Yooka-Laylee reviews are coming out and thoughts are ...mixed

[CaitSeith]

If a reviewer simply reviews a work based purely on their enjoyment, its not very informative to their readers. Sure, you know if they enjoyed it, but you'll usually have very little idea on whether you will, unless that reviewer has near identical tastes to you - and even then they'll usually differ in some key aspects.

I disagree. You don't need to have near identical tastes to the reviewer; you only need to know them (both your tastes and the reviewer's), and make sure the reviewer explains in detail what they liked/disliked and why.

You may not claiming to be asking for the 100% objective review, but you are very insistent on objective information as more informative and useful to the reader. That's a false assumption that expects the readers to know how to convert objective information into useful information. Unless you know something about game design, how does reading a review explaining in detail the design of the game help you in deciding to buy it or not? You have no frame of reference.

 

[CaitSeith]

Here's what was cut out for those who care

Spoiler

Is there a version without someone telling us how to feel about it?

 

[gsilver]

Having collected about 40 pages so far, I'll just say that never before have I wanted to like a game so much but just can't.
It's really the excessively large stages that are getting to me more than anything else, given how much searching over mostly empty terrain looking for another challenge.
I've only unlocked the first three worlds so far. The first was fine, but the 2nd and 3rd feel increasingly de-populated.


Then when I switch over to Snake Pass... Suddenly, I'm in a world where every bit of it feels important, and that kind of design is much better for me.

 

[Silvanus]

When you're statement is essentially "This is a perfect 90s platformer, but that's not a good thing" - I think its fair to say you don't like 90s platformers. MAYBE you did in the past, but you don't anymore.

As for modernisation, what modernisation are we talking about? Honestly up until the last couple years 4X games and RTS barely modernised past the late 90s, yet were still seen as pretty good. Outside of the camera, not much from a 90s 3D platformer needs 'modernising'. In fact, modernisation is exactly what Yooka-Laylee was funded to avoid; we've got Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts, the modern take on the series. It was not as well loved as the originals, for good reason. Needlessly changing things to be more 'modern' without considering your target audience is just stupid, and is one of the biggest complaints people have about the games industry in general; Thief games that go from being stealth to being action adventure because its more modern, X-Com originally going to re-release as a TPS because its more modern, the Total War series going with new 'modern' mechanics for their games, which are basically all round seen as stupid ideas.

Nuts and Bolts did not perform worse simply because it had modernised. It entirely changed the core gameplay mechanics and art style, and scarcely resembled the franchise's first two instalments. Nobody but nobody is arguing that we should modernise by throwing away everything that people loved about the older games.

Honestly, at this point more games and genres are seeing success by de-modernising and going back to their roots, where they initially found success. Why? Because it captures the core of why people loved the franchise, rather than trying to be a new hip mass appeal product that appeals to noone in particular.

Or, how about Assassin's Creed. Every game modernises and adds in some new mechanic that is almost always universally hated and seen as a useless waste of time. Should Yooka Laylee have done this? Honestly, it should have been docked more points had it lost focus of its core gameplay in order to try and bring some new stuff to the formula that didn't really fit.

...in your review, feel free to attribute points accordingly. A review is a reflection of that reviewer's experience with the game. If Jim prioritised differently, there's quite simply nothing to be said. You cannot argue that your metrics are somehow more valid and worthy of being in somebody else's review.

And again, Jim has not at any point given any example of a good modern take, or improvement. All he's said is that its a 90s platformer, they're not good.
Honestly this just screams a weak attempt to justify not liking a genre, rather than some actual problem that needs addressing. Nothing NEEDS to modernise to be good. It just needs to be well executed.

You've repeated this a number of times-- that he simply doesn't like the genre at all-- but it's just something you've cooked up. Disliking an example from a genre, or arguing that the genre had issues in the past, are in no way an indictment on that genre in its entirety. That simply does not logically follow.

Define blindingly obvious, because there are several statements in that review that are definitely intended as statements of fact, and they are written in the exact same style as these 'value judgements' you talk about. The difference isn't exactly so blinding, unless you perfectly agree with Jim and allow your own self-confirmation bias to make them so. A good writer would present the two differently so that it IS blindingly obvious which is which. Funnily enough, that's what my complaint is.

A value judgement is by definition subjective. It is literally impossible for it to be anything else. That is why it is unnecessary to state so specifically: Jim may as well be including a line to clarify that he's writing in the English language.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Well all I can say is I'm the target audience for the game, as a lover of 3D platformers and Banjo-Kazooie in paticular, and I bought the game and am enjoying myself immensely.

 

[Joccaren]

OoT would not have in any way been improved by removing Z targeting and adding a second analogue stick for controls. Hell, it would probably have been made worse.

Just no. Only one analog stick sucks for 3D games unless there's a fixed camera. If a 2nd analog stick makes 3D controls worse, then obviously there would be games without camera control on the right stick? But there ain't.

Perhaps finish reading next time. I noted that two sticks AND Z targeting is better, but removing Z targeting, even when adding a second stick, would make the game universally worse. Additionally, you are pretending all 3D games have the same controls, pacing and goals. This is wrong and short sighted. You design the controls to the game, not just copy paste a 3rd person shooter controls because Phoenixmgs says they're the best.

I disagree. You don't need to have near identical tastes to the reviewer; you only need to know them (both your tastes and the reviewer's), and make sure the reviewer explains in detail what they liked/disliked and why.

Yet they can't really explain in detail without being literate in games design to some level, as I've been saying the entire time. For example, Jim has tried to explain 'in detail' why he doesn't like Yooka Laylee. It all just repeats his first into statement and contains no extra information as he doesn't really understand the game genre or required design enough to actually point out where the weaknesses are. Those who enjoy the genre find it fairly obvious the information he's missing, because they are more literate in the genre, even if not to the extent needed to write in detail about it themselves.

You may not claiming to be asking for the 100% objective review, but you are very insistent on objective information as more informative and useful to the reader. That's a false assumption that expects the readers to know how to convert objective information into useful information. Unless you know something about game design, how does reading a review explaining in detail the design of the game help you in deciding to buy it or not? You have no frame of reference.

I'm insistent that a combination of subjective information and objective information is more informative to the reader than purely subjective information. I think that's fair enough. You are operating on the assumption that every single reader has 0 idea of any game design principles, and lacks the basic self awareness or intelligence to learn them from listening to reviewers. That, I'd say, is an extremely false assumption.

For one, many readers of reviews are at least partially literate in games design, especially in their own loved genres, from experience with the games in that genre, alongside others who've actually researched or studied game design. No, not all readers, but some, and they would be serviced by more objective information, while those who have no use for it would still lose nothing and have their subjective opinions to fall back on.

Furthermore, a reviewer explaining a game design principle and how it affects the experience actually teaches their readers and improves games literacy among them, rather than being entirely useless. While its still some level of controversial, ludonarrative dissonance. Its something very few people would really have known about before reading reviews that commented on it and how the new Bioshock didn't really match up to it - but the second they read the review most people understood what was being talked about as its pretty intuitive, its just something most don't think about. Its not some brick wall where you had to know game design principles about ludonarrative dissonance to understand the review; you learnt those principles from the review, and got more information because of it. And while many disagree that such a thing even exists, it has made those reviews more informative; if you don't think ludonarrative dissonance exists, you know that those criticisms won't apply to you, while if you do believe it exists then you know that they will. You gain more information about whether YOU will like the game, and why, rather than trying to divine "But a lot of the game just feels off, with the combat at times feeling out of place at certain points in the game" - what is the issue? Is it pacing? Is it level design? Is it poor communication because of the combat distracting from the main point? Is it ludonarrative dissonance?
Stating that it feels off, because it contrasts with the story moments about peace and avoiding fighting, before going on to massacre half a city, provides more information, plain and simple. Its explaining why you feel something, rather than just saying that you do. More literacy allows for this to happen more, and just benefits the review as a whole. No-one loses anything, more information for everyone.

Nuts and Bolts did not perform worse simply because it had modernised. It entirely changed the core gameplay mechanics and art style, and scarcely resembled the franchise's first two instalments. Nobody but nobody is arguing that we should modernise by throwing away everything that people loved about the older games.

Please define what modernisation would entail in this case then, because everything about the 90s platformers Jim seems to hate, and it needs to all change - art style, mechanics, core gameplay - in order to 'modernise' and become an acceptable game. Unless Jim's criticism isn't modernisation, but simply not liking the genre - as he himself has stated in the review.

...in your review, feel free to attribute points accordingly. A review is a reflection of that reviewer's experience with the game. If Jim prioritised differently, there's quite simply nothing to be said. You cannot argue that your metrics are somehow more valid and worthy of being in somebody else's review.

No, in everyone's review because they dock points for it in AC, it only makes sense to do the same when it happens in YL. Funnily enough, Jim himself docked points for minigames in YL, so adding in more pointless distractions would have docked more points entirely. I'm simply following how reviewers review here. I'm using their own metrics. Well, that assumes they even have any metrics - something I don't actually believe they do - but if they do, then following them, YL should have been reviewed lower had it included those silly side distractions like AC, for the same reasons AC was docked those points; it distracts from the core experience and was simply change for the sake of change that didn't address any of the issues with the formula, and didn't add anything to the experience overall, simply detracting from it. Not my opinion, the opinion of almost every review I've read about the new mechanics that get added to each AC game - though I'm sure there are some that praise them too.

You've repeated this a number of times-- that he simply doesn't like the genre at all-- but it's just something you've cooked up. Disliking an example from a genre, or arguing that the genre had issues in the past, are in no way an indictment on that genre in its entirety. That simply does not logically follow.

Disliking every single detail about a genre though? Outright stating that its a perfect rendition of that genre and that means its bad? Yeah, that's pretty clear evidence that you dislike the genre.
Unless you believe all 3D platformers are the exact same genre - which hint; they're not - him criticising literally everything about 90s platformers and outright stating that he thinks they're bad, is him saying that he dislikes the 90s platformer collectathon genre. He wasn't simply complaining about dated graphics and a bad camera. He complained about the very core gameplay of the genre. If that isn't an indictment of not liking the genre, I don't know what is. Pretend all you like that he loves 90s platformers, his review speaks for itself in this regard. He doesn't like them. He thinks they are bad. He outright says it at the start of his review. It doesn't get much more obvious than that, at this point its just being obtuse to try and avoid acknowledging a fault in the review that might weaken your position.

A value judgement is by definition subjective. It is literally impossible for it to be anything else. That is why it is unnecessary to state so specifically: Jim may as well be including a line to clarify that he's writing in the English language.

What is the writing difference between these two lines;
"Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be, but because the game is so terrible at visual communication."
and
"You don?t need many collectibles to unlock them, nor to upgrade them with expanded areas that create further exploration and add more pickups"

Which is the value judgement, which is the objective fact?
Both are written in the exact same style, same language, and using objective language. The review does not do anything to delineate between the two, despite containing both. The problem isn't in telling which value judgements are objective or subjective, but which are objective statements about the game, and which are value judgements.

Having played the game, and analysing its design, I know which is which. But just reading it without any experience with the game? No f***ing idea. That's my point. Its putting all of the onus on the reader to divine when the author is using their subjective opinion, and when they're being objective with facts, rather than the author actually changing their language slightly, using subjective words and phrasing, rather than the same objective tone and wording.
It ain't that hard.

 

[Joccaren]

Having collected about 40 pages so far, I'll just say that never before have I wanted to like a game so much but just can't.
It's really the excessively large stages that are getting to me more than anything else, given how much searching over mostly empty terrain looking for another challenge.
I've only unlocked the first three worlds so far. The first was fine, but the 2nd and 3rd feel increasingly de-populated.

If second and third are the Glacier and Swamp respectively, yeah, they are the more empty of the stages. The swamp does have a number of obvious challenges and characters, but until you're able to jump up to the higher areas they can be difficult to find as the level blocks the view of almost everything except the 5 square meter room you're currently in.
The Glacier is just short on meaningful characters in general, until you expand the world and enter the Icymetric castle, which has its own set of problems but is a much more condensed and designed experience.

I would also recommend going to the 4th and 5th stages ASAP, and just grabbing the abilities from them, as they unlock a bunch of additional challenges in both the hub world, and the individual grand tomes that you may not have realised existed before. They are not hard to get to, or unlock, you'll just need ~300 quills IIRC to unlock all of the remaining abilities.

The Casino, the fourth level, is also much more densely populated than either the swamp or the glacier, and it is much easier to find the challenges. Unfortunately the challenges can be a bit unimaginative at times, being simple slot machines to unlock enough 'coins' for around 4 pagies, but others are a bit more interesting.

The final level is sparsely populated in its unexpanded state, but it is very clear with where to go and what to do. I haven't expanded it yet to see how to grows with that, but it is a great looking world, just without a ton of pre-expanding content.

 

[Silvanus]

Please define what modernisation would entail in this case then, because everything about the 90s platformers Jim seems to hate, and it needs to all change - art style, mechanics, core gameplay - in order to 'modernise' and become an acceptable game. Unless Jim's criticism isn't modernisation, but simply not liking the genre - as he himself has stated in the review.

Uhrm... Jim did not complain about the art style or the core gameplay. The issues he described were poor camera control (which is something I would agree with), oversensitivity of controls, and level design.

Read the review again.

No, in everyone's review because they dock points for it in AC, it only makes sense to do the same when it happens in YL. Funnily enough, Jim himself docked points for minigames in YL, so adding in more pointless distractions would have docked more points entirely. I'm simply following how reviewers review here. I'm using their own metrics. Well, that assumes they even have any metrics - something I don't actually believe they do - but if they do, then following them, YL should have been reviewed lower had it included those silly side distractions like AC, for the same reasons AC was docked those points; it distracts from the core experience and was simply change for the sake of change that didn't address any of the issues with the formula, and didn't add anything to the experience overall, simply detracting from it. Not my opinion, the opinion of almost every review I've read about the new mechanics that get added to each AC game - though I'm sure there are some that praise them too.

You believe you understand his metric better than him? There is no objective comparison to be made between those two games, or how he experienced them, so you cannot possibly say that he complained about something vaguely similar in a completely different game, so he should dock points evenly. Perhaps he felt one was more adversely affected than the other. It's subjective. It's based entirely on personal experience.

Disliking every single detail about a genre though? Outright stating that its a perfect rendition of that genre and that means its bad? Yeah, that's pretty clear evidence that you dislike the genre.
Unless you believe all 3D platformers are the exact same genre - which hint; they're not - him criticising literally everything about 90s platformers and outright stating that he thinks they're bad, is him saying that he dislikes the 90s platformer collectathon genre. He wasn't simply complaining about dated graphics and a bad camera. He complained about the very core gameplay of the genre. If that isn't an indictment of not liking the genre, I don't know what is. Pretend all you like that he loves 90s platformers, his review speaks for itself in this regard. He doesn't like them. He thinks they are bad. He outright says it at the start of his review. It doesn't get much more obvious than that, at this point its just being obtuse to try and avoid acknowledging a fault in the review that might weaken your position.

No, he didn't. Read it again. He simply did not complain about the very core gameplay of 3D platformers.

What is the writing difference between these two lines;
"Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be, but because the game is so terrible at visual communication."
and
"You don?t need many collectibles to unlock them, nor to upgrade them with expanded areas that create further exploration and add more pickups"

Which is the value judgement, which is the objective fact?
Both are written in the exact same style, same language, and using objective language. The review does not do anything to delineate between the two, despite containing both. The problem isn't in telling which value judgements are objective or subjective, but which are objective statements about the game, and which are value judgements.

Neither is the "objective fact". Both are value judgements. In the first statement, the use of "many", "tricky", and "terrible" are inherently subjective. In the second statement, the use of "many" is also a personal call.

Neither use "objective language". I can only really conclude that you don't properly understand how that facet of language works.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

So, are you ready to get your hands dirty and deconstruct reviews? Or you want to pull out more theoretical examples? Because not even Jim states ludonarrative dissonance like that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

OoT would not have in any way been improved by removing Z targeting and adding a second analogue stick for controls. Hell, it would probably have been made worse.

Just no. Only one analog stick sucks for 3D games unless there's a fixed camera. If a 2nd analog stick makes 3D controls worse, then obviously there would be games without camera control on the right stick? But there ain't.

Perhaps finish reading next time. I noted that two sticks AND Z targeting is better, but removing Z targeting, even when adding a second stick, would make the game universally worse. Additionally, you are pretending all 3D games have the same controls, pacing and goals. This is wrong and short sighted. You design the controls to the game, not just copy paste a 3rd person shooter controls because Phoenixmgs says they're the best.

My fault, I did read your post a bit too fast. I don't think I've ever found gameplay that relies heavily on a lock-on mechanic to ever be very compelling. Sure, it's fine for an option on an easy difficulty for those that just wanna play through the game.

 

[Joccaren]

Please define what modernisation would entail in this case then, because everything about the 90s platformers Jim seems to hate, and it needs to all change - art style, mechanics, core gameplay - in order to 'modernise' and become an acceptable game. Unless Jim's criticism isn't modernisation, but simply not liking the genre - as he himself has stated in the review.

Uhrm... Jim did not complain about the art style or the core gameplay. The issues he described were poor camera control (which is something I would agree with), oversensitivity of controls, and level design.

Read the review again.

He complained about the voice acting and design choices there, artistic style choices. He complained about the simplistic combat, the puzzles, the minecart rides, transformations... There isn't a thing he doesn't complain about.
Hell, he even directly states "Dated mechanics".

If it were just camera and controls, yeah, sure. It isn't. Every last detail he complains about, including the core gameplay of the genre.

You believe you understand his metric better than him? There is no objective comparison to be made between those two games, or how he experienced them, so you cannot possibly say that he complained about something vaguely similar in a completely different game, so he should dock points evenly. Perhaps he felt one was more adversely affected than the other. It's subjective. It's based entirely on personal experience.

I have read his metrics, and what he has said he rates based on. How he has rated YL does not actually match what he describes for his ratings of '2'.
Additionally, this is why we have somewhat objective REASONS for our decisions. Simply subjective stuff is entirely useless, as again, we have no idea why Jim rates anything any way for any reason, thus no information can be gained from his reviews. If there is some objective level to what he is saying - there is some actual reason for his feelings beyond "Oh, I just feel bad" - then we can apply that REASON to other games. Its not just about the same mechanics being used in different games, its about the reasons why that mechanic doesn't work. If those same reasons apply to different games - then they should still dock points for the same reasons. If you have no consistent reasons, you simply don't understand what you're reviewing well enough, and you're not giving any information to those you're reviewing to unless they have exactly the same tastes as you - which just doesn't happen.
I also don't say you should dock points evenly, simply that points should still be docked. Depending on the extent of implementation depends on the 'evenly' part, as implementation can be different. Simply that criticisms that apply to one game, also apply to other games.

No, he didn't. Read it again. He simply did not complain about the very core gameplay of 3D platformers.

Hmm, let me see...
"With its dated mechanics..."
"Combat is brainless, consisting of tapping a single button while enemies walk thoughtlessly into your attacks"
"Additionally, the game is drowning in Quillies, or Quills, or whatever. They?re more contrived bits of magical bullshit you pick up..." - among other similar complaints about the idea of collecting things.
"Some of these moves are crucial to acquiring new Pagies, although the game doesn?t always tell you what moves are needed and when." - oh gee, solving puzzles, how terrible.
"This is to say nothing of the awful minigames, none of which feel particularly optional since they all award Pagies"
With bonus points for: "There are several ?retro? arcade games that couldn?t even be bothered to use new character models to make anything look retro and take the form of piss-poor racing games or shooters. I don?t know why creating games that actually looked and felt like retro games was too big an ask for Playtonic, but it?s jarring (and creatively barren) to feature a bunch of ?arcade? games that look just like the regular game." - artistic design complaints.
"Don?t get me started on the minecart rides, which feel almost arbitrary in how poorly placed the enemies and traps are, or the transformations in which Yooka and Laylee combine to form an animal or vehicle that?s even more of a pain in the ass to maneuver than they are." - and, having played these sections, I can easily say Jim is just bad at the game, there is not any level design issues here.
"Sometimes the game can?t even be bothered to be a game and instead forces a memory quiz on the player, demanding they answer nonsense questions about the things they?ve picked up and characters they?ve met."
This is without going into more paragraphs complaining about artistic design choices and etc.
So, again, please tell me how he only complains about the camera and controls, not the gameplay. Please.
Or maybe re-read the review yourself. He complains about quite literally everything to do with the game except the music. In fact, here's another delightful quote;
"About the only truly competent work on display is the music, which at least does a great job of balancing nostalgia with quality"

Neither is the "objective fact". Both are value judgements. In the first statement, the use of "many", "tricky", and "terrible" are inherently subjective. In the second statement, the use of "many" is also a personal call.

Neither use "objective language". I can only really conclude that you don't properly understand how that facet of language works.

Then quite literally everything anyone has ever said in the history of everything is a value judgement and entirely subjective. A stove top isn't hot, that's a purely subjective statement. The sun isn't bright, that's just subjective. If something says; "Warning, hot" that's not an adequate warning of danger, because that's a purely subjective statement, and it needs to say explicitly "Warning; 400 Celsius" in order to do so.
Get real. The first, yes, is a value judgement. The second is an objective statement seeing as we are using a concept of relativity in it - there is not many collectibles in comparison to the total number.

If we're talking objective language:
"The game IS so terrible at visual communication", or even "Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be," when you understand that "Many" literally just means more than one, and is not a subjective statement seeing as he is not saying that the majority are, simply that more than one or two - it also explicitly states that the issue is a design issue, not an issue with him, the player, struggling to understand what to do. "Are tricky" is also shorthand for "Derives their difficulty from" - again, an objective statement.

The second one is also quite obvious, when we again note that "Not many" isn't a subjective "Oh, its only 3 or 4", but is a relative term indicating that compared to all 125 pagies, a relatively low number are required for each unlock. This not need be exactly measured to be objective, 10 compared to 125 is relatively "Not many".

Outside this, I also believe that "Not many required to unlock" is even intended to be an entirely objective statement, while the one beforehand is... Less clear. I can't tell whether Jim intends to say that objectively the game is bad at visual communication, or whether he himself failed to read the game's visual communication. Again, use of one or two different words can make this a lot clearer.

You pretend that there is only one way to read a certain word or phrase, while there is not. Hence my statement that differentiating them clearly is a better way of writing the review than treating all statements as the same.

So, are you ready to get your hands dirty and deconstruct reviews? Or you want to pull out more theoretical examples? Because not even Jim states ludonarrative dissonance like that.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.
Yeah, sure, I'm happy to go through some reviews, my entire point is that Jim doesn't say anything that could give readers extra information like that though. I know Jim doesn't state ludonarrative dissonance, I'm saying that he should use similar phrases that give extra information as to the reasons why he felt something, rather than just saying he did or didn't. I feel like you're missing that, or think I'm saying something else entirely...

My fault, I did read your post a bit too fast. I don't think I've ever found gameplay that relies heavily on a lock-on mechanic to ever be very compelling. Sure, it's fine for an option on an easy difficulty for those that just wanna play through the game.

Fair enough, though I will say generally the mechanic is used to best effect when you're not meant to focus on aiming in the game, but on other mechanics - like in Zelda, where mobility is more important than aiming, and reacting to enemy attack patterns and using the right equipment yourself, more like an MMO. This reduction on the focus of aiming in the battle means that more focus can be placed on the other aspects of it. When aiming itself is a key component of the challenge in an action - such as aiming at a target, or switch, or some boss's weak points - then lock on will not be available, or if it is it won't guarantee you a hit.

 

[Silvanus]

Then quite literally everything anyone has ever said in the history of everything is a value judgement and entirely subjective. A stove top isn't hot, that's a purely subjective statement. The sun isn't bright, that's just subjective. If something says; "Warning, hot" that's not an adequate warning of danger, because that's a purely subjective statement, and it needs to say explicitly "Warning; 400 Celsius" in order to do so.
Get real. The first, yes, is a value judgement. The second is an objective statement seeing as we are using a concept of relativity in it - there is not many collectibles in comparison to the total number.

Those are value judgements. It's getting quite obvious now that you do not understand the difference.

"The water is hot" -- this is subjective, because "hot" requires a frame of reference, which exists solely within the speaker-- or in other words, is not self-evident in the object.

"The water is 100 celsius"-- this is objective. It relies only on a universal frame of reference. All information is demonstrable, with the object alone.

So, no, it's clear that not "literally everything" said is subjective. The requirements are that all the information necessary rests in the object, with none in the subject, or the speaker. That's how the terminology works. Once we've got over this, we can address the rest.

If we're talking objective language:
"The game IS so terrible at visual communication", or even "Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be," when you understand that "Many" literally just means more than one, and is not a subjective statement seeing as he is not saying that the majority are, simply that more than one or two - it also explicitly states that the issue is a design issue, not an issue with him, the player, struggling to understand what to do. "Are tricky" is also shorthand for "Derives their difficulty from" - again, an objective statement.

The second one is also quite obvious, when we again note that "Not many" isn't a subjective "Oh, its only 3 or 4", but is a relative term indicating that compared to all 125 pagies, a relatively low number are required for each unlock. This not need be exactly measured to be objective, 10 compared to 125 is relatively "Not many".

Outside this, I also believe that "Not many required to unlock" is even intended to be an entirely objective statement, while the one beforehand is... Less clear. I can't tell whether Jim intends to say that objectively the game is bad at visual communication, or whether he himself failed to read the game's visual communication. Again, use of one or two different words can make this a lot clearer.

You pretend that there is only one way to read a certain word or phrase, while there is not. Hence my statement that differentiating them clearly is a better way of writing the review than treating all statements as the same.

You have merely made a certain assumption about how "many" and "not ready" are supposed to be read. That information is not in the object.

 

[Joccaren]

Those are value judgements. It's getting quite obvious now that you do not understand the difference.

"The water is hot" -- this is subjective, because "hot" requires a frame of reference, which exists solely within the speaker-- or in other words, is not self-evident in the object.

"The water is 100 celsius"-- this is objective. It relies only on a universal frame of reference. All information is demonstrable, with the object alone.

So, no, it's clear that not "literally everything" said is subjective. The requirements are that all the information necessary rests in the object, with none in the subject, or the speaker. That's how the terminology works. Once we've got over this, we can address the rest.

We are talking about completely different things with water being hot, and something like lava being hot. Again, you focus on purely on possible meaning of a phrase, not at all paying attention to shorthand. When I want to tell someone that there is a sharp object ahead, and they could cut themselves, I don't say "The object ahead has a width of 0.01mm at its tip", I say "That object is sharp".
We say a thousand objective things every day, without using scientific measurements and numerical values. Hell, in ancient Greece and places like that, many of the measurements we take for granted every day were impossible and did not exist - were they incapable of being objective?
No, they were capable of being objective, you seem to, however, be using a different or very strange definition of objective compared to me. To clarify; "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
This says nothing about requiring numerical numbers, or any such thing. It merely states that you present things as fact uninfluenced by your personal feelings or opinions. If we want to get pedantic, absolutely everything is influenced by our personal opinions and feelings, including whether we view that mark on the ruler as a 3 or a 4 because of our subjective judgement about where it sits when our eyes and other technology are not adequately tuned to provide us a better level of information, and the decisions we make when we program our new technological measurements on how they should handle this uncertainty, is all subjective and since we do not actually have perfectly accurate measurements of every last minutiae in the universe, we are incapable of being objective as we are incapable of objectively measuring them and need subjective standards in order to do so, thus being unable to actually determine all of the information from an object itself and requiring a subjective interpretation to give us that information.

Now, of course, we make an exception to that and say that we don't need to be perfectly accurate. We can be inaccurate, and still be objective. When we do this, 'inaccurate' terms such as "Hot" to describe high temperatures, which we don't know exactly how high, but relative to the frame of reference we are using are high, becomes an objective term. Yes, it is a higher temperature that the frame of reference, hence it is hotter. We don't need to know it is 10.0134859978277111122334228959167249721 ect degrees Kelvin higher to be able to talk about it being objectively hot.

We can break this down further and further if we want, however at this point it is apparent you are narrowing down the idea of objective far below how it is actually used in the English language. If you'd like, I could find another word that means pretty much the same thing, that you can't break down in the same manner - however I'm hoping that is irrelevant and rather than going on and on about whether we can objectively state that something is sharp, or hot, or bright, or whether we have to actually measure it with tools that don't even exist yet in some cases and are as arbitrary in their scales as 'hot' and cold', and then write that down and specify the exact detailed number, we can actually get back to the main point of this whole thing.

You have merely made a certain assumption about how "many" and "not ready" are supposed to be read. That information is not in the object.

Then we hit a road block where language itself is subjective. None of the information of language is in the object. Its all interpreted by the person, with multiple different definitions and meanings and levels of subjectivity for every word.
Yet we can still write 'objective' pieces. How?
Quite simply, because at this point you're just trying to narrow down the idea of objectivity to where it is useless and doesn't exist, and the actual use of the word does not reflect what you are saying.

And again, ignoring all that; we can interpret Jim's statements in multiple ways. Clarifying the way in which they are meant to be interpreted would be better writing. Oh look, no "Objective" or "Subjective" to nitpick. I'm going to guess this, the main point of the whole thing, will be ignored in favour of arguing irrelevant details into oblivion and redefining the use of words, because that serves the conversation so much better than actually paying attention to the main point. I mean, that'd mean information might be exchanged. No, no, the whole point of a conversation is to win right? Not to exchange information and foster understanding. That'd just be silly.

 

[Silvanus]

We are talking about completely different things with water being hot, and something like lava being hot. Again, you focus on purely on possible meaning of a phrase, not at all paying attention to shorthand. When I want to tell someone that there is a sharp object ahead, and they could cut themselves, I don't say "The object ahead has a width of 0.01mm at its tip", I say "That object is sharp".
We say a thousand objective things every day, without using scientific measurements and numerical values. Hell, in ancient Greece and places like that, many of the measurements we take for granted every day were impossible and did not exist - were they incapable of being objective?
No, they were capable of being objective, you seem to, however, be using a different or very strange definition of objective compared to me. To clarify; "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
This says nothing about requiring numerical numbers, or any such thing. It merely states that you present things as fact uninfluenced by your personal feelings or opinions. If we want to get pedantic, absolutely everything is influenced by our personal opinions and feelings, including whether we view that mark on the ruler as a 3 or a 4 because of our subjective judgement about where it sits when our eyes and other technology are not adequately tuned to provide us a better level of information, and the decisions we make when we program our new technological measurements on how they should handle this uncertainty, is all subjective and since we do not actually have perfectly accurate measurements of every last minutiae in the universe, we are incapable of being objective as we are incapable of objectively measuring them and need subjective standards in order to do so, thus being unable to actually determine all of the information from an object itself and requiring a subjective interpretation to give us that information.

Yet again, those statements are not objective. A statement does not need to be objective to be useful information, or to be widely understandable-- both of which the "sharp object" comment are. Of course it would be understood by the recipient! Of course you don't require numerical values, and the listener will know what you mean! That's the result of shared understanding-- but that shared understanding still exists within the subject, not the object.

That is not what objective and subjective mean. This is not a "strange definition"; it is literally the meaning of the terms. I don't understand why you would think these terms synonymous with information that is merely broadly understood, or useful.

===

You do not need absolute precision to be objective; you merely need to rely only on information that is demonstrable from the object itself, and on other universal metrics. "The water is 100 degrees" is an objective statement even if the water is 102 degrees, because it assumes absolutely no knowledge specific to the listener, relying only on a demonstrable metric (degrees celsius) and a demonstrable characteristic of the object (the water).

Now, of course, we make an exception to that and say that we don't need to be perfectly accurate. We can be inaccurate, and still be objective. When we do this, 'inaccurate' terms such as "Hot" to describe high temperatures, which we don't know exactly how high, but relative to the frame of reference we are using are high, becomes an objective term. Yes, it is a higher temperature that the frame of reference, hence it is hotter. We don't need to know it is 10.0134859978277111122334228959167249721 ect degrees Kelvin higher to be able to talk about it being objectively hot.

...There is no universal frame of reference. There is shared understanding, but that is not objective. There are also universal, demonstrable metrics, such as degrees celsius or fahrenheit. Since they are demonstrable, and rely on no pre-existing knowledge on the part of the subject, they may be used in objective statements.

Then we hit a road block where language itself is subjective. None of the information of language is in the object. Its all interpreted by the person, with multiple different definitions and meanings and levels of subjectivity for every word.
Yet we can still write 'objective' pieces. How?
Quite simply, because at this point you're just trying to narrow down the idea of objectivity to where it is useless and doesn't exist, and the actual use of the word does not reflect what you are saying.

This is as nonsensical and untrue as it was last time. Obviously we use objective statements frequently; every time we make factual scientific claims, or mathematical equations. The entire purpose of the distinction is to distinguish such statements from the kind we make much more frequently, which rely to some degree on specific understanding of the listener-- or the subject. It's in the term.

And again, ignoring all that; we can interpret Jim's statements in multiple ways. Clarifying the way in which they are meant to be interpreted would be better writing. Oh look, no "Objective" or "Subjective" to nitpick. I'm going to guess this, the main point of the whole thing, will be ignored in favour of arguing irrelevant details into oblivion and redefining the use of words, because that serves the conversation so much better than actually paying attention to the main point. I mean, that'd mean information might be exchanged. No, no, the whole point of a conversation is to win right? Not to exchange information and foster understanding. That'd just be silly.

I'd love to foster understanding. Fostering understanding is not served by accusing somebody of failing to clarify, when that clarification is already inherent in the English language, and thus need not be given. You are the one who assumed bad faith in the first place.

 

[Joccaren]

Yet again, those statements are not objective. A statement does not need to be objective to be useful information, or to be widely understandable-- both of which the "sharp object" comment are. Of course it would be understood by the recipient! Of course you don't require numerical values, and the listener will know what you mean! That's the result of shared understanding-- but that shared understanding still exists within the subject, not the object.

That is not what objective and subjective mean. This is not a "strange definition"; it is literally the meaning of the terms. I don't understand why you would think these terms synonymous with information that is merely broadly understood, or useful.

You do not need absolute precision to be objective; you merely need to rely only on information that is demonstrable from the object itself, and on other universal metrics. "The water is 100 degrees" is an objective statement even if the water is 102 degrees, because it assumes absolutely no knowledge specific to the listener, relying only on a demonstrable metric (degrees celsius) and a demonstrable characteristic of the object (the water).

For the definition, its from the dictionary. That IS what subjective and objective mean.

As for the 'need not be accurate' - then again, "Sharp" is fine. Sharp is self evident in the object. It is capable of cutting something, or it has a fine tip, it is therefore sharp. Hot is also self evident. Objects themselves have melting and boiling points, and if you want a fun definition, in manufacturing 'hot' refers to anything at or above its recrystalisation temperature. 'cold' is anything beneath. This is entirely based in the object itself, therefore 'hot' and 'cold' are objective terms.

You, again, try to narrow the definition to a point where it is not useful, because nothing is entirely self evident without some form of reference frame from just an object. "The water is 100 degrees" relies on a subject understanding the celsius scale, as well as that scale existing - which is is based on the reference frame of water and its boiling and freezing points in certain standard conditions. Without the subject knowing what a 'degree' is and having that shared understanding, we cannot state that the object is 100 degrees. We can state next to nothing about it, in all honesty, because again it all comes back to language that refers to abstract concepts and reference frames that need to be understood by the subject.

And no, I'm not trying to consider objective as broadly understood, or useful, information. It is used, funnily enough, to convey unbiased information, information not subject to opinions. Funnily enough, we can still convey this information through words like "Hot", "Cold", "Sharp" and such. You are drawing arbitrary lines about what you consider to be information that can be derived purely from the object itself. Almost nothing actually can be, it all requires outside clarification of some kind.

...There is no universal frame of reference. There is shared understanding, but that is not objective. There are also universal, demonstrable metrics, such as degrees celsius or fahrenheit. Since they are demonstrable, and rely on no pre-existing knowledge on the part of the subject, they may be used in objective statements.

Actually, Celsius is actually a frame of reference, as is fahreinheit, Kelvin, and everything else. They are all relative to a certain reference frame, and as stated above, for Celsius that is the boiling and freezing temperatures of water at standard conditions.
Without a frame of reference, you quite literally have nothing. Everything is relative. If you say something is going 100 Km/h, that is in reference to some arbitrary point you are defining as '0'. None of this is actually demonstratable without a subject to refer to in order to give us this reference frame. No, not even Kelvin, Fahrenheit or Celsius. It is all relative to some subject outside of the object you are refering to. None of it is self evident purely from the object itself, none of it is demonstratable without that outside subject - and 'hot' and 'cold' are also easily demonstratable too, as is 'sharp' and everything else.

This also isn't going into the fact that those demonstrations rely on subjective interpretations, thanks to lack of perfect accuracy, so again our 'demonstratable' 100 degrees Celsuis is actually determined by the subject and how they interpret the measuring device that gives them information. 'Demonstratable' relies entirely on the experience of the subject, hence making it subjective. It is not evident of itself in any practicable way.

This is as nonsensical and untrue as it was last time. Obviously we use objective statements frequently; every time we make factual scientific claims, or mathematical equations. The entire purpose of the distinction is to distinguish such statements from the kind we make much more frequently, which rely to some degree on specific understanding of the listener-- or the subject. It's in the term.

So, again, you're narrowing the only things that can exist as 'objective' to numerical values.
This is not how 'objective' is used, or understood to be used.
Additionally, the distinction between scientific and mathematical statements and normal statements already exists and has other words; scientifically and mathematically. Objective, as a word, expands beyond simply this. You again simply try to narrow the phrase down to arbitrary limits of what is 'self evident' or not, without a good set of reasoning why.

I'd love to foster understanding. Fostering understanding is not served by accusing somebody of failing to clarify, when that clarification is already inherent in the English language, and thus need not be given. You are the one who assumed bad faith in the first place.

Except where that clarification isn't already inherent in the English language. He is presenting things he intends to present as facts in the same way he presents things intended to be presented as opinions. There is no instant distinction between the two - whether you want to argue about 'objective' and 'subjective' or not. Again, you keep trying to dodge around the main idea and issue, and argue semantics. There are two different types of information Jim is trying to portray, and he portrays them in exactly the same way, leading to a lack of clarity in some parts of his work. I don't care whether you want to call the different types 'objective' and 'subjective' or 'opinion' and 'fact' or anything else as you cycle through a dictionary/thesaurus to find the word most semantically correct to use, they are different types of information, they are presented the same way. Lack of clarity.

I also love 'assumed bad faith'. Hardly. I don't mean Jim intends to make his review lack clarity. It simply does. If anything I've assumed incompetence in this specific case, rather than bad faith.
Considering everything in this discussion so far, and your obvious skim reading of even Jim's own review, I'm not surprised we're missing this though. Assumptions are so much easier to make, and arguing semantics is a great red herring to distract from them.

And once again, nothing done to discuss that, or the core idea behind all of this - simply more semantics arguments about objective and subjective. Skipping over the main point to argue semantics - I guess I really shouldn't expect anything less.

 

[Silvanus]

Spoiler: Snip

Yet again, those statements are not objective. A statement does not need to be objective to be useful information, or to be widely understandable-- both of which the "sharp object" comment are. Of course it would be understood by the recipient! Of course you don't require numerical values, and the listener will know what you mean! That's the result of shared understanding-- but that shared understanding still exists within the subject, not the object.

That is not what objective and subjective mean. This is not a "strange definition"; it is literally the meaning of the terms. I don't understand why you would think these terms synonymous with information that is merely broadly understood, or useful.

You do not need absolute precision to be objective; you merely need to rely only on information that is demonstrable from the object itself, and on other universal metrics. "The water is 100 degrees" is an objective statement even if the water is 102 degrees, because it assumes absolutely no knowledge specific to the listener, relying only on a demonstrable metric (degrees celsius) and a demonstrable characteristic of the object (the water).

For the definition, its from the dictionary. That IS what subjective and objective mean.

As for the 'need not be accurate' - then again, "Sharp" is fine. Sharp is self evident in the object. It is capable of cutting something, or it has a fine tip, it is therefore sharp. Hot is also self evident. Objects themselves have melting and boiling points, and if you want a fun definition, in manufacturing 'hot' refers to anything at or above its recrystalisation temperature. 'cold' is anything beneath. This is entirely based in the object itself, therefore 'hot' and 'cold' are objective terms.

You, again, try to narrow the definition to a point where it is not useful, because nothing is entirely self evident without some form of reference frame from just an object. "The water is 100 degrees" relies on a subject understanding the celsius scale, as well as that scale existing - which is is based on the reference frame of water and its boiling and freezing points in certain standard conditions. Without the subject knowing what a 'degree' is and having that shared understanding, we cannot state that the object is 100 degrees. We can state next to nothing about it, in all honesty, because again it all comes back to language that refers to abstract concepts and reference frames that need to be understood by the subject.

And no, I'm not trying to consider objective as broadly understood, or useful, information. It is used, funnily enough, to convey unbiased information, information not subject to opinions. Funnily enough, we can still convey this information through words like "Hot", "Cold", "Sharp" and such. You are drawing arbitrary lines about what you consider to be information that can be derived purely from the object itself. Almost nothing actually can be, it all requires outside clarification of some kind.

...There is no universal frame of reference. There is shared understanding, but that is not objective. There are also universal, demonstrable metrics, such as degrees celsius or fahrenheit. Since they are demonstrable, and rely on no pre-existing knowledge on the part of the subject, they may be used in objective statements.

Actually, Celsius is actually a frame of reference, as is fahreinheit, Kelvin, and everything else. They are all relative to a certain reference frame, and as stated above, for Celsius that is the boiling and freezing temperatures of water at standard conditions.
Without a frame of reference, you quite literally have nothing. Everything is relative. If you say something is going 100 Km/h, that is in reference to some arbitrary point you are defining as '0'. None of this is actually demonstratable without a subject to refer to in order to give us this reference frame. No, not even Kelvin, Fahrenheit or Celsius. It is all relative to some subject outside of the object you are refering to. None of it is self evident purely from the object itself, none of it is demonstratable without that outside subject - and 'hot' and 'cold' are also easily demonstratable too, as is 'sharp' and everything else.

This also isn't going into the fact that those demonstrations rely on subjective interpretations, thanks to lack of perfect accuracy, so again our 'demonstratable' 100 degrees Celsuis is actually determined by the subject and how they interpret the measuring device that gives them information. 'Demonstratable' relies entirely on the experience of the subject, hence making it subjective. It is not evident of itself in any practicable way.

This is as nonsensical and untrue as it was last time. Obviously we use objective statements frequently; every time we make factual scientific claims, or mathematical equations. The entire purpose of the distinction is to distinguish such statements from the kind we make much more frequently, which rely to some degree on specific understanding of the listener-- or the subject. It's in the term.

So, again, you're narrowing the only things that can exist as 'objective' to numerical values.
This is not how 'objective' is used, or understood to be used.
Additionally, the distinction between scientific and mathematical statements and normal statements already exists and has other words; scientifically and mathematically. Objective, as a word, expands beyond simply this. You again simply try to narrow the phrase down to arbitrary limits of what is 'self evident' or not, without a good set of reasoning why.

I'd love to foster understanding. Fostering understanding is not served by accusing somebody of failing to clarify, when that clarification is already inherent in the English language, and thus need not be given. You are the one who assumed bad faith in the first place.

Except where that clarification isn't already inherent in the English language. He is presenting things he intends to present as facts in the same way he presents things intended to be presented as opinions. There is no instant distinction between the two - whether you want to argue about 'objective' and 'subjective' or not. Again, you keep trying to dodge around the main idea and issue, and argue semantics. There are two different types of information Jim is trying to portray, and he portrays them in exactly the same way, leading to a lack of clarity in some parts of his work. I don't care whether you want to call the different types 'objective' and 'subjective' or 'opinion' and 'fact' or anything else as you cycle through a dictionary/thesaurus to find the word most semantically correct to use, they are different types of information, they are presented the same way. Lack of clarity.

I also love 'assumed bad faith'. Hardly. I don't mean Jim intends to make his review lack clarity. It simply does. If anything I've assumed incompetence in this specific case, rather than bad faith.
Considering everything in this discussion so far, and your obvious skim reading of even Jim's own review, I'm not surprised we're missing this though. Assumptions are so much easier to make, and arguing semantics is a great red herring to distract from them.

And once again, nothing done to discuss that, or the core idea behind all of this - simply more semantics arguments about objective and subjective. Skipping over the main point to argue semantics - I guess I really shouldn't expect anything less.

This is a useless back-and-forth, as we've both stated our positions more than once.

Quite fundamentally, you do not understand what objectivity and subjectivity actually are. The notion that somebody must preface an opinion in order for us not to misconstrue it as a statement of fact is so self-evidently unsustainable, that such should not need to be pointed out. It's unworkable. It would make common parlance impossible.

I look forward to your efforts to explain objectively-- through demonstrable information only, no shared understanding! -- that the water is "hot", when you are referring to it being a comfortable heat for a bath, and the listener intends to make a boiling cup of tea.

I'm out.

 

[Joccaren]

This is a useless back-and-forth, as we've both stated our positions more than once.

Quite fundamentally, you do not understand what objectivity and subjectivity actually are. The notion that somebody must preface an opinion in order for us not to misconstrue it as a statement of fact is so self-evidently unsustainable, that such should not need to be pointed out. It's unworkable. It would make common parlance impossible.

I look forward to your efforts to explain objectively-- through demonstrable information only, no shared understanding! -- that the water is "hot", when you are referring to it being a comfortable heat for a bath, and the listener intends to make a boiling cup of tea.

I'm out.

It is indeed a useless back and forth, as you continually try to dodge the core of the discussion to argue about something barely related.
I've never said preface. Not once. I've said use slightly different language when talking about them. Instead of "IS", "Feels", and things such as that. Simple, doesn't even change the sentence structure, is just a more intelligent choice of words to attempt to convey things clearly. Of course, everyone should just ignore all context, all alternate meanings, metaphors and shorthand, and just take the first definition they find in a dictionary and take it 100% literally every time they read a word, because obviously that is 100% what was intended by the phrase when it was written, always. Good to know.

I also look forward to you telling someone that a knife isn't sharp, because its pure subjective opinion about that and they should stop complaining that they cut themselves on it. You talk about making common parlance unsustainable, your stance on unbiased information does exactly that.

 

[Silvanus]

I also look forward to you telling someone that a knife isn't sharp, because its pure subjective opinion about that and they should stop complaining that they cut themselves on it. You talk about making common parlance unsustainable, your stance on unbiased information does exactly that.

Which is something I would never do, of course, because something being subjective doesn't stop it being useful information for those involved, as I thought we had already established.

If you think that's my position, you honestly haven't understood it in the slightest.