| spemanig said:
1. No, he doesn't. Excellent is a qualitative word. It can't be objective at all. There's no objective measure of excellence. Nothing can be objectively "excellent," which means that a statement like "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" obviously a subjective opinion. After that, the only thing that would need clarification is of whom the opinion belongs to. Since he's the one saying it, that much is obvious. Of course that's what he thinks. He's the one saying it. The only reason he'd need to clarify the holder of the opinion is if he was talking about someone elses opinion, which he wasn't. No clarification needed. Just basic english and reading comprehension. When you write, the argumentative stance is assumed. "I think" is an implicit preface to all you say. The reader already knows that you offer him/her your convictions with the assurance of certainty. When you see newspaper editorials, they don't say "In our opinion, Donald Trump doesn't have a chance of being elected for President," they just say "Donald Trump doesn't have a chance of being elected for President." The only reason for any confusion is solely on behalf of the reader, who didn't approach the work with the approapriate foreknowledge of the way and rules by which English is read. 2. Not the topic of this debate at all. Why are you getting wound up? 3. "Metacritic is one of a few places that subjective reviews can be looked at objectively." Absolutely not. Being placed on a numerical averaging tool does not suddenly make "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" an objective statement at all. Excellence doesn't suddenly become objective when it's organized. Opinions don't become fact just because you add them up and divide them by five. It's still a bunch of opinions. Bloodborne could have a 0 on Metacritic, and it would hold absolutely no effect on the validity of that statement. The PS4 could have 20 games with a higher Metascore than Bloodborne gaving been released in 2015, and it would hold absolutely no effect on the validity of his statement. "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" is opinion. It was obvious that it's an opinion the first time reading, and it was obvious who's opinion it was the first time reading. It wasn't and couldn't possible have been "stated as a fact," and it needed absolutely no further clarification, what-so-ever. |
So it's not a fact that on Metacritic the only new game for 2015 above 90 is Bloodborne? It not a fact that scores considered "excellent" are above 90.
And yes Metacritic can be used objectively.
