Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by chunglord420, Apr 2, 2020.
I will absolutely argue that NV was the best Fallout.
You probably played Fallout 3 first.
I did, doesn't mean I can't argue it lol.
I'm going to be an edgelord here and say Fallout 2 > Fallout New Vegas > Fallout 1
And Fallout New Vegas is only good because it builds on the strengths of Fallout 2 specifically
Now excuse me as I hide from the Fallout 1 stans
It ain't objective so it's absolutely a valid view. I think you can make an amazing case for all 3 of those games being the best in the series.
Also "Edgelord" relative to this sub would be arguing that Fallout 4 is the best haha.
YEAH YOU BETTER HIDE YOU LITTLE MOTHERFUCKER I WILL CUSS YOU OUT LIKE A 14 YEAR OLD IN A CALL OF DUTY VOICE CHAT
GAMER WORDS INBOUND!
Though objectively Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 2 and New Vegas because it has good writing while also actually fucking working without mods, because it wasn't rushed and blatantly unfinished.
I hate when people use the word objectively to describe games criticism lol.
The word would make sense if the standards you were judging it off of were objective in Nature, and that people would be entirely irrational to come to a differing qualitative conclusion concerning the quality discrepancy in comparing the two.
You can make a case for both games being better, that in and of itself eliminates any logical reason to use the word "objective" in this instance.
There are objective measures to evaluate anything including art. But the experience you have with art is vastly different from everyone else because of who you are, your life experiences, your previous art experiences, etc.
But damn son, even I see Fallout 1 is the best and I played it last.
There are objective things in art, from my own field, Music theory is an objective factor in Art but that doesn't inform said quality of art. If I compose music using post tonal classical harmony compared to traditional western classical harmony while using a 12/16 meter signature, does that make my piece "objectively superior?" No, absolutely not, because they cater to different palates of taste. You can likely make an informed and educated subjective critique using examples of modern musical standards and critique said Classical piece, but that doesn't make said critique objective.
Now an "objective" musical criticism would be correcting someone who says "C-F-G is a C Major Triad." Which is a verifiably and objectively wrong and "bad" statement because we know "C-E-G" to be a C Major triad.
People constantly misuse the term "objective" on the internet concerning games criticism and it's dumb. Objectivity isn't a proxy for informed subjective critique, and is rather a term that concerns with unchanging and immutable fact that verifiably correct in every measure.
Also, subjectivity is NOT a bad thing, we are all humans with different tastes after all. What matters is that you're able to substantiate your subjective claims with examples and commentary on why said examples are bad from your point of view. Hbomberguy's takedown of Fallout 3 is an EXCELLENT examples of this, as well as Mister Caption's takedown of Fallout 4.
I'm obviously arguing semantics, but I hate when people say "objective" when 99% of the time they don't actually know what the word means.
An objective critique would look like you explaining elements in a said video game without adding any commentary about quality in said game, because you got to remember societal standards are also not objective either and are subjective as well, and in which you do not have to agree with said standards as being "good" either. It's why you can make a good case as to why the OG Fallouts are no longer good considering current Video Game standards (which you can easily reject as bogus).
No? You can explain why something is poorly made and still be objective. Sure, not everything is objective, but also not everything is subjective.
Is someone explaining why Sonic 06 and Superman 64 are bad being subjective? No, because the foundations of those games are broken. Saying everything is subjective is like someone making a house poorly, you saying it's made poorly, but then the person who made it say it's just your opinion while the house is collapsing because it was put together poorly.
There is such a thing as certain design choices working better than others because they accomplish their goal better in the end. Or a design choice doing a piss poor job at doing what it's trying to do.
Also, liking something and talking about its quality are two entirely different things. You can like something despite its flaws and be aware that some other games are better because they do a better job.
This is a deeper philosophical point that I'm trying to get at with this conversation. While everything you pointed out are absolutely good critiques given the current societal standards of video game production, that still doesn't inherently make an objective qualitative judgement upon them.
You ignore the gigantic elephant in the room by standards being subjective in and of themselves, so by nature making an objective qualitative statement is impossible.
There could be a standards that bugs are more desirable (stupid, I know, but bear with me), there could be a standard that if a game has a single bug then it is by nature "bad." Does that make either of these statements "objectively correct" no, because again, standards are set by a group or society of people dealing with matters of qualitative dealings.
What constitutes a game being "good" or not is entirely dependent upon the society you live in and the consumer's personal experiences within life, to suggest otherwise would be suggesting that thinking a product is good in all scenarios would be entirely irrational.
Now an objective example, If a mathematician prefers to use inductive proofs over contrapositive proofs because it shows that the said problem is, that doesn't make inductive proofs better than contrapositive proofs because both of them produce the same mathematical conclusion of the existing problem being verifiably true.
Objectivity is extremely mathematical in it's dealings, and is true across all societies, cultures, and is immutable and unchanging.
It is objectively true that a game may has bugs, however to make a qualitative statement upon said fact is not objective, because you cannot be objective in qualitative dealings. Person A may just as easily say "bugs are good" and as such that game would be more valuable to Person A's tastes, how are we to say Person A is objectively wrong and they are irrational for believing this subjective belief?
You take objective facts within a given reality and you use these said facts to make a subjective judgement upon said facts.
Objectivity is Objectivity and cannot be good or bad, it is merely the reality of the given world.
People do not judge in a vacuum. People judge based upon their perception of reality, culture, upbringing, and societal standards, and understanding that makes criticism by nature a subjective art.
This does not make criticism any less valuable in modern society.
Saying something is subjective is not an argument, that's like saying 'well that's your opinion'.
I can objectively state that Fallout 2 and NV are unfinished and have more bugs than Fallout 1, I guess that could be a good thing if you're a masochist. I can also state that it is more tighter and thematically consistent compared to Fallout 2 and NV, again if you like a bloated and thematically schizophrenic game world then that's on you.
Throwing away all points someone makes on a game as to why they find it superior with a 'WELL that's subjective' or 'WELL that's like your opinion' is not a very productive conversation to be having.
A 'critique' is to critically review something, in this case games . What you are referring to would be called an analysis. An 'objective critique' would be viewing the work alone leaving out pre-concieved biases like marketing, other works, relationships, the developer, etc when critiquing a game.
So you admit that Fallout 1 is not "objectively" better than FNV.
So, reviewing a game within current subjective standards of quality, which as such does not make it objective, thank you for agreeing with me lol.
You didn't really contest any of my points, you just reframed what objectivity means in this instance.
Please remember I'm not arguing your belief that Fallout 1 is better, only that it's not "objectively" better, and you are misusing the word.
Good thing I'm not explicitly arguing you on your belief that Fallout 1 is better, only that you misused "objective."
I stated an objective truth, if a game does not work or has a plethora of technical issues then it is lesser compared to a relatively stable experience.
So no game can be reviewed or critiqued objectively, according to you.
Well suddenly the thread became a debate about objectivity rather than fallout so I think my example was a good one.
To quote my previous post, "It may be objectively true that a game may has bugs, however to make a qualitative statement upon said fact is not objective, because you cannot be objective in qualitative dealings. Person A may just as easily say "bugs are good" and as such that game would be more valuable to Person A's tastes, how are we to say Person A is objectively wrong and they are irrational for believing this subjective belief?" While yes your statement may be true, that still doesn't make a qualitative objective statement, because in this instance you have to treat bugs as objectively wrong in this instance, and not as an objective truth that you use to reach a subjective conclusion upon the quality of a product, we could take our hypothetical scenario of a societal standard of "bugs being good" (admittedly unrealistic but I'm using it for example) would make Fallout 2 and New Vegas being superior products. Just because there is a consensus of bugs doesn't imply objective validity, that's the trap you are falling into with this debate. Your own final claim on the matter is false because "stable" in and of itself isn't inherently objective.
Uh, yeah, that's the entire point of this discussion, unless you are deliberately meaning "objective" under your own definition which is a reframing of what objectivity means. You cannot quantitatively measure the quality of a game in objective terms because of said subjective standards you are critiquing by. If we want an objective review in the sense of what "objective" actually means, then it would be, as you say, "an analysis" because objectivity simply doesn't deal in qualitative assessments.
No game can be qualitatively assessed objectively, because to assess requires the existence of standards the uphold that are subjective in nature. As I said previously, criticism is not done in a vacuum.