- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
I know where you're coming from. Personally, I think it's possible to remain critical and evaluate a game's positives and negatives without falling into the trap of calling something objectively good or objectively bad. Even if you judge aspects of a game based on predefined metrics, like how it compares to similar games, there are so many variables at play that it's impossible to establish a true consensus, so I don't know why some people are so obsessed with objectivity. I honestly think it is just to validate their own feelings.Well, there is obviously multiple ways and angles to evaluate a game. The simplest is to quantify your satisfaction over the experience and makes some approximate comparison. But it requires some mental gymnastic as there are different lengths and intensities of satisfaction (and dissatisfaction). Giving some value to such asymmetric types of (dis)satisfaction is subjective.
Another method is to preselect objective areas before evaluate the game or rather the potential of the game to please with predefined material and artistic decisions. But while it makes your evaluation basically objective, the preselection is still a matter of taste and art conception - your vision is said to be academic. However, you can get more solid consensus since the comparison tends to be more formal. That's likely the reason we generally assume S2 is a better game than S1, or in more accurate words, S2 has more better parts than S1.
We're all different human beings but this difference is not extreme. A bad writing can be perceived as such from most of the cultures on the planet, making the value debate not totally illegitimate nonetheless. Don't hide us too much behind the argument of subjectivity. Words are accurate enough to relativize our thoughts and assumptions, and valuating is a good exercise to deduce our own interests towards Shenmue.
There is also the obvious deal with contextuality. You either rate a game for what it is, according the taste, the mood and the convictions you have today, or you rate the performance of the game about doing its original job. From there, you're less evaluating the experience than the developer's merit of having caught the interest of its contemporaries. In that way, Shenmue 1 is probably a better game than Shenmue 2. The latter would have needed a significantly deeper world, mind blowing innovations and darker atmosphere to reach the same level of satisfaction at the time.
Regarding Shenmue 3, I view it like the last Pokemon. Both games are filled with flaws, voids and declines but they're relying on the natural excellence of their respective concept to deliver an enjoyable experience that sometimes we didn't even notice. Respecting the basic blueprint means you will never lose - but obviously, it doesn't mean you win neither.
It's also something that's deeply engrained in video game culture. Many of us grew up obsessing over game magazines and websites, and we convinced ourselves that these people were infallible experts. That the difference between an 8 and an 8.5 truly meant something! I was certainly guilty of this in the early 2000s, and we're seeing it again with the rise of influencers -- if someone's favourite YouTuber says a game sucks it must be true.
A deep and well-considered opinion is valuable in and of itself, whether or not it matches the pitch of the choir. We should judge opinions based on their thoughtfulness, not on whether they match our own or everyone else's