The forum has been too much negativities lately

[LilyPendragon]

Take a dance performance, someone saying they dislike the tempo chosen for the dance, and the style chosen is subjective. Saying the dancer was slow on the first beat for the dance, is objective criticism.

This is why discussion of objectivity when criticising art is so exhausting on the internet, and you're completely correct. You can make plenty of objective criticisms about art, but for some reason it seems to be a massive sticking point for so many people.

I honestly wonder if it's because people just don't like hearing negative facts about things they like. You can like and enjoy things that have objective issues, and there is nothing wrong with that.

My example is usually the movie Batman and Robin. Objectively, that film has a plethora of issues, but I still find it amusing.

If no objective criticisms could be levied at music, film, fine art, etc, criticism in these fields wouldn't be a thing.

The only question, in my opinion, is: When do enough objective issues stack up with a piece of art to make the whole thing 'bad'? As there is no definite metric for it, I prefer to just say that it has X amount of issues that can be demonstrated, rather than the whole is bad.

[gllt]

I don't mind criticism, I just think that's an incorrect definition of objective. At the very least, no criticism of art can be *purely* objective even with a standard model to grade it against. That's just a misunderstanding the nature of models and art criticism. All art criticism has an element of subjectivity.

I think worrying about whether your criticism is objective or subjective is a waste of time though, as can be seen in the argument that has sprung up over it in place of the original discussion.

And the Mona Lisa example was really poor lol
It belies a surface level reading and comprehension of art value

There is no objective standard for how good art is, just how good it is within certain criteria, but that criteria is not an unchangeable law, it's a model built up on accumulated knowledge. Consensus is not objectivity, it is an attempt to find objectivity through a majority agreement in subjective value.

"By the art standards which I uphold and believe in this piece of work is objectively poor" checks out. Just be more clear.

Edit: I can't post again right now so I'll settle for this edit.

I re-read your posts, again, and I don't disagree with your stated definition of objective vs subjective. But I disagree with your willingness to label what you say is objective as objective.

Objective lack of character growth in writing is not a thing I believe you can prove in an objective manner that can't be questioned. I believe you can make highly evidentially credible claims for such statements.

[Malthir]

I don't mind criticism, I just think that's an incorrect definition of objective. At the very least, no criticism of art can be *purely* objective even with a standard model to grade it against. That's just a misunderstanding the nature of models and art criticism. All art criticism has an element of subjectivity.

I think worrying about whether your criticism is objective or subjective is a waste of time though, as can be seen in the argument that has sprung up over it in place of the original discussion.

And the Mona Lisa example was really poor lol
It belies a surface level reading and comprehension of art value

There is no objective standard for how good art is, just how good it is within certain criteria, but that criteria is not an unchangeable law, it's a model built up on accumulated knowledge. Consensus is not objectivity, it is an attempt to find objectivity through a majority agreement in subjective value.

"By the art standards which I uphold and believe in this piece of work is objectively poor" checks out. Just be more clear.

You literally read nothing of what we said.........

[LilyPendragon]

I don't mind criticism, I just think that's an incorrect definition of objective. At the very least, no criticism of art can be *purely* objective even with a standard model to grade it against. That's just a misunderstanding the nature of models and art criticism. All art criticism has an element of subjectivity.

I think worrying about whether your criticism is objective or subjective is a waste of time though, as can be seen in the argument that has sprung up over it in place of the original discussion.

And the Mona Lisa example was really poor lol
It belies a surface level reading and comprehension of art value

There is no objective standard for how good art is, just how good it is within certain criteria, but that criteria is not an unchangeable law, it's a model built up on accumulated knowledge. Consensus is not objectivity, it is an attempt to find objectivity through a majority agreement in subjective value.

"By the art standards which I uphold and believe in this piece of work is objectively poor" checks out. Just be more clear.

What would your definition of objective be? Because fitting things into models and criteria is definitely objective. Evidence can be produced for something having objective problems as much as evidence can be brought for something like gravity. If a criticism is backed up by demonstrable evidence, would that not be objective in your view? 'This musician was playing 3 BPM slower than the rest of the group' is an objective flaw, unless that was the original intent of the music.

[Malthir]

I don't mind criticism, I just think that's an incorrect definition of objective. At the very least, no criticism of art can be *purely* objective even with a standard model to grade it against. That's just a misunderstanding the nature of models and art criticism. All art criticism has an element of subjectivity.

I think worrying about whether your criticism is objective or subjective is a waste of time though, as can be seen in the argument that has sprung up over it in place of the original discussion.

And the Mona Lisa example was really poor lol
It belies a surface level reading and comprehension of art value

There is no objective standard for how good art is, just how good it is within certain criteria, but that criteria is not an unchangeable law, it's a model built up on accumulated knowledge. Consensus is not objectivity, it is an attempt to find objectivity through a majority agreement in subjective value.

"By the art standards which I uphold and believe in this piece of work is objectively poor" checks out. Just be more clear.

Edit: I can't post again right now so I'll settle for this edit.

I re-read your posts, again, and I don't disagree with your stated definition of objective vs subjective. But I disagree with your willingness to label what you say is objective as objective.

Objective lack of character growth in writing is not a thing I believe you can prove in an objective manner that can't be questioned. I believe you can make highly evidentially credible claims for such statements.

I'm not trying to belittle or insult you, have you yet to finish highschool/did your school not do english literature as a subject or any narrative or creative writing courses? They cover fundamentals of storytelling very very early on. I'm not pulling a metric out of my arse. That's the standards of writing created by professional writers. I gave precise instances of problems in the writing, not a I don't like this or by some metric I made up. I don't like the story, but that doesn't impact the fact that the writing is bad, two things can be true at the same time. I didn't really like the HW story, but It wasn't poorly written just not to my taste. See the difference.

[Starlord]

I'm not trying to belittle or insult you, have you yet to finish highschool/did your school not do english literature as a subject or any narrative or creative writing courses? They cover fundamentals of storytelling very very early on. I'm not pulling a metric out of my arse. That's the standards of writing created by professional writers. I gave precise instances of problems in the writing, not a I don't like this or by some metric I made up. Two things can be two at the same time, I don't like the story, but that doesn't impact the fact that the writing is bad. I didn't really like the HW story, but It wasn't poorly written just not to my taste. See the difference.

To those that take storylines serious, I can see them seeing things in which that other people cannot, for me I am in my 30's and I don't really take storylines seriously, As long as its understandable and entertaining, how perfect the writing is, isn't all that important to me.

It's also, how people come a crossed with venting their issues with certain things that I take issues with, not the opinion itself. Certain people come off as too "forceful" or "aggressive" with the words they use when telling their opinion. It makes me and others to be not receptive to those opinions.

[Malthir]

To those that take storylines serious, I can see them seeing things in which that other people cannot, for me I am in my 30's and I don't really take storylines seriously, As long as its understandable and entertaining, how perfect the writing is, isn't all that important to me.

It's also, how people come a crossed with venting their issues with certain things that I take issues with, not the opinion itself. Certain people come off as too "forceful" or "aggressive" with the words they use when telling their opinion. It makes me and others to be receptive to those opinions.

To be honest I don't tend to take stories too serious either and wouldn't if the MSQ would play less of a role in the game. Like for instance in ARR there were many dungeons that had nothing to do with the MSQ, lots of side content you could do breaking up the MSQ. Part of the problem lots of people have is the increasing emphasis on MSQ and in particular over use of cutscenes. As mentioned before there used to be dungeons not linked to msq that had hard modes which changed the dungeon and the change was due to the impact of our first play through. There also used to be significantly more solo duties, where the gameplay broke up cutscenes so you weren't just sitting there watching things. Alot of the rage probably stems from feeling trapped in a 30hour movie that's badly written. Functionally that issue has been there since shadowbringer to a lesser degree and more so endwalker. However the story was decent/finishing up the plotlines we were invested in, people gave it some more slack and didn't notice it as much. Which is likely the reason behind the post patch having such a negative reception. The same issue with over use of slow dry cutscenes, but without the emotional payoffs endwalker brought. This expac doesn't have those emotional payoffs to fallback on so being the worst written story so far, really highlights the issues that have been there awhile, if you get what I'm trying to say.

[NeroFlorence]

It's still so funny to me that a game that is literally built on criticism, managed to garner people who are so off put by criticism lmfao

In the shitty 1.0, yknow what they did? The dev team literally shut down the Forums during betas to deafen themselves of the criticisms of 1.0.

Wanna know how that ended up?

[Colt47]

I mean, if I'm going to be straight forward without any censoring to my "opinion" on the story: They basically tried to make a particular character a likeable villain, and instead created a character that is really a victim forced to believe that they are a villain, and then became a villain only because the main character we are playing somehow forgets events that happened in shadowbringers and endwalker. Funny how they say multiple times in the story "there is no other way", when there were multiple points where negotiation could have occurred and a deference of hostilities. Perhaps the climax of bloodshed in the city itself was unavoidable and that would force something to occur, but it felt less like killing a god at the end of this game and being forced to clean up a mess from Wuk Lamat Naruto Shippuden 500x death by friendship.

And FYI, I didn't hate Wuk Lamat in the first half of the game. It was the second half that made me hate the character because the character was forced on us to literally speak for our own character. Stormblood had long stretches of boredom with an uninspired main villain, but it wasn't outright antagonistic.

[Maxilor]

If you want a hugbox go to the Reddit, nothing but sunshine and rainbows over there.

I prefer being able to actually give thoughts and criticism on something I love and have invested several thousands of hours of my life to.