By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Article: Nintendo Has Won 2017

potato_hamster on 15 September 2017
guiduc said:
potato_hamster said:

I can answer that. By "objective leg to stand on" he means, you can't use objectivity to claim that Breath of the Wild is better than Horizon. Any examples you give will be subjective.

I'm asking for an example. Like, what would be an objective leg in this case? Are you all telling me that in no way, we can determine is Horizon is better than Zelda and vice versa, objectively? So, there is no such thing as objectivity here?

Yes. This is obvious. You're talking about people's opinions about which game they feel is better than another. How could that possibly be objective?



Around the Network
GuyDuke on 15 September 2017
potato_hamster said:
guiduc said:

I'm asking for an example. Like, what would be an objective leg in this case? Are you all telling me that in no way, we can determine is Horizon is better than Zelda and vice versa, objectively? So, there is no such thing as objectivity here?

Yes. This is obvious. You're talking about people's opinions about which game they feel is better than another. How could that possibly be objective?

That is not what I asked I asked what could possibly be, as a universal rule, an objective argument - applicable specifically in this case? It's not about how a person feels about it - but something that is irrefutable as a fact, since facts seem to be the only objective argument.

If not, what is the point, if everybody got an opinion?



Alkibiádēs on 15 September 2017

It's pretty damn obvious that Nintendo has put out the best games this year, no other developer or publisher comes even remotely close.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (97% on metacritic)
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (92% on metacritic)
Metroid: Samus Returns (88% on metacritic)
Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle (85% on metacritic)
Splatoon 2 (83% on metacritic)
Bye-Bye BoxBoy (83% on metacritic)
Fire Emblem: Shadows of Valentia (81% on metacritic)

And Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 still have to come out.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

potato_hamster on 15 September 2017
guiduc said:
potato_hamster said:

Yes. This is obvious. You're talking about people's opinions about which game they feel is better than another. How could that possibly be objective?

That is not what I asked I asked what could possibly be, as a universal rule, an objective argument - applicable specifically in this case? It's not about how a person feels about it - but something that is irrefutable as a fact, since facts seem to be the only objective argument.

If not, what is the point, if everybody got an opinion?

There isn't a universal rule. There can't be a universal rule. Any criteria you come up with will undoubtedly have games that many people would say aren't as enjoyable to play suddenly ranking higher than games that many people would say are the most enjoyable to play because by the very essenece of trying to be objective you have to remove the "fun factor" because that's 100% subjective.



PortisheadBiscuit on 15 September 2017

Nintendo has definitely won the hype category, everyone is talking about them again.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 15 September 2017
Alkibiádēs said:
It's pretty damn obvious that Nintendo has put out the best games this year, no other developer or publisher comes even remotely close.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (97% on metacritic)
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (92% on metacritic)
Metroid: Samus Returns (88% on metacritic)
Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle (85% on metacritic)
Splatoon 2 (83% on metacritic)
Bye-Bye BoxBoy (83% on metacritic)
Fire Emblem: Shadows of Valentia (81% on metacritic)

And Super Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 still have to come out.

Someone hasn't been paying attention.



irstupid on 15 September 2017
potato_hamster said:
guiduc said:

I'm asking for an example. Like, what would be an objective leg in this case? Are you all telling me that in no way, we can determine is Horizon is better than Zelda and vice versa, objectively? So, there is no such thing as objectivity here?

Yes. This is obvious. You're talking about people's opinions about which game they feel is better than another. How could that possibly be objective?

My opnion vs. your opinion is not objective.

Collectively gathering a bunch of people opinions, that becomes objective. With a large sample size, the average score for Zelda is higher than that of Horizon. Zelda is objectively the better game. The end. It's simple statistics.

Whether its opinions or data, you can never rely on a small sample size. There is a large sampe size of scores/reviews. Thus you can median, mean, average, whatever you want to do. That will be higher for Zelda in all cases. Though in true statistics, you would also remove the outliers, such as a rediculous high score or low score. Seeing as both are highly rated, no high outliers would be thrown out since 10 is max. Not like someone gave is a 15/10 or something. But a low score could be thrown out. When 99% of scores are between (8-10)/10, a random 4/10 woudl be thrown out.



GuyDuke on 15 September 2017
potato_hamster said:
guiduc said:

That is not what I asked I asked what could possibly be, as a universal rule, an objective argument - applicable specifically in this case? It's not about how a person feels about it - but something that is irrefutable as a fact, since facts seem to be the only objective argument.

If not, what is the point, if everybody got an opinion?

There isn't a universal rule. There can't be a universal rule. Any criteria you come up with will undoubtedly have games that many people would say aren't as enjoyable to play suddenly ranking higher than games that many people would say are the most enjoyable to play because by the very essenece of trying to be objective you have to remove the "fun factor" because that's 100% subjective.

Wow. All of our discussions were very pointless then.

Thank us for all our nothing.



GuyDuke on 15 September 2017
irstupid said:
potato_hamster said:

Yes. This is obvious. You're talking about people's opinions about which game they feel is better than another. How could that possibly be objective?

My opnion vs. your opinion is not objective.

Collectively gathering a bunch of people opinions, that becomes objective. With a large sample size, the average score for Zelda is higher than that of Horizon. Zelda is objectively the better game. The end. It's simple statistics.

Whether its opinions or data, you can never rely on a small sample size. There is a large sampe size of scores/reviews. Thus you can median, mean, average, whatever you want to do. That will be higher for Zelda in all cases. Though in true statistics, you would also remove the outliers, such as a rediculous high score or low score. Seeing as both are highly rated, no high outliers would be thrown out since 10 is max. Not like someone gave is a 15/10 or something. But a low score could be thrown out. When 99% of scores are between (8-10)/10, a random 4/10 woudl be thrown out.

Oomph, good luck reasoning with this one. I've been fighting tooth and nail since beginning of the day

It's like he's a potato or somethin'.



setsunatenshi on 15 September 2017
guiduc said:
setsunatenshi said:

I would suggest the reason why the argument from authority fallacy still stands is because none of the people reviewing those games are an actual authority on videogames.

 

As it was mentioned by other users, metacritic is a measured average of scores. Not all reviewers are given the same weight. A big website like IGN or Gamespot will have their score weight a lot more than other smaller/less known websites.

So we go back to the main point i was trying to make... a videogame review is by its own nature subjective. Scores are even more subjective (as in, they depend on the subject's own value judgement).

 

So he's right that zelda is a pretty good game, but he has no objective leg to stand on claiming it's better or worse than horizon.

 

Even more ridiculous is asserting that the new mario game, that wasnt even released yet, is also objectively better than game x or y that is out now. That is just absurd and funny enough makes quite transparent how biased his opinion is on this subject.

For the sake of demonstration, would you care to point out what would be an ''objective leg'' regarding this very case?

lol was that really your take away from my post?

 

Objective would be "Zelda runs at X resolution, on an average Y FPS, while Horizon runs at Z resolution at the same Y fps". That would be an objective analysis because the thing you're describing is inherent to the object.

Your tastes are subjective by definition because they are YOUR tastes. You can argue your point of view and we do it all the time. But that doesn't give anyone the right to state that their taste is objectively superior to anyone elses.