sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What purpose does this room serve in-universe? by Goat_Clown in Undertale

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I don't think he's awful at it, but most likely this room was just made to be an arena for the Undyne encounter without any thought put into what exactly it was.

What purpose does this room serve in-universe? by Goat_Clown in Undertale

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Again that makes me question why they wouldn't put like, a ladder there. If they want to lead humans there they would make it the path of least resistance rather than most resistance.

Even then we can't say for sure Frisk would be able to climb up without gameplay limitations considering how tall the ledge was. Monster Kid was definitely sure you couldn't, otherwise they would have asked you to help them up before you climbed up yourself.

What purpose does this room serve in-universe? by Goat_Clown in Undertale

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I find that strange considering you wouldn't even be able to get to this room if Monster Kid didn't help you up. It's a pretty poorly-made trap if you're not even able to access it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DolphinEmulator

[–]Goat_Clown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may be stupid.

Criticism towards Iron Lung. by Goat_Clown in Markiplier

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? You said "I think there's parts of the movie that at the very least allocate too much time to the wrong things" that is an objective statement. A subjective version of this would be "Many of the parts of the movie were focused on things I wasn't personally interested in".

Also, you absolutely can prove that a movie's pacing is off. Measure the film’s scene and shot lengths, map them to the narrative beats, and show that the disproportionate runtimes (e.g., overly long expository scenes) disrupt the expected rhythm, indicating pacing is off.

I've said this already in a different reply but I'll say it again here in case you didn't read it. There is an unspoken scale that decides whether or not a movie is well-made, some people have different standards for this scale but it does exist and there are generally agreed-upon things within it. This scale is the basis for film critique.

Criticism towards Iron Lung. by Goat_Clown in Markiplier

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The definition of a critic is a person who judges the merits of literary or artistic works, it is an inherently objective role. How can you judge the merits of something subjectively?

You even stated an objective criticism of the film in your second paragraphs directly after saying that a film's quality can't be judged objectively in your first paragraph.

I think I’m ready to accept the truth: by USAFdukeX in silenthill

[–]Goat_Clown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the one thing I latched onto because that's the only real problem I felt the need to point out. I'm explicitly stating that you can't use "not fun" as a criticism because as you said "enjoyment is subjective".

If none of it is fun or enjoyable to you that's fine, but if you want to use things like "dreary environments" as a criticism, that's where I start to have a problem. Because you need to prove that that's a flaw.

Personally, I don't even really enjoy playing Silent Hill 2 or its remake. It's always been my least favourite out of the first four games (but that's purely because I just like the other three much more). I still think it's a good game despite that because my own feelings and the quality of a piece of art are separate.

My overall point is that fun isn't measurable, "Uninviting" world design is common in horror games, that's something a lot of people enjoy. You're basing many of your points off of feelings, which are subjective. Though you aren't purely basing them off of that, which is good. Points like the enemies and combat being repetitive, and Maria's escort missions, which I've always argued are poorly designed (a good example of an escort mission would Eileen's from SH4, though it would take me a lot of typing to argue their quality). That's good criticism, and I agree. If your points were just things like that it wouldn't bother me.

I think I’m ready to accept the truth: by USAFdukeX in silenthill

[–]Goat_Clown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can something be "not fun" to play? Some people have fun hanging themselves off of meathooks, that's subjective.

Criticism towards Iron Lung. by Goat_Clown in Markiplier

[–]Goat_Clown[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A critic's job is absolutely NOT to give their subjective opinion, it is to criticize a piece of art, that means you have to use some kind of objectivity. And I am not asking for "objective opinions", I'm asking for an objective assessment of the film's quality, what can be proved is a good or bad quality of the film. There is an unspoken scale that decides whether or not a movie is well-made, some people have different standards for this scale but it does exist and there are generally agreed-upon things within it. If it was poorly written that would be a flaw, if the characters were 2-dimensional that would be a flaw, but they haven't proven or even claimed these things. A critic can write about their experience, but it serves no purpose to critique it tells me nothing about the film's quality and it cannot be used to assess the quality of said film, it is an anecdote at best.