? Does that sound like "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions"? He's not saying murder is bad for increasing the amount of people living, or kittens are good for entertaining most children, which would actually be objective. He's clearly using good and bad in the moral sense, yet claiming it's objective.

This all started from Goody claiming that stories can be objectively better, anyway, which was also false. Anything he said further only served to further expose his ignorance as to what objectivity is. There are objective goods and bads within systems, like "better at having no plotholes", or "this story is objectively worse at originality", but they don't translate into "this story is objectively better", which is what Goody was trying to claim. What I want to know now is whether Goody still thinks XC1's story is "objectively better" than XC2's 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
3 weeks ago#128
SilverBassCross posted...
No it's not. He doesn't know what objectivity is, there are things he claimed are objective that aren't.

You said this:

1) "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
"events should be reported objectively"
"encourage people to look at the information objectively and see how it will affect them"

2) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually.
"the physical world we think of as objectively true"

He (Goody) is using the first one. You are using the second."


This isn't an answer to anything at all, and I don't think it's true either. How can you say that's the definition Goody is using, when he's saying extremely dumb s*** like "Kittens are objectively good and murder is objectively bad"? Does that sound like "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions"? He's not saying murder is bad for increasing the amount of people living, or kittens are good for entertaining most children, which would actually be objective. He's clearly using good and bad in the moral sense, yet claiming it's objective.

This all started from Goody claiming that stories can be objectively better, anyway, which was also false. Anything he said further only served to further expose his ignorance as to what objectivity is. There are objective goods and bads within systems, like "better at having no plotholes", or "this story is objectively worse at originality", but they don't translate into "this story is objectively better", which is what Goody was trying to claim. What I want to know now is whether Goody still thinks XC1's story is "objectively better" than XC2's story.

In a certain way, yes. Viewing human experiences with kittens "objectively", they are overwhelmingly positive, therefore they are "objectively" good. It's obvious to me he means in how they impact people ("making kids happy", as you put it) because he kept trying to get you to view a kitten. And yes, you can say you hate the kitten. But something "objectively" good for a large group as a whole does not need to benefit every single individual.

I doubt he considers kittens morally good since he even said, "it's not moral, it's not subjective."

Senseless murder was probably judged in a similar fashion, it causing an overwhelming amount of suffering. In terms of morality, if we're talking about how something affects our collective human experience and everybody agrees it's terrible by expressing it through their moral systems, people could say it's pretty objectively bad. Not that that's so useful considering the moral system can diverge from the truth of how an action impacts someone. The action could cause a lot of suffering without any real gain and it still wouldn't be "good" in Goody's usage just because people agreed it was.

They're not objectively good/bad as if a God wrote into it into the fabric of the universe, but it's objectively bad in how it impacts our collective human, yes, subjective, experience.

Either way it doesn't matter because arguing whether or not he can call it objective or not doesn't actually change anything about his actual underlying views. I think he recognizes that his opinion isn't an objective fact of the universe, he said earlier that "their opinion is trash, in my opinion" and "I'm fairly tolerant of alternative opinions, I just don't pretend mine are facts."

So it's about making constructed, reasoned arguments supporting your opinions.
"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
3 weeks ago#129
Having those "objective" flaws makes the plot worse than if it didn't, to varying degrees, for almost everybody. Very few people go, "Yeah, that game objectively has way more plotholes, but I like plotholes and they're actually improving the experience!" They might say they can ignore them because it impacts them minimally, which is where Goody gets to people "ignoring flaws" flaws, which is debatable. But if you judge a narrative by it's goal of appealing to its audience, then they objectively harm that value.

It may harm your experience less than his, maybe some other factors will improve your enjoyment enough that it doesn't matter, etc. But that's what Goody meant by criticism being collecting all these good and bad factors to judge the product as a whole. He mentioned objectivity behind his words and making objective arguments, but for how you understand it, it's just well-constructed arguments that point out flaws that are pervasively considered to harm a narrative (or vice versa for positives) in order to back up that end result of how you feel at the end.

So what's the point of saying that if there's still that gap at the end between what the work is and how it impacts you individually? Well, his original point in bringing it up was just basically, "I have reasons for my opinions, stop dismissing everything as purely subjective and actually construct an argument."
"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
3 weeks ago#130
I only replied to you, but Goody's posts were also shouting past you at times as well. And obviously aggressively toned.

At the end of the day, it's not literally his views on the usage of the word "objective" that are the problem that make people dislike him. It's more the no true scotsman stuff ("elitism") where he claims people who only play XBC2 have worse opinions than people that played them all, stuff about brand loyalty or whatever and how opinions should be weighed.

He's not claiming his opinion is fact, but he comes off as condescending and "elitist", so it sure seems so (that whatever he's claiming is used to dismiss other's opinions while complaining about his own being dismissed), and then everybody operates from that viewpoint and gets into "omg kittens are objectively good?! wtf" mode for a week.
"Why is there still a 4K [character] limit in 2018?" - Cyber Akuma Zero
"I am attempting to emulate the style of your posts." - FFnut
  1. Boards
  2. Xenoblade Chronicles 2
  3. Xenoblade 2 is a massive disappointment
  • Topic Archived