Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: A tale of the difference of objective vs subjective

  1. #1
    Colony Founder Viktoriusiii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,419
    Rep Power
    1

    A tale of the difference of objective vs subjective

    Spoiler: 
    please be warned that my english is only my 2nd tongue and I sometimes do not describe the things I mean optimally. Also please try and ignore any condescending remarks, they are not targeted at you personally and I bet you are a lovely human beeing, but rather are the result of about 8 months of telling people why A17 was objectively worse in nearly every category (when compared with A16! A17 is still leagues better than most other games, especially 17.4). Beeing hurled accusation after accusation after unjustified heckle does that to people.

    Well since this has cropped up YET AGAIN for the 5000x time, I will write this here and every time someone comes again with the same tired argument that my opinion is just subjective, even though I was listing up objective facts... here is the definition:

    Wiki:
    adjective
    adjective: objective

    1.
    (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
    Buisnessdictionary:
    2. Neutral (bias free), relating to, or based on verifiable evidence or facts instead of on attitude, belief, or opinion. Opposite of subjective.
    Well depending on what definition you want to use, "objective" is slightly different.
    I tend to use the 1. one personally, although the 2nd one isn't bad (I just dislike "verifiable", since that is such a broad term and can include bible college studies and similarly untrustworthy sources)

    Some IMPORTANT notes:
    "objective" does not mean, that you are always right. Only that you tried to remove your bias.
    And it also does not mean that objective opinions always need to be backed up 100% with numbers. Often logicially following a thought without beeing influenced by bias is enough to be considered "objective". As long as there is a good reason to believe that what you say is true, except "I feel it" or "I like it, therefor...", you can consider it objective.
    Was Newton subjective with his theory of gravity? Even though it was not exact and has been completely replaced by Einsteins Relativity? No. There was good reason (the best available at the time) to believe that, even though ultimatly, he was wrong/only partially right.
    Also just from a practical perspective. If we start saying well only 99% agree with you there for it is subjective, then nothing in this world is objective and the term becomes useless. So lets keep it the way the definition describes.

    Now, lets get concrete with an example.
    Saying "A17 was not well recieved, since the ratings dropped by 55%" is an objective statement.
    You can say that it is not complete data, that it is only a small minority or whatever else. That does not change the fact itself. It might change how much weight it puts behind the evidence, but the evidence itself is unchanged.

    So if you can produce a miracle study that says that of ALL players (not only those who left a review) still 87% liked it, THIS becomes the objective opinion. BUT until then, using the currently known facts to connect the dots IS OBJECTIVE.

    To say that "well me and my friends still like it" is subjective. You can like it all you want. then you are part of the 33%.


    Here are some examples to really show what I mean:
    "Removing the old learning by doing system for the A17 perks that are linear, limited and overall pretty boring, was a bad design idea" is a fact that is still objectively true. The old system offered way more variety, replayability and challenge. YOU CAN STILL LIKE THE NEW ONE BETTER!
    That does not change that the gradual growth that kept you going so you can finally mine that stone in 4 instead of 5 blocks, was changed to "oh yes lets kill another 100 zombies so that I get 20% more ressources"

    "Showering a player with weapons, when your game is based on survival devalues the weapon and makes exploration less fun!" Is objective. It lists the reason for why if you know what a survival game is and what you need a weapon for. Survival game means challenge, weapons are there to combat challenge. If there is no other limiting factor, giving the player too many guns is not beneficial for the survival experience.

    "The death penalty, as implemented in A17 is a bad design choice, because it does not add anything besides the fear of it to your game. You do not change your gameplay. You do not need to overcome a new challenge. All you are is slowed. Compare this to A16's wellness. It was making it permanently (until you ate enough, which in the end game could take 20 meat stews for 10 points) harder to fight zombies, to loot and fight the horde. So you had to farm more/hunt more to get the ressources. So avoiding death (as a normal player) was very beneficial without beeing punished like a child for 15+ minutes."
    There are reasons for this. You might not agree with these reasons. You might have a different take on the matter. This does not make this a subjective opinion. Until you debunk every one of those points and show why that is wrong, this is a valid, objective argument. Nowhere does it state "I dislike beeing slowed" or "Me and my friends dislike losing hard earned points". It is an objective look at the two systems comparing them.


    Here are some examples of subjective reasoning:
    "I personally liked it" You focused
    "I asked my friends, and they all..." Friendcircle focused
    "When I played, my lifebar was always at half so..." You focused
    "You are so condescending" Me focused
    "You are just a hater" Me focused
    "Just because you feel that way..." Me focused


    When you want to argue with me, please use objective statements. Sometimes two peoples objective statements differ and it is their job to work out why that is. This is called an argument or a discussion.
    For an example of a civil discussion between two people with differing opinions, please look here:
    https://7daystodie.com/forums/showth...ere-and-Danger

    both parties stated their feelings and objective ideas, they differed so they started working on why that was until a reasonable compromise was made.


    Now I hope you have learned why telling me that I was not objective, when in fact, I at least try to always give my objective opinion (or state that it is only my personal experience) does not further the discussion in any way and hope that you show me how I am wrong without insulting me.


    Have a great day and I hope to discuss topics with you soon.
    Last edited by Viktoriusiii; 07-29-2019 at 01:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    16,179
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Viktoriusiii View Post
    ...I just dislike "verifiable"
    No kidding....


    Saying "A17 was not well recieved, since the ratings dropped by 55%" is an objective statement.
    You can say that it is not complete data, that it is only a small minority or whatever else. That does not change the fact itself. It might change how much weight it puts behind the evidence, but the evidence itself is unchanged.
    Wrong. “The recent Steam ratings dropped from 87% approval to 55% approval.” Is a factual objective statement. It is also verifiable. Adding the “A17 was not well received since...” part is pure 100% opinion. It is your analysis and it is unverifiable which is exactly why you don’t like that part of the definition. You want to be able to mix your opinion and analysis in with fact and call the whole enchilada The Truth.

    Now maybe it seems to you that such a drop so obviously and unarguably indicates that A17 was not well received that it should be objective fact but that does not make it so. In fact I would go further and say that such a position reveals that you were unable to remove bias from your thoughts.

    "Removing the old learning by doing system for the A17 perks that are linear, limited and overall pretty boring, was a bad design idea" is a fact that is still objectively true.
    Wrong. “TFP removed the learn by doing system of A16 and replaced it with a common pool experience system.” Is a factual objective statement. It is verifiable by comparing the two versions. Adding the “are linear, limited, and overall pretty boring was a bad design idea” is pure 100% opinion and completely subjective.

    Objective fact: common pool xp is a game design
    Subjective Opinion: common pool xp is a bad game design

    I know you hate verifying your facts but here is another fact that is verifiable: Many successful and popular role playing games exist that utilize common pool xp design.

    A fact like this one I just shared shows that you making a statement with no ability or apparent desire to verify that such a design is bad, boring, linear, and limited is simply and exactly—your subjective opinion.

    "Showering a player with weapons, when your game is based on survival devalues the weapon and makes exploration less fun!" Is objective.
    “Showering a player with weapons when your game is based on survival will have an effect on the survival piece ” is objective because it doesn’t bring in subjective ideas like valuation and fun. You can’t verify or measure how people will value the weapons or how much fun they will have. There very well could be many people who enjoy getting lots of guns early on and have more fun now than they ever did before. Is the survival aspect of the game affected and changed by the greater accessibility to guns? Yes. That is a fact. Calling it good or bad, more or less fun, greater or less valued...this is your analysis and opinion and you may present it as a very compelling opinion but saying that your opinion is fact is just going to turn people off and turn them against you as you say you’ve experienced.

    "The death penalty, as implemented in A17 is a bad design choice, because it does not add anything besides the fear of it to your game.
    I hope you and anyone else can see just how subjective and opinionated this statement is. It doesn’t matter that you left out phrases that you seem to focus on as tells for a subjective opinion. It also doesn’t matter that you would love to be able to ignore the idea of “verifiable” when expressing things you see as unarguable truth. The facts are the facts and what you share in almost every post you write is mostly opinion.
    Last edited by Roland; 07-29-2019 at 03:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •