3 ms·

>objective flaws opinions are not objective

StrictDabbler 5y ago
He sets out a dispassionate approach to evaluating interactive gameplay as an art and craft over the first year or two of his blog while he's still dealing with the early Infocom games and such. He's drawing on the wisdom of Ron Gilbert, the Infocom inquisitors, and all the other interactive game designers who tried to get it right. If you follow through the whole series it becomes clear that this system is actually objective. It's not about opinions. When he says a game has puzzles that can't be solved using information in the game he's not expressing an opinion. He plays the game, finds the answer, checks if any part of the game supports that solution, reaches out to any living members of the design staff to talk about how the game was developed, and eventually he says "Quest for Glory IV was released in a broken state, and later patches fixed it only because the patch notes told you which part of the game had broken and what to do to work around it now that it was patched." He's objectively right. It doesn't matter that QFGIV is one of my favorite games of all time. The art, the music, the humor, the world-building, all are top notch and he gives those a nod. But the game is totally screwed up. That's objective. When he says Full Throttle has action sequences that have no clues as to correct behavior, where you have to figure out the correct actions and timing by extended trial-and-error, that's not an opinion. Full Throttle has those sequences, just like Dragon's Lair. That's objective. Just because you love something doesn't mean it's objectively well-made.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  No, it is not objective. He just failed to get the clues. In the second action sequence the player is told what to do twice: first in the briefing, and then he is given clear voice instructions what to do during the event itself. First action sequence is more difficult, but is solvable, too, once you understand that different weapons have different effect on enemies.

He sets out a dispassionate approach to evaluating interactive gameplay as an art and craft over the first year or two of his blog while he's still dealing with the early Infocom games and such. He's drawing on the wisdom of Ron Gilbert, the Infocom inquisitors, and all the other interactive game designers who tried to get it right. If you follow through the whole series it becomes clear that this system is actually objective. It's not about opinions. When he says a game has puzzles that can't be solved using information in the game he's not expressing an opinion. He plays the game, finds the answer, checks if any part of the game supports that solution, reaches out to any living members of the design staff to talk about how the game was developed, and eventually he says "Quest for Glory IV was released in a broken state, and later patches fixed it only because the patch notes told you which part of the game had broken and what to do to work around it now that it was patched." He's objectively right. It doesn't matter that QFGIV is one of my favorite games of all time. The art, the music, the humor, the world-building, all are top notch and he gives those a nod. But the game is totally screwed up. That's objective. When he says Full Throttle has action sequences that have no clues as to correct behavior, where you have to figure out the correct actions and timing by extended trial-and-error, that's not an opinion. Full Throttle has those sequences, just like Dragon's Lair. That's objective. Just because you love something doesn't mean it's objectively well-made.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
No, it is not objective. He just failed to get the clues. In the second action sequence the player is told what to do twice: first in the briefing, and then he is given clear voice instructions what to do during the event itself. First action sequence is more difficult, but is solvable, too, once you understand that different weapons have different effect on enemies.