Le Roi
Saturn Gamer
Joined: April 2016
Posts: 231
Location:
|
Post by Le Roi on Jun 29, 2016 19:24:32 GMT
TBH the price didn't set my expectations at all. Rather, it's the only reason I'm going sit down and play it all the way through.
I do 'get it' though -- it's a really well-presented game and a unique concept.
I have the NTSC-JP version as well and I'll probably never sell that, as the artwork is just too fucking cool. (And I only paid £18 for it.)
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jun 30, 2016 0:09:03 GMT
I agree - there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion on the game, but this is subjective, not objective. There's no such thing as an objective opinion, since each word means the opposite of the other. Objective means impartial, while opinion means personal. This isn't an attack on you, Neo, just a general observation. Not accurate, though. Opinions are not personal; they are analyses of real world things which can be observed by more than one person. Thus opinions have both objective and subjective elements. Indeed, the very fact that you (or any of us) are bothering to debate these opinions illustrates that opinions are not merely personal or subjective. An opinion by definition cannot be completely objective, but it can certainly be more objective than another opinion. The definition of "objective" is: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The definition of "opinion" is: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." I agree that an opinion cannot be completely objective. This requires that a person step outside themselves and try to see the object of their opinion from a broader point of view. But because the person is still seeing through their eyes, it will always be skewed by their perspective, making it subjective by definition. As an example, when creating last year's The Top 20 PAL Saturn Games, I thought I was creating it from an objective point of view. That's why certain games I didn't think deserved to be on the list appeared. But when I released it, I received a lot of complaints about the order and selection of games because ultimately my choices were skewed by my perspective despite my intention. Going back to Neo's comment: Nothing wrong with having an objective opinion of the game my friend. You're just calling it purely as you see it. What I think he means is that there is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, which I agree with. But leidsekade's opinion is hardly objective because it's based on his experience with the game. It's simply a "fresh" perspective because he's played the game for the first time. I'm not saying his opinion is wrong either. What I'm saying is that this discussion and defense of Burning Rangers is subjective because we all have different personal experiences with the game. And because of that, we can learn to like or dislike (or not) certain elements of the game based on other people's experiences. Where it sort of becomes objective is where we find commonalities that most can agree upon (which is where I think this confusion stems from). But again, this is still subjective because it's all based on personal experiences and not everyone agrees with everyone else. This is hardly a bad thing either. If we all agreed on the same thing, it would make for a pretty dull forum, and indeed life. Sorry if I have derailed this topic. I just enjoy deep discussions like this.
|
|
|
Post by xDerekRx on Jun 30, 2016 8:02:41 GMT
8/10 for Burning Rangers is much too generous; it's a rating based on what the game would have been like had it been finished rather than on what it actually is. It says a lot for the development team's level of inspiration that Burning Rangers is pretty fun and unique in spite of its unfinished state, but that doesn't change the fact that it is plainly unfinished. It's not just about glitchy graphics, which can of course be overlooked, or even there being so few levels that the game seems to climax almost as soon as it begins. The experience as a whole feels unrealized. This is most strongly felt in level 4, which has no fires or hostages to rescue, and thus basically consists of navigating through barren environments with no music; it feels like you're playing a demo for a graphics engine rather than a finished game. There's a good amount of fun to be had in Burning Rangers, and if your mind works that way it can be fun just to dream of what could have been if Yuji Naka and co. had had more time. But judged for what it is, it is not one of the Saturn's greats. All that said, I can't get behind Neo's assertion that the analog controller makes no difference. The difference is huge. You spend a considerable portion of Burning Rangers navigating the edges of three dimensional platforms, and the precision of the analog controller is perfectly suited for that. There are ways of getting around the limitations of the standard controller, but the experience can never be the same. Just because they could have done more if they had more time, doesn't mean that it's necessarily unfinished. You could say that about any game. Any game with more time could have more stuff. I think they did a good job with what little time they had. I can understand why people wouldn't like it, especially because of the length. And that's perfectly valid. But the game was made to be more of an arcade experience. I don't see any difference between this and something like Sega Rally. Both are insanely short, but replayability is the main thing. For Sega Rally it is time trials, for BR it is the randomised levels, finding survivors, and working on getting high grades/scores. People know Sega Rally is an actual arcade game, so it gets far more forgiveness than BR which many people expect more from - rightly or wrongly. Again, I can see perfectly why someone might think that BR is an incomplete game if they're expected a fleshed out story. Well to be fair Adam, it is somewhat well know that Naka and his team ran out of time to work on BR. Only about a year of actual game development occurred(although I believe well over a year of pre-planning). BR was a very ambitious project for the Saturn and certainly could have used another 6 months. The reality is the Saturn was done and Naka and his crew were needed for upcoming Dreamcast projects (Sonic Adventure). That being said Naka has been quoted saying he only got to do 50% of what he wanted to do. Now lets not confuse that with 50% finished either. He was quoted as saying the game was indeed finished upon release but doesnt mean he didnt want to likely add a few more levels perhaps. Even more storyline. You can tell when in the last couple levels the story moves very fast. It feels as if he meant for it draw out a bit more. Neither you or martinii are wrong but it was a game that certainly could have benefited from the Saturns lifespan lasting a bit longer. It would have likely given Naka and his team more time with the game. And again to further that, I do agree with you Adam in one respect. Even for what it is, it can be taken as a cool Sega Arcade style game. Scoring/grading system, random generated levels for replay value etc. I have no problem with that perspective either. It could have been Naka knew they werent going to have alot more development time so they added more arcade style features. The only real mode that we knew about that didn't make the final version was some 2 player mode as previewed in magazines. As it stands, and as IVe said before, its a fun extremely unique 3D platformer that pushed the systems hardware which personally makes it a joy for me. If you want to get into detailed analytical reviews with numbered scores for each aspect of the game (graphics, story etc) then you might force yourself into not enjoying it. The only downside to me comes if I think about what could have been if he did have time to add more levels and more story and perhaps the 2 player mode? Kinda pointless to consider but I like so much about the game I wish it was longer. This is also why I would have loved or have always wanted an HD remake, or a sequel or reboot.
|
|
|
Post by The Elite MYT on Jun 30, 2016 9:25:17 GMT
In fairness, the 2P mode would probably have run like ass. The game already pushes the Saturn pretty far, so two players would have been a bit too much. Perfect Dark, for example, is like a slideshow in co-op. But then, perhaps he envisioned something different for 2P? Who knows.
I definitely think this series could do with another title. Not necessarily a reboot, as there isn't enough story to justify rebooting, but another game would be awesome. Here's hoping Sega remembers they have other IPs that aren't Sonic....
|
|
|
Post by xDerekRx on Jun 30, 2016 23:51:20 GMT
Naka did say in his interview that there were certain elements that were hidden in the game because they may relate to Burning Rangers 2 storyline... so it was at least discussed. The 2 Player Mode: The link below has all the info we ever knew about the 2P mode. Apparently it was beyond buggy when Saturn Mag got a hold of it. It was also alot like the Nights 2P mode which was a simple but cool PVP mode. Still would have been a neat little addition but hardly anything groundbreaking. It would have been consistent with Nights features though. sost.emulationzone.org/burning_rangers/2player/index.htm
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,115
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jul 3, 2016 13:05:45 GMT
8/10 for Burning Rangers is much too generous; it's a rating based on what the game would have been like had it been finished rather than on what it actually is. It says a lot for the development team's level of inspiration that Burning Rangers is pretty fun and unique in spite of its unfinished state, but that doesn't change the fact that it is plainly unfinished. It's not just about glitchy graphics, which can of course be overlooked, or even there being so few levels that the game seems to climax almost as soon as it begins. The experience as a whole feels unrealized. This is most strongly felt in level 4, which has no fires or hostages to rescue, and thus basically consists of navigating through barren environments with no music; it feels like you're playing a demo for a graphics engine rather than a finished game. There's a good amount of fun to be had in Burning Rangers, and if your mind works that way it can be fun just to dream of what could have been if Yuji Naka and co. had had more time. But judged for what it is, it is not one of the Saturn's greats. All that said, I can't get behind Neo's assertion that the analog controller makes no difference. The difference is huge. You spend a considerable portion of Burning Rangers navigating the edges of three dimensional platforms, and the precision of the analog controller is perfectly suited for that. There are ways of getting around the limitations of the standard controller, but the experience can never be the same. Just because they could have done more if they had more time, doesn't mean that it's necessarily unfinished. You could say that about any game. Any game with more time could have more stuff. I think they did a good job with what little time they had. I can understand why people wouldn't like it, especially because of the length. And that's perfectly valid. But the game was made to be more of an arcade experience. I don't see any difference between this and something like Sega Rally. Both are insanely short, but replayability is the main thing. For Sega Rally it is time trials, for BR it is the randomised levels, finding survivors, and working on getting high grades/scores. People know Sega Rally is an actual arcade game, so it gets far more forgiveness than BR which many people expect more from - rightly or wrongly. Again, I can see perfectly why someone might think that BR is an incomplete game if they're expected a fleshed out story. Something that will take you a while, but when you're done, you're done. And that's fine. If replayability isn't for you, then BR will probably be not worth the cost. For people that do like replaying, BR's length isn't much of an issue. Sure, more would have been nice, but I could say the same about Sega Rally. Also I have to disagree about level 4. The levels all seem to have their own gimmick. The first is probably the most generic, as it is there to to just get used to using all your stuff. 2 has the water, 3 has the anti grav stuff, and the final is platforming and bosses. There aren't any survivors and not much fire, because there doesn't need to be. It's doing something different. Personally, the final level is probably my favourite. The eye boss is a pain, and the final boss can be a bit troll, but I love it. Can't really comment on the control stuff though. I can imagine it will help a lot with navigating the platforms, but you can deal with it by turning corners using the camera to make things easier. I rarely have much of an issue with that kinda thing. But until I get a 3D controller, I can't compare. Maybe there is a huge improvement. As I've already explained, Burning Rangers's unfinished quality goes well beyond its short length. Indeed, I'd say that the short length is both the least of the game's problems, and the one least likely to have been addressed had Sonic Team been given more time (their previous game, Nights into Dreams, is even shorter than Burning Rangers, despite having a more versatile concept). I'm aware that each of the four levels has a different theme, but they're all still at the drawing board for that theme, level 4 particularly so. Compare it to games like Dark Savior, Sonic 3D Blast, and Croc!, and you'll soon realize that level 4 of Burning Rangers is not in any way a fully realized platformer.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,115
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jul 3, 2016 14:17:03 GMT
Not accurate, though. Opinions are not personal; they are analyses of real world things which can be observed by more than one person. Thus opinions have both objective and subjective elements. Indeed, the very fact that you (or any of us) are bothering to debate these opinions illustrates that opinions are not merely personal or subjective. An opinion by definition cannot be completely objective, but it can certainly be more objective than another opinion. The definition of "objective" is: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The definition of "opinion" is: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." I agree that an opinion cannot be completely objective. This requires that a person step outside themselves and try to see the object of their opinion from a broader point of view. But because the person is still seeing through their eyes, it will always be skewed by their perspective, making it subjective by definition. As an example, when creating last year's The Top 20 PAL Saturn Games, I thought I was creating it from an objective point of view. That's why certain games I didn't think deserved to be on the list appeared. But when I released it, I received a lot of complaints about the order and selection of games because ultimately my choices were skewed by my perspective despite my intention. Going back to Neo's comment: Nothing wrong with having an objective opinion of the game my friend. You're just calling it purely as you see it. What I think he means is that there is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, which I agree with. But leidsekade's opinion is hardly objective because it's based on his experience with the game. It's simply a "fresh" perspective because he's played the game for the first time. I'm not saying his opinion is wrong either. What I'm saying is that this discussion and defense of Burning Rangers is subjective because we all have different personal experiences with the game. And because of that, we can learn to like or dislike (or not) certain elements of the game based on other people's experiences. Where it sort of becomes objective is where we find commonalities that most can agree upon (which is where I think this confusion stems from). But again, this is still subjective because it's all based on personal experiences and not everyone agrees with everyone else. This is hardly a bad thing either. If we all agreed on the same thing, it would make for a pretty dull forum, and indeed life. Sorry if I have derailed this topic. I just enjoy deep discussions like this. I'm not clear why you're quoting those definitions of objective and opinion, as they only support my comments. The "Top 20 PAL Saturn Games" example doesn't help you either; just because there was subjectivity involved in an opinion doesn't mean that that opinion is purely subjective, and it certainly doesn't mean that all opinions are purely subjective! As for the rest, you're going by an overly idealistic notion of opinions. You're assuming that in any difference of opinion, everyone involved will agree on the objective facts and that disagreements can only stem from differences in personal experience. In actuality, people often have biases, and because of those biases they deny the objective facts. As an example, suppose people have a difference of opinion on a game, and the frame rate comes up. (While I think that in general people make frame rate a much bigger deal than it really is, I'm going with it as an example because it's an element of a game that we can all agree is completely objective, even quantifiable.) Let's say the game runs at 20 frames per second in optimal situations, but frequently dips when the action gets intense, in some cases dropping to 5 frames per second (which makes the game a genuine struggle to play). Ideally, the person who likes the game would agree on this fact, and either accept that the game actually isn't that good, or argue that the game is still great in spite of the frame rate. In actuality, people in such a position often try to refute the objective facts. Some commonly used methods for doing so are: 1.Straight-up denial - "Sorry, you're wrong. The game consistently runs at over 30 frames per second." 2.Disproportionate assessment of the issue's importance - "The frame rate doesn't matter in a game like this (even though I've said that other games in the same narrow genre are complete garbage based solely on their frame rate)." 3.Hiding the game's negative aspect under its positive aspects - "The game has sophisticated graphical effects, high polygon counts, and lots of enemies. That it runs at 20 frames per second even some of the time is a major achievement." 4.Implying that extenuating circumstances somehow erase their own consequences - "The publishers only gave the development team six months to make the game, the lead programmer died of cancer halfway through, and at one point half the source code was destroyed by a spilled cup of coffee (and somehow all of this makes the game just as fun to play as if it were running at a solid 30 frames per second)." 5.Demanding proof of something that is evident even to a layman - "Can you prove that it's running at 5 frames per second and not 35 frames per second? (and please don't ask me to prove my side of the argument)" 6.Citing obviously untrustworthy sources as proof - "It says right in the (ad for the game/console manufacturer's official magazine/unsourced Wikipedia article/fan website) that the game runs at over 30 frames per second." Mind you, the above are just straight arguments of the case. People also get around objective facts by avoiding the issue entirely with ad hominem arguments, claims that all opinions are purely subjective, etc. And of course, methods like those above can also be used to deny objectively positive aspects of a game. The point is, again, while ideally people should all be equally objective (or from your perspective, equally subjective) in their opinions, in the real world subjectivity often subverts one's ability to recognize the objective facts.
|
|
martiniii
Joined: January 2010
Posts: 2,115
Location:
|
Post by martiniii on Jul 3, 2016 14:37:25 GMT
As I've been planning for some time, the other day I started up a second playthrough. Unfortunately, contrary to my expectations, I'm actually finding the game less enjoyable this time around. As noted in the previous Burning Rangers thread, I had assumed that the reason level 1 was such a pain in the rear for me was because I hadn't learned the mechanics of the game at that point. Replaying through the game, it's now apparent to me that the level is simply poorly designed. Not as poorly designed as level 3, but poorly designed nonetheless. Going from level 1 to level 2, you can really feel the improvement, and that's not a compliment to level 2.
Beyond that, I'm finding that I'm still torn about the game in general. Part of me wishes that we had gotten a polished sequel to this game, preferably on the Dreamcast (much as I dislike the console, I think the graphical style of Burning Rangers is much more suited to the Dreamcast than to the Saturn), so that we could really enjoy the Burning Rangers concept. But another part of me says, "What concept? All you do in this game is jump around, collect crystals, and shoot stationary enemies. There probably isn't a platformer in existence with less to it than that."
I am still driven to keep playing the game, though. Maybe it's just the graphics, and the fact that the game isn't challenging enough to be overly frustrating, but I am still playing.
|
|
|
Post by xDerekRx on Jul 3, 2016 21:29:10 GMT
Sorry to hear that martinii. Thought the 2nd time through would have been a game changer.
As I detailed (probably too much) in the BR thread last year, my 2nd playthrough made things more comfortable. In fact my 3rd playthrough I breezed through the game in one sitting. That was the night the game really clicked for me. Felt like I mastered new forms of flight that I didn't even know were possible on my first play through. It involved combo-ing certain moves mid air. Also on this playthrough I noticed so many more small graphical nuances that I loved. My favorite is probably the intro to the final boss where the walls breakdown. Its all done in game graphics (no fmv) and some of the effects are just stunning. I also had more fun with the boss battles and could appreciate them much more.
Although you could say a game shouldn't take 3 full runs to become enjoyable. I am not saying the game isnt flawed either since its a game that really takes mastering (in my opinion) of the game engine in order to fully appreciate. But I still maintain the brilliance is there, it just a tough game to get into. Its not really a pick up and play game which probably puts off quite a few these days.
All that said, still agree a DC sequel would have been awesome. BR is just too cool of a concept and the semi weird/dark anime story was something I wanted to see explored more.
EDIT: Just popped the game for a 4th playthrough, ran through the first 3 missions without any trouble. Actually even got much better on all of my grades as well. The continued challenge for me now with BR is certainly find everyone and try to Ace it.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jul 5, 2016 14:41:45 GMT
Dude likes the game.com, but doesn't like burning rangers. weird world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jul 6, 2016 4:39:11 GMT
All you do in this game is jump around, collect crystals, and shoot stationary enemies." Through your generalisation, are you claiming that all platformers are shit? Because all players do is jump around, collect crystals (or rings, or coins, etc), and shoot (or destroy) enemies in platformers. Are you claiming that some of the best games in videogame history are shit? Not all of the enemies in Burning Rangers are stationary, by the way. I've encountered enemies that move on some playthroughs and don't on others. I believe that's a bug in the game.
|
|
|
Post by xDerekRx on Jul 6, 2016 4:59:16 GMT
The game does lack a decent amount of enemies. But the fire itself was supposed to be the real enemy going all the way back to the games preview days. I remember only thinking, when looking in magazines pre-release, that it was 100% about the fires and putting them out. Although personally I wouldn't have minded a game with more big robots and such to shoot. I imagine that may have been planned. I think the game is a bit like Nights in that its more about score attack. You are racing against the clock (or fire % meter). Working for A grade is actually pretty fun. Also like Nights, the enemies are the bosses. This is where, even if you believe the its unfinished, the game shines. The bosses are quite awesome, and thankfully the final boss is ridiculously cool. The more I play the game I only really wish there were 2-3 more full levels with 2-3 more bosses. That alone would have really beefed it up. The levels are broken up into smaller ones so even just 2 more full missions would have been sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by tempest on Jul 6, 2016 5:16:41 GMT
The definition of "objective" is: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." The definition of "opinion" is: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." I agree that an opinion cannot be completely objective. This requires that a person step outside themselves and try to see the object of their opinion from a broader point of view. But because the person is still seeing through their eyes, it will always be skewed by their perspective, making it subjective by definition. As an example, when creating last year's The Top 20 PAL Saturn Games, I thought I was creating it from an objective point of view. That's why certain games I didn't think deserved to be on the list appeared. But when I released it, I received a lot of complaints about the order and selection of games because ultimately my choices were skewed by my perspective despite my intention. Going back to Neo's comment: What I think he means is that there is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, which I agree with. But leidsekade's opinion is hardly objective because it's based on his experience with the game. It's simply a "fresh" perspective because he's played the game for the first time. I'm not saying his opinion is wrong either. What I'm saying is that this discussion and defense of Burning Rangers is subjective because we all have different personal experiences with the game. And because of that, we can learn to like or dislike (or not) certain elements of the game based on other people's experiences. Where it sort of becomes objective is where we find commonalities that most can agree upon (which is where I think this confusion stems from). But again, this is still subjective because it's all based on personal experiences and not everyone agrees with everyone else. This is hardly a bad thing either. If we all agreed on the same thing, it would make for a pretty dull forum, and indeed life. Sorry if I have derailed this topic. I just enjoy deep discussions like this. I'm not clear why you're quoting those definitions of objective and opinion, as they only support my comments. The definitions were taken from Google for time's sake, but they get the point across. I can provide dictionary definitions if you desire. I agree that an opinion can be drawn from objective facts, but the opinion itself is subjective. If you have any knowledge of psychology, you will understand that a person's opinion and worldview is based on how that person has experienced the world. While objective facts can influence that experience, or not, as you mention, the facts alone don't form the opinion. The opinion is formed from past experience in relation to those facts, which can only be subjective. As for the rest, you're going by an overly idealistic notion of opinions. You're assuming that in any difference of opinion, everyone involved will agree on the objective facts and that disagreements can only stem from differences in personal experience. In actuality, people often have biases, and because of those biases they deny the objective facts. Obviously in an ideal situation, people will agree on the facts before forming their opinion. This is rarely the case, however, because people's emotions get involved and they come to see their opinions and biases as facts. This creates disagreements. Biases themselves are subjective. Yes, opinions (subjectivity) can be based on objective facts. A piece of toast is a piece of toast. Whether or not it is a good piece of toast is the opinion of the person eating it, their taste buds, what they ate before, etc. And that opinion can only be subjective because it's based on the individual experience (of what it tastes like, what previous pieces of toast have tasted like, etc) of that person. And experience, if you know your psychology, is entirely subjective. As an example, suppose people have a difference of opinion on a game, and the frame rate comes up. (While I think that in general people make frame rate a much bigger deal than it really is, I'm going with it as an example because it's an element of a game that we can all agree is completely objective, even quantifiable.) Let's say the game runs at 20 frames per second in optimal situations, but frequently dips when the action gets intense, in some cases dropping to 5 frames per second (which makes the game a genuine struggle to play). Ideally, the person who likes the game would agree on this fact, and either accept that the game actually isn't that good, or argue that the game is still great in spite of the frame rate. In actuality, people in such a position often try to refute the objective facts. Some commonly used methods for doing so are: 1.Straight-up denial - "Sorry, you're wrong. The game consistently runs at over 30 frames per second." 2.Disproportionate assessment of the issue's importance - "The frame rate doesn't matter in a game like this (even though I've said that other games in the same narrow genre are complete garbage based solely on their frame rate)." 3.Hiding the game's negative aspect under its positive aspects - "The game has sophisticated graphical effects, high polygon counts, and lots of enemies. That it runs at 20 frames per second even some of the time is a major achievement." 4.Implying that extenuating circumstances somehow erase their own consequences - "The publishers only gave the development team six months to make the game, the lead programmer died of cancer halfway through, and at one point half the source code was destroyed by a spilled cup of coffee (and somehow all of this makes the game just as fun to play as if it were running at a solid 30 frames per second)." 5.Demanding proof of something that is evident even to a layman - "Can you prove that it's running at 5 frames per second and not 35 frames per second? (and please don't ask me to prove my side of the argument)" 6.Citing obviously untrustworthy sources as proof - "It says right in the (ad for the game/console manufacturer's official magazine/unsourced Wikipedia article/fan website) that the game runs at over 30 frames per second." Something like a game's frame-rate being 5 or 30fps is an objective fact. Whether it effects the game is subjective. One person might find the game completely playable at 5fps, while others, probably the vast majority, will not. That doesn't make it an objective fact. It means a person's enjoyment of a game is based on their subjective experience of it, which will differ from another person's. Just because there is a general agreement about the opinion of a game, it doesn't make it a fact. It makes it a consensual opinion. While Saturn SEGA Rally runs at 30fps (objective fact), whether or not this is a good speed for the game to run at is subjective because some might argue that it's quite poor considering that the coin-op ran at 60fps. Again, you can base your opinion on objective facts - the Saturn's complex hardware, its trouble running racing games at smooth frame rates, etc. This demonstrates objectivity informing an opinion, but you only form that opinion because your experience playing Saturn racing games with poor frame rates has taught you that. Mind you, the above are just straight arguments of the case. People also get around objective facts by avoiding the issue entirely with ad hominem arguments, claims that all opinions are purely subjective, etc. And of course, methods like those above can also be used to deny objectively positive aspects of a game. The point is, again, while ideally people should all be equally objective (or from your perspective, equally subjective) in their opinions, in the real world subjectivity often subverts one's ability to recognize the objective facts. I agree that subjectivity can blind people to truths. It's why there are so many issues out in the world. If humans were completely objective, we would be robots. Because emotions play such a large role in our genetic make up, and since they can only be experienced on a personal, thus subjective, level, they make all aspects of experienced life subjective.
|
|
Le Roi
Saturn Gamer
Joined: April 2016
Posts: 231
Location:
|
Post by Le Roi on Jul 6, 2016 20:07:00 GMT
an opinion can be drawn from objective facts, but the opinion itself is subjective. Not sure how this thread turned into a grammar lesson, but this is the only sentence that matters
|
|
|
Post by Sonnington on Jul 7, 2016 1:31:21 GMT
I only skimmed through the discussion, but Martiniii is right.
Lets say I put a cookie jar on the floor with my 4 year old nephew and I leave the two of them there unsupervised. When I come back and see the jar is empty, my nephew might tell me the cookie monster ate them. Maybe I want to believe him that the cookie monster ate the cookies, but objectively the better opinion on what happened to the cookies is to assume my nephew ate the cookies. Opinions or conclusions can absolutely be more or less objective.
|
|