| Intrinsic said: Oh I am aware about those. Eg, like the tank controls I mentioned, or using a bow and arrow in KCD. Or being able to use Pauls deathfist in Tekken...... Some could look at stuff like that and call it broken (wrongly if I may add) simoly because it doesnt worl for them oe they cant wrap their heads around it but thats just wrong because they aren't broken. But the examples I gave are clear examples of broken gameplay...... and those arent subjective. Because they are broken. Something about the gameplay either prevents progression or makes progression too easy or at least easier than designed. Things like that usually gets patched out of the game if the devs have a choice. |
Here's the thing. I do not think there is any such thing as "objective" criticism. The moment you decide whether something is good, bad, positive, negative, or somewhere in between ... you are judging it by your reception. Because of this, reviews ARE 100% subjective. They just reference things that might be objectively provable. But they are still receiving it through their biased mind.
KLAMarine said:
I'll just take your word for it on the matter. I don't want to read all that right now... |
A small excerpt:
"The same old arguments about “objective” reviews, the usual hassle and pressure accompanying scoring systems (which I’ve always defended, but I’m so tired of doing it), not to mention the fact that publishers have pretty much ensured game reviews en masse are tightly controlled (they’re terrified of the “wild cards” after all) means I’d much rather tackle games criticism in a way that keeps me happy and invested in my work."
