Quote Originally Posted by Malthir View Post
You keep conflating two different things, people being mixed about liking something is not the same as something being objectively bad. Yes you can be objective in art critique, I've used this example in a similar argument. If you're judging a dancing contests, not liking the dance style they chose for this piece. Is somewhat subjective opinion. Saying they were late on the first turn is objective critique, the pirouette was poorly executed they didn't keep her knee at the right height their other leg was slightly bent, the parallels were off etc That's objective, it's a formal critique of the technical performance. That's what's being discussed. Now many people don't like is because the writing is bad, and some people like it despite the writing being bad, but it's inarguable that the writing standard in the MSQ is bad. With many many examples highlight the telling not showing, no character journey, heel turns with no build up or reasonable payoff etc etc.
I'm trying to figure out if this is one of those things that's just difficult to pick up tone when reading text, but was this sarcasm or did you just spend half of a post clearly distinguishing subjective vs. objective, and then end the post by completely ignoring it? Saying the writing is "bad" (or "good" for that matter) is a subjective opinion trying to masquerade as objective fact, plain and simple. And if you want to talk about something like character journey, then you can objectively point to numerous examples of how Wuk Lumat grows and matures as a leader over the course of the MSQ as an example.