Some parts of this video are me talking over unrelated game footage. I tried my best but I found it difficult to find something that could be paired with what I was saying for every section. Hopefully it's alright for something as broad as this.
I noticed you threw in some Danganronpa moments, and for a split second I was curious if you accidentally put any spoilers in the video, and was pleasantly surprised when i saw you blurred out the spoilers. Good attention to detail, well done.
It might be that I am reading too much into this but claiming that : " My opinion is not worth more then anyone's else" could be construed as you advocating every opinion having the same worth or as you said unambiguously "no opinion is worthless". This is objectively false. Some people have the opinion that our planet is flat, this is 100% objectively false and yet they have said opinion. You might want to engage and want to understand what's beneath that statement thus validating your idea of even said opinion having value except that it would not validate such a thing at all. The opinion itself wouldn't have any value as it would be false no matter what's beneath. The only value you would get from engaging with such a thing would be some amount of exposure and experience dealing with people bias combined with a large amount of self-deceit on their part which, once again, would not be the opinion itself. Unless you would be okay conflating X with something used as it's foundation despite said foundation potentiality of being used for something else which could mean that two completely different thing could be one and a same just because they have one single foundation in common and regardless on how properly it is used in both case because you would be okay conflating something and said something's foundation. So while I agree with your introduction that subjectivity is very often implied. Some of the things you say along the way are just wrong no matter how you look at it. The point brought up in my message being the most blatant one. Have a good day.
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say.
I remember my AP English teacher telling us we should never write "I think" in our essays because obviously, as the authors of our essays, what we were writing was what we were thinking.
Well then I hope you failed after writing "Soma is not a horror game" and then following it up with "Horror games are not scary" and then following that up with "anything you think is a claim i'm making is just my opinion and thus immune to criticism (somehow) and if you can't tell when I'm making claims that can obviously be argued with and my subjective feelings then you are probably a dumb dumb" because hoo boy that would be a spicy take.
Now, as an interesting note: I have learned a lot from Roger Ebert film reviews, for every film ever made - a masterclass in essays. Curiously, he uses "I think", very effectively.
@@Daniel-Rosa. Roger Ebert also very often makes value judgement without qualifying them with "I think". Of course he would agree that subjectivity is implied in those cases since there can be no objective value judgments on art.
MPW yeah it must have been over a year ago by now he said to do it right he’d have to read all the books, and then play all the games and that it would take a long time Edit: he also mentioned at the end of the God of War video the next big thing will be the Witcher games
@@beneisma5345 We can basically forget about getting anything from him for a while. I'm playing through the first Witcher, for the first time, 20 hours in and still in chapter 2.
Too may people think the duality of art critique is "objective vs. subjective" when the reality is closer to "critical thinking vs. personal taste". For example, "This character was not compelling to me because his arc was incomplete" vs. "I like this character because I like his voice".
You know, I think you have a good point here. I think the issue is that a lot of people think Joe is mixing the two in several of his videos while still presenting the information in the same way as when it's all critical thinking.
Mayeur000Donz No. Saying "This character was not compelling to me because his arc was incomplete" is not an evidence based analysis, you haven't cited any examples, you have made zero effort to prove your case. Without evidence it is a subjective assertion masquerading as "critical thinking", it isn't criticism. Saying "I like this character because I like his voice" is less problematic as it is a personal opinion, it doesn't pretend to be something it is not, and actually by drawing attention to this aspect it affords the listener the opportunity to consider whether they like the character more or less based upon whether they also like his voice. Only they can judge this for themselves as this will be their own subjective qualia which they are apprehending with their senses and which evoke different memories and associations for them in their consciousness. For this reason it can be the case that over time we find reviewers who share the same opinions on things as us and can advise us fairly accurately as to whether we would enjoy the experience they had as we know that they share a similar taste to us. It isn't a precise science, but then we are talking about Art.
Geralt of Trivia Yeah, Rey could be revealed the daughter of Luke Skywalker - hence the title: _The Rise of Skywalker_ as she feels better about herself when she learns of he illustrious heritage. This would explain the source of her powers. Luke being cut off from the Force would explain why he didn't sense she was related to him. Luke could have exiled himself, like Yoda, when he was upset at his failures with Leia's son, who he had helped guide away from the path that consumed their father, and because in his failings Ben became Kylo and Snoke ordered Kylo to lead the Knights of Ren to hunt down and kill his wife, Mara Jade, who had been sent away from Jakku by Luke, for her safety, ahead of the final battle between the Empire and the Rebellion. Mara Jade never had a chance to tell Luke the good news that she was pregnant with their child. Years later as she is pursued by the Knights of Ren from one planet to the next she realises that she has to leave Rey in the care of Unkar Plutt on the remote world Jakku, and implant false memories in Rey's mind of being sold off drinking money by parents who are now buried in its desert. Consequently, Kylo isn't lying to Rey when he tells her that he has looked into her mind and seen the traumatic "truth" of who her parents were. Rey tearfully accepts they were nobodies, having spent years in denial that she could have been so unloved. It seems cruel, but this was necessary to protect Rey's identity, as she would have been seen as a threat to Kylo had he known she was a Skywalker. This means that they are cousins. Mara Jade killed the Knights of Ren, but was exhausted when she came to fight Kylo and died by his hand. When Luke senses this through his familial Force Bond to his nephew, he is struck with grief, and guilt, which lead him to exile himself on the remote island, like Yoda exiled himself in that remote swamp, following his failure to prevent the rise of Palpatine and the Jedi being destroyed by Order 66. So, there is an opportunity for _Star Wars: Episode IX_ to fix what went before, to answer some serious questions which strain credulity if left unanswered. It can even explain how Snoke died so easily.
Geralt of Trivia Luke had met Jedi Master Obi-Wan and been given a lesson fighting blindfolded before he was told by a disembodied voice to use the Force to guide his aim and destroy the Death Star. Sure, this is not much training but compare that to Rey and we have her use Force Persuasion, Force Grab, and defeat Kylo with Luke’s lightsaber, all without any training. You can either scrap the trilogy and start over, or explain how Rey didn’t need training as her early training had been repressed along with her identity, hence no surname. “Kylo doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy that would go after your family and then go after him because you tried to kill him” Snoke expects Kylo to kill Han and Leia, as well as Rey, in order to corrupt him, so why not Mara Jade and Luke too? Snoke needs to sever all of his apprentice’s familial Force Bonds to make it impossible for him to find his way back to the Light. We don’t know the details of Mara Jade’s arrangement with Unkar Plutt, whether he was paid to look after Rey when she was a child, and if it was expected Mara would returrn soon, as well as how the economy of Jakku changed and become poorer with everyone struggling to scavenge and repair broken ships to sell them for some imported food rations, as nothing could be grown locally. Kylo probes Poe and Rey’s minds. Luke does the same to Ben. Snoke does it to Kylo. Force Persuasion allows those using it to implant a thought in a weak mind to get them to do what you ask them to do. Personally, I think my idea is consistent with the franchise. Mara would be killed before Episode VII and be shown being killed in an extended flashback in Episode IX, explaining why Luke seemed so nihilistic in Episode VIII. I never said Luke kept his wife a secret from Leia or Han. Mara is already dead when Luke goes to Ahch-To. Mara’s death is an additional reason to pile on to why Luke goes into exile, like Yoda and Obi-Wan before him. I didn’t mention your reasons as we know about those already. I would have written it better if I had had the opportunity to do the trilogy. As it is I have to work within the silly plot given. Wait. Are you serious about saying: “It’s a good thing pretty much nothing was broken in the first place”? I didn’t realise I was dealing with a fan of the sequels. Palpatine had an origin, but Snoke did not. When do we get to know how he rose to power? _Episode IX?_ Well, I’m sorry but for 98% of the audience all of this rumoured World Building is too late. Palpatine didn’t die without bringing about the death of Vader. Yet, Kylo is fine. This diminishes the threat of Snoke and makes him seem like a silly villain that wanted to be killed. Go fuck yourself.
4 года назад+3
define "incomplete" incomplete compared to what etc etc so yeah, *EVERYTHING* that is in natures has context and therefore everything is subjective also watch this vimeo.com/24014769
"My videos on Fallout 4 get so many views that JUST TODAY more people will listen to me speak my opinions on that series than most people will be listened to about anything in their entire lives" i dont watch these videos to get flexed on joseph
Subjective/objective have the same problem as figurative/literal. Decades of retards not knowing what the words mean muddying the definitions to the point of uselessness. It's merely your subjective opinion that this video is objectively about subjectivity.
Very late, but: a lot of discourse online in particular is very tied to people's sense of identity. It's scary - it scares me - to just go ahead and respond to well-made arguments that say such-and-such was trash with your own heartfelt expression of why you loved it. It makes you vulnerable. You can't expect much agreement, unless you're discussing the original point in some kind of hate-group for the OP. You'd rather jump back to a safe - invincible, even - position, like "that's just your opinion, man." I see this a fair bit in pseudonymous discussions.
There was a solid 2 minutes of video there where the audio went in one ear and out the other because I was so focused on the Hollow Knight gameplay. That was some smooth movement.
He really did turn into a weeb. He uses "No that's wrong" clips from Danganronpa, and a lot of the background is Persona. I didn't think it was possible, but we did it chat, we turned a man with a wife and kids into a weeb. Good job Us.
...As a person who naturally and at this point pretty much subconsciously adds "I think" "in my opinion" "It's just something I believe but" every 4 sentences or so anytime I speak, I felt incredibly called out when you started SPEAKING EXACTLY LIKE I DO omg I sound so annoying now I understand what my teachers were talking about when they told me to remove it from my vocabulary during class debates
@@DukePegasus There are many ways to say it, but even if you say it differently every time it gets annoying. Unnecessary information is unnecessary information.
@@MADMACHlNE it's not unnecesarry if it phrases your meaning. And it's not long or repetitive, I can come up with at least 50 ways off phrasing an opinion.
@@DukePegasus Three things: 1) Redundant statements are redundant even if rephrased each time. 2) If you say the same thing over and over again, it's repetitive even if you say it differently. 3) Whether or not you actually utter the same words multiple times, if the same information is communicated multiple times, you're repeating yourself.
@@KingKlonoa obliously, that's just your opinion, that you just woke up and not intelligent enough. It think you just wanted to make that joke, and that you weren't sleeping for the past week
That's why I get annoyed when people don't preface these opinions on the internet. When some random dude asks about a game on a message board and they say "It's the best [game in this genre] this year"... that's not "obviously" an opinion. Well, it is, because they were wrong, but the person asking doesn't know that. It sounds factual, even ignoring that it's not helpful. I suppose a better response would be "obviously that's an opinion, but it doesn't get any ideas across, except that I shouldn't assume your words are meaningful." Is it really so hard to worded subjectively, like "I loved it", and then give a reason why?
@@AusSP yes. Yes that's very obviously an Opinion. If they don't try to elaborate their statement with arguments, it's obvious they're not trying to make a statement that applies to anyone other than themselves.
The problem is that you are assuming a person doesn't recognize that "It's the best game this year" has to be an opinion, because as you said, it cannot be a fact. Now, apparently there are a lot of people who don't understand that, but are we responsible for those people? It frankly just becomes patronizing to everyone who clearly understands that a phrase like that cannot be objective. Maybe saying this phrase in a message board like in your example wasn't very helpful, but at the very least the person who asked knows that one person really liked it (assuming they can in fact, tell it has to be an opinion).
Looking back on the horror game video, there seems to be more comments with valid criticisms than there are dismissing the video because its subjective. I think people may be frustrated with you creating an entire video on the fringe group of people that don't like subjectivity, without addressing the actual problems people had with your video.
It's not a fringe group. Lots of people are this way. People who cant understand that if I say i say overwatch is a bad game. I am not infact saying it is objectively poorly made and my opinion is final but am just stating that according to what I look for in a game it is flawed.
Essays tend to have controversial thesis because they have to be intersting. For example: I don't think horror games are scary. However, no essay is objective,. They need a lot of research, but in the end they are always subjective. If people misunderstood yor conclusion is not just because they are stupid, most of the time is because you didn't explain your thesis correctly.
+a box in the black No... He covered it this way as trying to paint all his detractors as morons who don't understand what subjectivity is when he's the one who doesn't proofread.
I hate it when people say that "you need to stop presenting your opinions as facts." The idea that you need to say "IN MY OPINION" before every sentence is ridiculous. It's obvious that it's just an opinion.
You're right, in 80% of cases or so, but sometimes it is unclear whether the person understands that what they're saying isn't factual. Some people really do think their opinions are facts, and I think it's legitimate to tell them that it's just an opinion, and that it should be phrased as such and not presented in objective terms. But yes, most of the time, prefacing a statement with "in my opinion" is not needed, as it's usually implied and obvious.
The thing is that there are sections that are opinion intermixed with true or false factual statements, so making the distinction can be prudent. Saying something is mechanically under or overpowered, some story beat being a plothole or unresolved, or anything related to mechanics venture into the realm where objectivity matters. Saying a game is a failure or not hard enough also seem like factual statements that could be phrased better to address their subjective nature.
Mauler literally made a 3-hour response/analysis of Joseph's 15-minute opinion on why horror games don't feel scary for him, and in the comments his followers are all up in arms about Joseph having opinions... why can't people just, like, chill and talk. You know like you do after the movies?
Dude the parallel you're drawing to academic work (specifically regarding history as that's my area of expertise) just doesn't exist. When using facts as a historian I am expected to be able to source my information. If I cannot reliably source that information then the fact is unreliable and unusable. Some facts do not require a specific citation in academic articles because they are so commonly known to be true. The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, near Hastings, for example. Nothing more than a quick google search is required to find a deluge of cross-references that confirm this fact as true. And as the INTENDED AUDIENCE of the essay becomes more specific; from historian, to medieval historian, to medieval Europe historian, to medieval France specialist, the understanding of what 'common knowledge' is, changes. Common knowledge to an audience of specialists in medieval France is a very different matter to the common knowledge of your average, educated reader/watcher. Hence, the need to cite thoroughly is dependent on exactly who your audience is. The average reader will trust a professor of history when they make an un-cited claim because that professor speaks with authority, and their work has more than likely gone through a lengthy process of peer-review in order to vet out inaccuracies. The historian cites information so their work is reliable, and contextually does not need to do so if the information is common enough to their target audience that it needs no verification. How is this process in ANY WAY similar to signifying that you are giving an opinion, not stating a fact? It is vitally important that a critic make sure that their audience understands when they are describing the mechanics and how they correspond to the developer's intentions, versus how they as the consumer responded to the subject. The differences between analysis of art and debate over history is that games, implicitly, have intentions behind them. But more importantly, we have clear understandings of the mechanisms at work, and how they could be changed or improved to further the intentions of the developer. When you say 'death ruins horror games', that is a blanket statement about a genre, and hence applies to every single horror game ever made. Have you played every single horror game ever made? I doubt it. Making statements abour ENTIRE GENRES is a very difficult endevour, with very low returns. Your language indicates that death is an issue that plagues the entire genre. But what of a horror game where death isn't even a possibility? Or a horror game that can only be attempted once, eliminating the possibility of respawns? You see what's happening here? You've made a statement, and I'm attacking it. Because your previous video presents a very strange idea, that is argued for in a way that isn't convincing. Not to mention the presentation giving the very explicit impression that your criticisms are faults of the GAMES, not a personal reason for not caring for them. If your video was intending to share a personal feeling, why were references and mechanics brought in, criticisms made, and solutions proposed? If there's a solution, there's a problem. If there's a problem, we're talking in objective terms. If you just want to share your sentiments, you can't be caught saying 'death ruins horror games', as that's a straight up objective claim. A vulnerable, underinformed one, but an objective one. Objective doesn't mean true, it means measurable. Your statement has qualifiers. These qualifiers can be true or false. Your claim's validity depends on the validity of its qualifiers. So when you make claims that seem, from an audience's perspective, to talk about an entire genre of a medium, you fail to make the line between description of reality and personal assessment clear. I really hope you can see why your audience is having trouble here. The language you use makes it incredibly unclear whether you're assessing mechanics or giving a personal feeling. "Horror games fail to scare me" is not the same as "Horror games fail to scare", and you use the latter with the unreasonable expectation that your audience will hear the former.
The parallel he's drawing between academics and "stating you're giving an opinion" admittedly fails on many levels. However, that fact doesn't discount his overall argument. When he says "death ruins horror games" this is clearly, CLEARLY an opinion. Anyone who takes that statement as objective fact or believes there's an attempt to present it as a "fact" merely must have problems discerning between the two. There's no way to make that statement, "death ruins horror games," look like it's a fact unless the person being told this statement already understands the statement as objective truth. Prove me wrong. Form that basic statement for me in such a way that it inarguably becomes a statement of objective fact instead of a statement of personal opinion. It simply CAN NOT be done.
The problem stems from people forgetting what the actual fuck we are debating here. Joseph does not talk about historic facts, neither does he want to convince flat earthers that the earth is in fact a sphere. He reviews video games. Who would have thought that video game reviews (any reviews, really) are subjective? The sole reason why there are so many different magazines and RUclipsrs and whatever reviewing games is because it CAN'T be done objectively. So, naturally, you seek out a reviewer who shares a particular taste in games, like someone who likes the Soulsborne series for similiar reasons you do yourself. If this reviewer then reviews a Souls-like game and says it's bad explaining why, you have good reasons to believe him. Not because he's objective, because again, that is not truly possible, but because he shares a similar taste to you and makes good (SUBJECTIVE) arguments. So any medium critizing ANY other medium is 95% (made up percentage ofc) subjective. There is no reason to say "in my opinion", at least there shouldn't be. It's just so obvious. And I'm not saying this because I 100% agree with Joseph. I actually got scared by many horror games to take his lates video for example, FEAR and Dead Space come to mind (with respawn and safe mechanics), but I absolutely understood that he's making subjective statements and was fine with it. TL;DR: We are talking about critizing media, not history or science, and the problem lies at the viewers in this case, not the OP
If you make a review or analysis channel please tell me because you are more equipped to do it than the grand majority of those that do. I'd love to watch a channel that cares about organization and isn't always on the backpedal from it's own incompetence, which it seems nearly every channel is, which is why many just ignore criticism aimed at them. This was a joy to read
Those clips of Dues Ex Human Revolution made me want to watch Ross's Game Dungeon's episode of that game. I love that the content you two make is similar, but wildly different.
In college, they tell you to not write with "in my opinion" because what you're writing is an opinion and, unless otherwise stated, it's assumed to be yours, so there's no reason to write that. Additionally, phrases like "I think" sound weak because it looks like you're not sure enough to assert your stance. Curiously, the people who complain about stating opinions as facts are very strange. They're smart enough to recognize what you have said as an opinion. But then they go the extra step to complain about how it could look like a fact. It doesn't reflect well on them, and writing / talking in such a way to clearly state opinions as opinions to cater to the lowest common demoniators out there does not treat your audience with any semblance of respect.
I would like to point out a caveat to your statement... specifically where you point out that "I think" sounds weak. This is true! And should generally be avoided when trying to convince others of your point. But that is intended for debate styled writing, where the objective is to convince the reader regardless of whether you're actually correct or not. When presenting for discussion rather than debate, certain tonal changes are useful in facilitating the format. And so statements like "I think" or "Perhaps" become both and invitation to discussion on a point, and a clear mark between fact and opinion. Which can be blurry in a long an complex discussion of subjective issues and objective facts. Perhaps most importantly, they allow an 'in' for your discussion partner. Indicating good will from you towards the discussion. Emotions should never drive a discussion, and being civil and charitable goes along way in helping people to keep themselves in check.
It’s a problem that’s bigger than just video games, as it’s a failure in communication. The rise of the internet has given numerous people a platform to voice their opinions, yet it is mostly a one-way street. While you can make a RUclips video that’s 3 hours long, most responses will have to settle for a comment that will either be ignored outright or drown in plethora of other comments. People wish to communicate and response, but very few, if any platform truly allows for this at the time.
An even bigger problem is that the default RUclips comment is just to repeat a popular opinion from a RUclips video as though it’s your own, including just repeating a line from the video itself.
He's selling out. He got over 10 minutes for a 2nd ad and that's all he needs now. He's all about the clickbait titles and ad revenue now, it's time to jump ship.
I commend you on your ability to lay out an argument in such a way that I get a complete and total (as far I can tell) understanding of it. Not just in this video, but in all of the content that I have watched of yours. A rare trait in reviewers, or RUclipsrs, or even people in general
I find it hilariously absurd that this is such a point of contention for some people that it required a video response. Looking forward to more content from you Joseph, "I think that" you're doing a great job.
He does do a great job when he remains properly objective, I'd say. But, statements like at the end there: "SOMA fails as a horror game". That isn't an opinion, that's a direct statement. You've got to back that up, it's stupid to say "well, that's just my opinion", when challenged on that. And for the most part, I think Joseph usually does, when he gives statements like that. An opinion is "I don't like SOMA, I think it's a bad horror game". I can say "Okay. Why?", and you can break that down into subjective items. That's how most discussion occurs. You can say it does this, or that, and we can talk from there finding your own personal tastes. Starting off with "SOMA fails as a horror game", though, being a statement, doesn't really follow the same items. You say "Okay, why?", and instead of subjective and personal tastes being discussed, you have to go to objective items, because you've made a statement. A claim. And, honestly, I wish Joseph would stop these rather passive-aggressive runs seemingly insulting his audience and generally coming off as a bit of a smarmy cunt. Like, I love his videos, but, I've started noticing this more and more, especially in his livestreams, and, it's really starting to grate on me.
He spends a good portion of the video talking about how people who enjoy horror games have to ignore the cognitive dissonance from your character's immunity. He's not just saying "horror games are scary", he says "horror games are only scary when everyone is ignoring XYZ". That is blatantly outside of individual subjectivity.
@@BobtheX Such a negative outlook on others, I think, is rather unproductive. Personally, I try not to take such a snide outlook of superiority when dealing with others. It just makes you look like, to be quite blunt, an asshole. Which is why generally it's best to assume the best in people. Anyway; "SOMA fails as a horror game" is not a subjective opinion, it's a statement. If I said "I think SOMA fails as a horror game", that'd be an opinion. But, you can't claim a claim isn't a claim. I agree that if Joseph didn't support his opinions, it'd be unsatisfying. Which is actually part of my issue with Joseph's videos. Sometimes he makes a claim, and then doesn't support it, and when it's called out or critiqued, he pulls the 'my opinion' card. It's very bothersome. But, this is, fortunately, relatively rare, and usually he does very solid, usually quite objective, videos outlining major problems in games. Personally, I don't think Joseph intentionally uses 'my opinion' to block criticism or argument, I just think he slips up, and has a bit of a really nasty self superiority outlook that requires him to do no wrong. It seems when he does accidentally inject his opinion without thought, he has a habit of assuming himself to be correct on his claims, anyway. Love his videos, but, seriously, between this, the horror video, and his livestreams, I'm starting to take significant issue with his outlook on life.
The title made me think 'I wonder if Joe is spending too much time on the internet' I see this as an extension of a pretty universal problem of communication is hard, communication via internet is harder since it lacks the huge reliance on non verbal clues for context. I do disagree somewhat with your premise of "I think everyone can identify the difference" as I see this issue more as overlapping bell curves and somewhat inevitable. If we get 100 people to rank 100 varied statements as if they are presented as objective or subjective I believe there is a good chance no two people would have the exact same list. The people ranked as better communicators would match the most common results of that population group but you would still haves scores within that group arguing about what the person "meant" The reason why law documents are lengthy and blander the sawdust is that is that the cost of maximising clarity is incredibly specified language. We happily choose to dismiss that approach to playful construct poetry and metaphor accepting that we will miss-communicate to a percentage of our audience. The biggest hope is to gain niche specified audiences or endear yourself enough that smaller miscommunications are given the benefit of the doubt. At least in my opinion
I completly agree with your statement towards communicating over the internet. You can´t be sure if a statemante is going to be understood by every one as being subjective so miss-communicating is a given when talking via the internet but I dont think the same can be applied to a normal human interaction. Normal "face-to-face" interaction is alot more complex so i would say that miss-cimmunicating isn´t a given since we expect clarity from the person we are talking with either by using specified language or/and by the tone/ "way of talking" they're presenting. Just to clarify, im not trying to challenge your opinion, im just adding to your comment what is my 2 cents on the topic. (also english is not my first language so sorry in advance :) )
"I see this as an extension of a pretty universal problem of communication is hard, communication via internet is harder since it lacks the huge reliance on non verbal clues for context." It's exactly why no one has been able to communicate via books, newspapers, of pamphlets.
In school they teach you to avoid using "I think" all the time in your essays even if you are stating an opinion. An argument is by definition open to being disagreed with. It's a proposal. You don't need to put "I think" on it.
@@DukePegasus Okay I get that I'm replying to this a year later but I just had to. Even the statement "2+2=4" is only objectively true in certain subjective contexts you're already presupposing here, namely the use of a number system in which 4 exists as a digit. In, for example, a ternary number system (like binary, except the possible digits are [0,1,2] instead of only [0,1]), 2+2 does not equal 4. 4 does not exist. In a ternary number system, 2+2=11. But I understood that you're using a decimal numeral system because it's the standard, despite the fact that your use of it is entirely subjective. Humans probably settled on a decimal numeral system because most of us have 10 fingers. Subjectivity is indeed implied.
@@Fusseliko Hello Hello, thanks for taking the time to type your thoughts out well :). I agree with your beginning but not your conclusion. You could indeed make the case that we might be working with different number systems or galois fields and therefore the statement is ambigious and up for interpretation. I beg to differ tho that this is an example of subjectivity. It is no secret that the decimal number system is the most common number system by a country mile, therefore when equations get used in non scientific applications it is the norm. Just because different systems excist does not mean that 2+2=4 is wrong, you just need to specify the number system and the statement would be factually true again. Although I would like to hear your response :). Have a great day good sir.
Guess part of the problem is alot of young ppl are used to consume info on the internet but more and more don´t discuss the info with ther friends inrl.
I am so, SO glad you made this video. The cliche comments you described are a method of effortlessly shutting down productive conversation that has become more and more obnoxious over the past few years. You hit all the right notes, and I especially like how you pointed out that blind _agreement_ can be problematic as well. Your dedication to opening up thoughtful conversation rather than looking for plain validation is why I always respect your content, even when I don't agree with it myself. Great job.
Im not sure if its become more obnoxious or if I'm just more sensitive to it and notice it more often. Just like how when I bought my car ( a Golf), I noticed a lot more golfs on the road.
I agree, and I'm so tired of people just trying to shut down any form of critical discussion without even trying to make counter arguments. Some people actually enjoy examining works and discussing them, and if others don't like that no one is forcing them to join in. If there's no critical examination at all, why even bother with looking at reviews and analyses and not just skip straight to commercials then? Because a video on a movie or video game might as well be a commercial if there is no analysis or criticism presented.
@Frank Cauldhame given every word in the comment, probably not. Probably talking about what was discussed in the video as basically an effortless shutdown tool.
12:53 "We're all intuitive enough to know when something is an opinion even if it isn't being formally presented as such." - You added a footnote to this later, but I want to talk (or rather type) about this. I'm an asperger's autist and I have genuine issues with figuring out the meaning behind someone else's "implicits". This is due to an impairment of my theory of mind ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Deficits ). I can think deeply about something someone else said that I don't quite understand and maybe I will come to a better understanding, but more often I will just get more confused instead. When I don't spend much time thinking about what was said, I sometimes get a knee-jerk painful or anxious feeling because I want to be completely objectively accurate at all times, because autism causes a lot of misunderstandings with neurotypical people and I want to avoid those misunderstandings pretty much without compromise. I classify "implicits" that I use myself in conversations as mistakes, and sometimes go as far as hating myself for being less accurate than I could be. I know that this is very unhealthy thinking, but I'm trying to treat it, it just takes a lot of time (and when I'm in a worse mood it resurfaces and gets more intense). The irony in that is that I am usually much less accurate than when I just "go with the flow", probably because my thinking gets incredibly messy, I start expressing myself nonlinearly, coming back to almost irrelevant things again three sentences later because I have something else to add, I start using unconvential vocabulary in an effort to be even more accurate, etc. When others do the same, I get a similar knee-jerk reaction, on top of already being confused about what people are trying to communicate vs. what their choice of words is. I want them to be accurate enough for me to understand without having to put in a lot of effort, and I also want to move them in a direction where they are less "faulty" than I am. In my case, correcting someone because they wanted to convey some information implicitly is because it gives me a feeling of safety. I can rest easy knowing I really understood the other person. I also have the chance to think that this person will make fewer "mistakes" in the future, and as a result will also face less hardship because of the way they communicate. It's a positive reinforcement loop. Each time I "fix the mistake", it's as if I had saved myself from some major disaster. I will pay more attention to the "disaster" and I will be more anxious about it, because in my mind the only thing that has saved me from a misunderstanding with another person was me intervening and being pedantic. In the case where I correct other people, I simply extend it to another person. TL;DR: Sometimes I don't know when something is an opinion, and sometimes I'm scared when I see someone being less explicit than they could be. Correcting that someone gives me safety, and the whole thing is a neatly wrapped-up unhealthy positive reinforcement loop.
hey there, just wanna pop in here and say you are valid. i do not have autism, but i do have ADHD and OCD and i struggle similarly as you. i have anxiety even writing youtube comments, fearing that i am not communicating clearly or efficiently enough, or that i do not know enough. anyway, i just wanted to let you know you are not alone in this struggle! i am often hurt when people say "it's common sense," or "it's obvious," or "everyone knows" because actually, no, I DON'T KNOW lol.
Hey, I'm a fellow Asperger's person. I struggle the same way often, but not with language. The accuracy you describe is similarly important to me. I suppose you could say I ended up focusing very very heavily at a young age on language specifics and proper word definitions. It bothers me when people misuse ANY words because I don't really understand implications or subtleties socially most of the time. As a result, I'm very meticulous with the words I use. I think Joseph Anderson makes some important points in this video, because people misusing and misunderstanding words leads to far more confusion for me than anybody using words correctly would bring. Beyond that, it's hard to tell myself "this person is not necessarily very stupid" when somebody says something is "objectively good" or "objectively the worst" because, as Joseph pointed out here, those statements contain oxymorons. It's not possible to describe anything that way because that doesn't fit the words used. It's a failure of laguage, the sort of thing you might expect from somebody taking a high school foreign language class for beginners, a simple error.There's no opinion on this,as it's an error. It's almost indistinguishable to me from people simply lying, which I also detest perhaps partially due to my inability to discern whether somebody is lying, trolling, or actually dumb, when doing something that indicates a lack of understanding, especially online, where you can find an abundance of people in every category. I sometimes watch Mauler's videos and agree with him about a film's quality, but there's no such thing as "objective criticism" or "objective quality" and if somebody tells you otherwise, they are incorrect. It's like saying the name of that popular video game plumber character is spelled 'miroa' instead of 'mario'. Personally, I think everyone who has access to RUclips surely has access to the Merriam Webster's website, which is full of helpful word definitions and examples. If you don't know something, you can learn. That's how I've always gotten by. You don't need to ask Joseph Anderson, or me, or anyone else whether something specific is an opinion or fact, or if it is subjective or objective. Objectivity Rule: If something is black-and-white, irrevocably true as described, regardless of any thought from anyone else, or any ego, or any feeling anyone has, it is objective. Example: "My dog is a dog. If somebody says "that is not a dog" in reference to my dog, they are incorrect. No opinion is applicable to this. Subjectivity Rule: Anything that doesn't fall under the above rule is subjective. This applies to anything that is not absolutely either true or false, anything that has any thought or feeling from an individual. If I say "This is the greatest movie ever made" it doesn't matter which movie it is, it's subjective and an opinion. You could also use variables if it helps. If somebody says "*X* is objectively bad" they have made an error, because nothing is objectively good or bad, since that is an oxymoron. I hope this helps. I'll gladly respond if there are any questions for anybody who reads this.
>Sometimes I don't know when something is an opinion, and sometimes I'm scared when I see someone being less explicit than they could be On the other side, I don't know how the others felt but having the variations of "in my view" in every other sentence infuriates to no end, significantly lowering the quality of video.
@@Rezenbekk I think it infuriates the people doing it too, but much of this comes down to a simple question: "Should viewers be expected to understand the words being used, or, if they do not understand the language being spoken, to educate themselves as opposed to expecting a significant change in content to accommodate their lack of knowledge." I would say the onus is on the viewer. I'm not going to watch a video in spanish and then complain when I don't know exactly what they mean, because even though I took spanish classes and I'm good at it, I can recognize that it might be my fault for not knowing the words being used. English is made up of words and definitions with rules in their usage. If you don't know, learn, but don't complain to content creators who know what they are talking about, or you'll sound like an idiot, and all of that is your fault if so.
Part of the reason why you got that response on your last video was that, rather than judging the quality of an individual work, you were bringing up a broad concept and weighing in on it. I read a lot of those comments, and many people felt that you didn't appreciate the sympathetic response a player might have to a work of fiction, even if no threat is presented directly to the player. I agree that these people were wrong in how they described their disagreement with you. They didn't really think you weren't being _objective_ enough. They thought that you were wrong, and in a particularly egregious way, and that made them think you were full of yourself. These people had a much bigger problem with your *tone* and the extreme nature of your opinion, and maybe they just had a hard time sorting that out in their own heads. Anyone who's written a persuasive essay knows that you don't need to qualify every statement you make. What you say is an argument for your position, and you're both allowed and basically required to present it as fact. At the same time, you're also more persuasive when you consider all the reactions a reader might have to your opinion and bear them in mind as you write. That, in my opinion, is what "objectivity" means in a positive sense for reviewers. I'm glad that you included that bit at the end mentioning that you have a large audience and a lot of influence, but I hope you realize that also partially invalidates your claim at the beginning that the critics are like people yelling at their friends for liking a movie. I don't personally agree with your critics, since I think all your viewers are responsible for their own opinions, but I can understand why they'd be upset at you. It's _because_ you're normally so persuasive that when you say something that seems wrong it sounds like sophistry. You can't just turn off the charm, but weak arguments make that charm seem manipulative. Just to sum up, it's a shame that relations with your viewers have gotten so troubled that you felt the need to put out a video like this. The Gaming Brit experienced a very similar turn of events recently, and I think he really dealt with it the wrong way and just dug himself in deeper. This is probably the only video of yours that I'll never have a reason to re-watch. Good luck with future reviews.
Cinnamon Noir This video is not a direct response to the criticisms of his last video, but rather to a growing trend among viewers of his channel and other critical content on the platform. If you have a problem with the arguments presented in his video on horror games, disagree with and/or refute them. But you’re assuming that Joseph is responding to critics of both his arguments and how he conveys them, which is not the point of this video.
@@kaziislam2785 It doesn't help that he has a nasty habit of presenting his opinions in the same manner as facts. A good example being the "SOMA fails as a horror game" example. That's a statement. A claim. Maybe it's also his opinion, but, it's been presented as a flat claim, not as an opinion.
Being someone that didn't look into it too much, I started disliking Joe more and more as I watched his content, he starts to grind you out when he's being incompetent at something and blames it on everything but himself, you helped me understand where that's coming from, thanks
That's only if you take this comment on it's own though. He then went on and explained why he felt that way, using proper arguments to support his claim, after which people can can make up their on opinion on whether his claim on it failing as horror or not is fair. He literally said in this video that he'll sometimes put his opinion before the argument ...
Your critique on Darkest Dungeon, a game which you clearly despised by the end, actively encouraged me to pick it up. The evidence that you brought up helped me discover one of my favorite games. The problem isn't your opinions, it's the need for others to fit in, and you have a weighty opinion on this platform that makes others want you on "their" side.
@@hieronymus_bis I think Radiant mode was introduced shortly afterward, and it does tackle his largest issue with grinding. But there were a multitude of things at the core of gameplay that didn't click with Joe, and I can more than understand why he didn't enjoy the experience. I love it, as I've grown tired of conventional extravagance.
My issue with your soma review and your "why horror games don't scare me" video, is not a misunderstanding of subjectivity. It is that I do not consider some of your opinions to be a reasonable opinion to hold. As a single example, In your soma review. I believe you state something along the lines of, "Soma isn't a horror game." This statement is unreasonable. Even if we change this to "In my opinion, Soma isn't a horror game." I would still take issue with this statement. Let me try to explain. If I were to make the ridiculous statement, "Joseph Anderson isn't a youtube critic." People would be outraged. Even if I were to qualify that statement in the same way you did your statement about Soma, ("Soma isn't a horror game, It isn't scary.") By saying, "Joseph Anderson isn't a youtube critic, his videos are neither insightful nor informative." People would still be outraged and rightly so, because that opinion, however subjective is not reasonable. If a piece of media does not provide the intended experience, that does not invalidate that piece of media. If you had only said, "Soma isn't scary." I would have had no problem with that statement despite the lack of explicit subjectivity. Not finding Soma scary is a valid opinion to hold. Saying it isn't a horror game is ridiculous. I intend no disrespect towards you, Joseph Anderson. I admire the work you do. I only wish to explain why your videos offended me, and why they may have offended some of the others.
As another example. Someone could read my comment, disregard it and move on. This is a valid opinion. But to reply to my comment and state, "Malcolm P.L. is not a commenter, his comments are worthless." This is not a valid opinion. I have commented, anyone with sense can see that I am a commenter. Anyone with sense can see that Joseph Anderson is a youtuber, and I would have thought that anyone with sense could see that soma is a horror game. Despite all three of us failing to deliver the intended experience.
It's not as ridiculous as you think. And to say "I don't think soma is a horror game" is a valid opinion. If you disagree that's fine, and it's fine if you express that, but to him Soma clearly doesnt fit the description. His definition of horror and your definition don't line up.
Is it a valid opinion for me to say that you didn't make a comment because it didn't fit my definition of a comment? No. That's ridiculous. Words have definitions, my opinion of those definitions does not change their meaning within the language. Saying that Soma isn't scary is fine. He can say that, that's subjective, the definition of scary is something that elicits a certain response, it can be true or false for different people. Saying it isn't a horror game is objectively incorrect. There are definitions of the horror genre, Soma meets these definitions regardless of whether it scared me or not. When I read Frankenstein, it didn't scare me. That doesn't change the fact that it is a horror novel.@@fallenmango8420
@@MalcolmPL > Words have definitions, my opinion of those definitions does not change their meaning within the language. Which definition of the horror genre is correct? And who decides that? As Fallen Mango has pointed out, your definition of horror and Joseph Anderson's definition of horror are not identical. I'll spell it out: Words *DO NOT* have objective meanings. And *THAT* is an objective fact, not just my subjective opinion.
I agree, words do not have objective meanings, but that does not mean that everyone's interpretation of a word is valid. If I try to speak to a frenchman and I try to say, "hello, how are you doing," but because my french is terrible I really say, "your mother was a penny whore." Is that frenchman wrong to get offended? I would argue that it is the duty of the person who is trying to communicate to speak in a way that his audience can understand. Not the duty of the audience to try and muddle through what he means. As for who decides the meaning of a word. I would say it is the majority of speakers of a language. As for the definition of a genre, that is based around the subject matter and the themes, not about the way the audience feels about it. Because if it is based around the way the audience feels, then a genre suddenly becomes something meaningless. "Psycho" is a lot less scary if you watch it eight times in a row. What does that mean? Does that mean that it ceases to be a horror movie? Or if I watch "rudolph the red nosed reindeer," and I am terrified because I was once mauled by a reindeer, does that make it a horror movie? The whole point of genres is to help direct people to media they are interested in based on themes and subject matter. Genre is not a word for how you feel about something, we have other words for that. I will repeat my original point because no one up to this point has addressed it. If I say, "Fallen mango and maple ice cream didn't make comments." Or "Malcolm P.L. didn't make a response." Or "Joseph anderson didn't make a video." Or if I say, "this isn't a comment." Am I correct? If@@mapleicecream4819
To make the "but that's just your opinion!" argument legitimately you'd have to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how communication works that I'd worry about your ability to interpret the material you're arguing against.
It’s such a non-argument. “But that’s just your opinion,” ...Yeah, no shit. As if the mere fact that I’m stating my own personal views and feelings towards something inherently diminishes whatever it is I’m trying to say. Saying that in response to another person’s perspective or perceptions is literally just telling them that the fact that they tried to engage in a discussion about it already invalidated whatever stance they may have. I have people at school who think like this, and I can say for certain that there is nothing more irritating than hearing that when you’re trying to have an educated back-and-forth on whatever topic.
@@swissidol8403 I’m sorry to say that an unfortunate amount of people seem linguistically challenged.... so many people are either shit at talking, shit at listening, or shit at understanding. What triggers me more, though, is when someone blatantly focuses on the wrong part of a point you’re trying to make, and thinks that by dismantling the least related part of that point they are invalidating the whole point you’re making... or your entire position on the subject.
I've honestly never seen a RUclips controversy more pointlessly contrived than this one. The Horror game video was literally titled 'Why Horror Games Don't Scare Me." Not "Why Horror Games Aren't Scary" or "Why Horror Games Suck", but "Why Horror Games Don't Scare ME". The title itself says, upfront, that the video is going to be a explanation of why Anderson personally doesn't find horror game scary. You can't get more obviously subjective than that. But the critics didn't care about that, because they weren't being intellectually honest. They just wanted to get some clicks by hating on a more popular RUclipsr.
Or maybe it also has something to do with his braindead statements like "SOMA isn't a horror game. It isn't scary." This isn't a subjective take anymore.
@@Lunartic_ Yes it is. Especially in a video titled 'Why Horror Games Don't Scare Me." It is literally impossible for the statement "It isn't scary." to not be objective. If you want to hate on him saying "Soma isn't a horror game.", then honestly that's fine. But it is perfectly okay for him to say that Soma isn't scary, since he personally doesn't find it scary; especially since he gives reasons why he doesn't find it scary. It's like when Dunkey says a game sucks. The fact that there are people out there that like the game doesn't make Dunkey a liar. He thinks the game sucks, he gives his reasons, and he comes to his conclusion. Nothing more is needed. Dunkey never needs to say "in my opinion" or "I think". He just says "The game sucks" and we understand it is his subjective opinion. This is basically the same thing. Subjectivity is Implied.
@@eddiea8468 I know it's fine for him to say "it isn't scary" but he justifies his claim that SOMA isn't a horror because he didn't find it scary. He makes many objective claims. It doesn't matter if he finishes a objective claim with a "in my opinion" because it's not his opinion anymore. Joseph should probably just write his scripts better and take a head out of his ass because he can't stand the fact that he might be wrong.
@@Lunartic_ So that is the only line in the video you have a problem with? Him saying "Soma isn't a horror game"? I'm fine with that. I agree that its the weakest part of the video. Trying to say Soma isn't a horror game is just wrong, because whether or something is classified as a horror game (unlike whether or not something is scary) isn't automatically a matter of opinion. I just don't think that mistake matters, at all. I just do not think something like that, an incredibly minor nitpick, warrants the massive out cry of anger the video caused. A minor mistake like that does not warrant entire 'take down' videos. It seems to me like everybody else has their head up their ass - everybody seems so eager to 'prove' how much smarter they are than Joseph Anderson that they're trolling through the video, pulling out small mistakes, and entirely ignoring the wider point he was trying to make. It really, truly, does not matter that he said Soma isn't a horror game. That kind of nitpick has absolutely no bearing, at all, on the actual point of the horror game video. it's like when Dunkey made that video about game critics, and a bunch of people got titled, and started pouring through the video searching for the smallest mistakes (like how lied about the level of a snail in Octopath Traveler while he was ripping into the game for being to grindy), and completely ignored the actual main point of the video - that game reviewers should be purposefully opinionated and very subjective, so that their reviews are unique and actually mean something instead of being endlessly regurgitated drivel. People were screaming about how Dunkey should shut up because he isn't an objective game reviewer, when the entire point of his video was about how reviewers shouldn't be objective. Note how Dunkey didn't (in the Part 2 he released) come out and talk for five minutes about how he was wrong about the snail - because the snail doesn't matter, and focusing on it is pointless. This feels like pretty much the same thing. A lot of stuff about how 'this statement isn't 100% accurate' or 'This statement can't automatically assumed to be subjective!', and not a lot about the actual points he made in the video - the actual reasons he doesn't find horror scary, and the potential solutions he laid out. Because there's really nothing to be argued about. He doesn't find horror games scary for completely subjective reasons. He admitted himself that his potential solutions are probably trash. And so all people who don't like the video have left is nitpicking.
@@Lunartic_ Only what is horror is 100% a matter of subjectivity. "Horror, noun - an intense feeling of fear shock or disgust." what disgusts shocks or makes you afraid is entirely subjective. just because something might be meant to scare you does not mean that is does. to Joseph Soma was not a horror game, because it did none of the things the noun "horror" describes.
You can still point out things that literally exist and say “i think that, based on that thing, what I think will probably be more accurate and reliable; unless you have something else that proves your point that I didn’t know about.” That’s all objectivity is. Having the diligence to clarify what is opinion, and what is fact; that way, we can skip past the arguments on whether or not black people are “good” or “inferior” and skip straight to conversations that actually make sense and can reach a meaningful conclusion. “Black people have the same anatomy and material as white people, and any small differences have simple reasons that can be accounted for as having no relation to strength, intellect, or emphathetic capability” is an objective statement that can successfully debunk “yeah but black people suck because I don’t like them” as invalid. It’s easy to ignore objectivity when it’s a game, but games are built out of mechanics and principles of nature, the same as people. Why should we ignore an entire section of our cognitive function?
@@samwallaceart288 while you can make objective statements, whatever you conclude from those statements is subjective. You can say , for example, how a game looks a game has, but whether that's good or bad or doesn't matter is up to you. All opions, even if based on fact, are subjective. Games are art, and art is subjective.
Me The Guy But based on the information I gave about Divinity Original Sin 2, you can accurately predict whether or not you will be interested in the game; the subjective “I like the dialogue but hate the teleport spell” gives you virtually no information unless you personally know what I do or don’t like. “Like” or “hate” are meaningless words without context.
It's true that subjectivity is implied, but you're making the erroneous claim of "Because it's in a video, it MUST be subjective!" "That movie is bad" is clearly subjective, and is not worthy of qualifications of "in my opinion". However, when you say something like "That movie has such glaring plot holes, that to enjoy it you have to actively ignore the failings of it's writing." that's clearly overstepping the bounds of reasonable subjectivity. Sure, there is still discussion to be had, but clearly this individual is making a bold claim that can not simply be lumped in as another "subjective opinion". When you make the claim of "Current horror games require those who enjoy them to ignore it's failings", you are extending not only your own personal opinions, but also VERY CLEARLY making a statement about those who do. You spend a good portion of the video literally talking about how people who are scared by horror games must be XYZ. This is obviously not talking about yourself, because you literally start the video with the fact that horror games don't scare you anymore. TL;DR You made a video talking about how other people are scared by horror games because they can/are ignoring XYZ failings. That is by no measure a subjective claim that is on the level of "that movie was bad", and making that comparison is rather baffling.
> That movie has such glaring plot holes, that to enjoy it you have to actively ignore the failings of it's writing." that's clearly overstepping the bounds of reasonable subjectivity. No, this is still subjective. It's forceful and it could get your back up. But it's still subjective. > When you make the claim of "Current horror games require those who enjoy them to ignore it's failings", you are extending not only your own personal opinions, but also VERY CLEARLY making a statement about those who do. Here's the problem: I never said that. Link to the part of the video if you disagree but I just watched the whole thing and at no point do I say those words or even something close to them.
Joseph Anderson I was going to say that is was still subjective, but you beat me there by a mile. I’m late to this video, but what I’m learning in the comments section of this video is people really don’t understand the difference between subjective and objective. For anyone that is still confused, that last statement was subjective, not objective. Even though I know and fully comprehend the definitions of subjective and objective, in the end, it is still my opinion and opinions are inherently subjective. That was the whole point of this video. Anyone out there trying to say that his video was passing opinions off as fact are missing the point
@@JosephAndersonChannel I understand this is old, but I've just seen the videos and I can safely say you make some very questionable claims, in your "why horror games don't scare me you straight up say. "And remember no matter how weak a horror protagonist may be compared to other genres there's no way to dismiss their immortality. You are a person safely separated from the horrific world remotely controlling an unkillable god." This doesn't come across as subjective, it comes across as you stating it as if it were fact. Because there are plenty of people who never feel like "unkillable gods" when playing horror games. Also people have taken issue with your Soma video because you state in it that "Soma isn't really a horror game it's not scary in the same way other games are. Frictional was trying to make Soma a scary tense experience, and they failed." The game is still a horror game, you just weren't scared by it. This would be the equivalent of saying "Monty Python isn't comedy, because I didn't find it to be funny." It's still a comedy series/movie you don't get to claim its genre. I've liked a lot of your videos(fallout 4/the witness), but these just felt lazy and poorly thought out. Hopefully you can see that there were some issues with your scripting and wording. We shall see.
I’ve actually got into the habit of using “I think that” or whatever in virtually everything I say when discussing anything on the Internet. I think (there I go again) there is actually some value in it, because online discussion can so often default to being nasty or confrontational, so I like to try and put people at ease and make it clear that I’m after a friendly discussion - but that very fact speaks volumes about online culture. When did we all start assuming that anyone who disagrees with us is somehow out to get us, or hates us, or wants to make us look stupid or something? I actually think the people who obsess over objectivity and subjectivity are really worried about something else. I don’t know what exactly, but it feels like there’s something very personal at stake for these people, like they really need to be able to dismiss other people’s perspectives. Anyway good video. In my opinion.
i'm not sure it has something to do with online culture. there are studies presenting evidences that hatred to those who disagrees is a hard wired response in humans.
@@stupidpol Yes I have also heard about that people tend to dislike those with different values and ideas (my experience also agrees with that), but calling it a "hard wired response" is in my opinion an exaggeration (or at least that's what i want to believe). We should not use our impulses as a way to excuse bad behaviour. Any person who wants to call himself "educated" should be able to express his disagreement in a polite and civilized manner.
People latch on to terms that have been proven to be powerful, and whether or not they agree with them, they use them as weapons. They're use as a battering ram so that they can get their real opinions through the door. You can see this playing out everywhere in Western culture at the moment, and the "IMO, I think, in my view" thing is just another example of that. The people saying those things do it to get people to leave them alone and to avoid being so easily dismissed, and the people demanding those things use it as a way to hit back at an argument that they dislike whether or not they actually have a counter-argument. And that's the thing about this, ain't it? You don't even need a strong counter to argue back, so any numbskull can launch a disturbingly effective attack on a well thought out idea without even having to think.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Online culture is such a paradox, really. I'm physically exhausted of having to imagine this constant crowd of highly-judgmental people reading every single thing I write, yet I can't stop browsing the internet for almost every non-working minute of my life. Then again, maybe the fact that we're all on the internet so much is actually what's making us think this is all a bigger issue than it really is. Not to speak for anyone else, but I'm finding myself in these kind of paranoid thought patterns more and more recently and it's not fun or healthy. Or maybe there really is this big looming cloud of judgment hanging over every action we make, because, well, every dollar that could end up being spent on x or y product could be a dollar supporting child labour here or workplace harassment there and, I don't know, maybe we just need to abolish capitalism entirely. Fuck... let me ponder the nature of human discourse in a digital age for at least five more years in silent contemplation and maybe then I'll have a solution to all this shit, if the world hasn't literally burned down around us in the meantime.
You touched on the heart of the problem with your starting example: context. In a personal setting - when you're talking with a friend who you know - subjectivity is assumed, and contact is immediate. The exchange of information is both quicker and aided by mutual knowledge of each other. The internet is different. Written words are perceived differently from spoken ones. Text tends to feel more authoritative, more declarative, by being nontransient unlike speech. Additionally, text allows more interpretation than in-person discussion. The identity of the author and the tone of their text aren't as clear, which can lead to personal bias filling in the blanks in a way that doesn't happen in a casual interaction. Similar holds true with video-essays. While the text is spoken, its entirely noninteractive, spoken by a person who you know very little of. If a person wishes to engage the author in discussion, their tool is a simple comment. There is no guarantee it's ever read, and even if it would, the speed of the exchange is vastly outperformed by a face-to-face interaction. To make a crude example: posting an opinionated written or video piece on the internet is like walking to a public space and starting to shout real loud. And people around you are armed with pens and paper they can use to give their feedback, but aren't allowed to actually talk to you, or interact in any expedient way. And they still want to "win", because people are like that. So at the end of the day you've received a bunch of letters telling you how your opinion is not fact and you should stop shouting at others. Because your opinion is not special, you don't have the right to bring it up. To summarize, the perceived context of "authority" (provided by a large view count or high production values) combined with the limitations of online interactions create an atmosphere that is not beneficial for constructive discussion.
That's exactly why MauLer invited him to a discussion on stream. Seeing those two talk face to face about this subject would be great, but Joe refused because MauLer called him a faggot in his SOMA analysis 2 years ago. I admit that this was low of him to resort to insults, but since then his way of dealing with conflicting ideas has changed and he's probably the youtuber the most open to discussion that I know of. Joe is putting on a smug attitude that I'm starting to get a bit tired of to be honest. I hope this downward spiral of defensiveness won't continue and that he'll start taking criticism into account instead of automatically thinking that he's above it because people don't know what they are talking about.
@@arenkai "but since then his way of conflicting ideashas changed" sure. Judging by that wall of text he wrote now he's just an arrogant passive agressive asshole instead of outright cussing someone out while being a condescending dick. Big improvement. You can't start a debate while thinking the other side is beneath you in any form. It kills any sort of cooperation between the two sides.
I think it depends. I would agree in the vast majority of cases, saying "this is just my opinion" is superfluous. But it really does depend on how you phrase your statement, because sometimes it can legitimately seem like the person speaking is completely unaware that what they're saying is not a matter of fact. Example : Mr. A dislikes Rockstar games and says "Rockstar's games are known to be poor quality products". He's presenting it as a fact, when it's just his opinion that R* games are poor quality, and this is by no means a "known fact". Another example could be someone who thinks video games aren't art, and says "Video games are not art, they don't fit the definition, and that's a fact". In reality the definition of art is highly complex, debated, controversial, and has been the subject of philosophical and literary discussions for thousands of years. There is no objective truth about what constitutes art. So sometimes people do need to be reminded or informed that what they're saying is purely subjective and is not factual. Statements that purport to be factual when they aren't should be amended, and in those cases, saying "in my opinion" is useful, or even necessary.
I adore how you went through the effort of motion tracking blur circles on the dead characters in the Danganronpa footage despite it not being drawn attention to in the voiceover. You didn’t need to and most people wouldn’t notice/care, but I imagine Danganronpa fans are massively grateful
First: Huge fan, just found your channel a few weeks ago and I'm binge watching you at the moment. Great content! Regarding the topic: I think it's more about disagreeing with you instead of not understanding that its subjective. It's not about adding "in my opinion" to every sentence, but statements like "soma fails as a horror game" come off wrong, and maybe need more in depth explanation. (It fails as a traditional horror game, as an example)
The issue isn't that people disagree with the opinion, the issue is that there are people who say "that isn't an objective fact." As though it was ever presented as such.
Very late here but I feel the need to point out that this is probably a reply to people like mauler who will put on a video and spend 8 hours pausing it, saying "this isn't objective fact so ur wrong" in a different way, and then continuing
@@Theo_Caro It doesn't make sense...its just shoving your opinion into someone else's mouth... And it also implies the character is factually/objectively good. Ya know, the thing they're getting butthurt over.
@@CerpinTxt87 Eeeh it's debatable. There certainly is a diffirence between a well written character and one that you like. If in this hypothetical situation the reviewer was claiming a character was badly written because they disliked them than that response could make sense. Saying this character is annoying therefor they are badly written isn't valid criticism. If the author ment for the character to be annoying than that's goal accomplished. (Author intention is another giant mess but sometimes I'd say it's obvious enough if you end up disliking the villain congratulations that was probably intended. You wouldn't call a villain badly written because you hate them.) However saying a character is poorly written because they are annoying when they aren't meant to be is valid criticism. This all got very confusing.
Watching this video now is incredibly eye opening. It’s almost like you can see the slow incline of people hating you if you disagree. It’s like if you don’t think like me, then you must be wrong, stupid, or disrespect other people that think differently. People keep getting stranger over time
I don't really get this video. Why do you even go to the movies with your friends if you're not going to rip your shirt off and start screaming at them afterwards? That's the fun of it.
I love subjectivity, specially when concerning the opinions on videogames. Since it can give you a real perspective into that game, for example, I sometimes feel like playing a game you might like, while other times I feel the same but with Matthewmathosis, or Raycevick or any of those deliciously, 3 hour long criticisms, overly-analytical youtubers, you can almost feel, by the end of the video, that you understand the point of the narrator as if you've known him your whole life, and that you can create a concise opinion on whether or not that game is worth your time and money. I think that subjectivity is what makes or breaks this kinds of channels, people come over to watch you speak about a game you both are interested in, if you wanted to have your opinion aired in the same way, well, youtube is a free (albeit pretty strict) platform, you can do it, same as they did.
@@DoubLL It had a few glaring mistakes. Like him denying what genre the game was, quite embarrassing. Wasn't all bad though his thoughts on the plot/story were interesting.
Meris so you think that the only good parts were when he praised the game he was say it wasn’t a horror game for him which just means that the cheap jumps scares and lack of stakes on death didn’t scare him as he said subjectivity is can be implied but I guess some people don’t understand that if someone is writing an essay on their thoughts on a game that it is theirs thoughts
@@bradybravo7137 Would be nice if you had punctuation in your comment, makes it hard to read without. It is his thoughts but if he's ignoring facts like the genre of a game, then there's a problem.
So let's see - other people have similar channels, often cover the same games, and even sometimes make the same claims (about a game) in the same way - and yet, THEY do not have this problem (mainly I mean Mathew and Noah, based on similar games covered and sometimes the same general arguments used, but there are others as well). You claim this is getting worse here, and other places (what other places?), but I would need to see some "proof" of this, only because for my own experience, I dont notice this happening that much on most channels I visit (including this one, but it does seem slightly more prevalent here, but still not at a level I would have created a video about it). Anyway... Most of the time if the speaker is not getting the reaction he would like from his/her audience, it is NOT the audiences fault. ;-) But I guess you didn't think you were the issue at all, and instead decided to create a condescending video pointing the finger at the viewers. BTW 1 - there better ways to write "SOMA isn't a horror game, at least not...", that is, there are ways to get what you were ACTUALYL trying to say across that dont lead to it being mentioned over and over again in this very comment section. "SOMA is a horror game that failed to horrify me in the usual ways that horror games often do or at least aim to, but there were other things it made me think about which actually achieved that goal, perhaps moreso than your typical NPC-monsters ever could have". Something along those lines (didn't really put that much thought into proper sentence structure - I write code, not novels). And really, this is just picking the lowest hanging fruit (also, it was mentioned repeatedly in this comment section. BTW 2 - You know damn well its not about "in my opinion" being the opening line of every paragraph, yet that is the strawman you are using as the alternative. Are you really so lacking in self awareness or humbleness that you dont think you are at least PART of the issue here? Most of these people aren't going into Mathew's or Noah's comments and saying the same things - what is it that they are doing different?
Matthew gets a lot of bullshit in his comments section and a large amount of ''your opinion isn't fact'' statements. Look at his discussion of Va11-Ha11a (if you mean Matthewmatosis) for a good example of that. I'm not sure if they're still the top comments as I saw that video a long time ago but that is a perfect example.
> So let's see - other people have similar channels, often cover the same games, and even sometimes make the same claims (about a game) in the same way - and yet, THEY do not have this problem (mainly I mean Mathew and Noah, based on similar games covered and sometimes the same general arguments used, but there are others as well). They absolutely do have this problem. Many, many other youtubers retweeted this video with their own messages of support and agreement that it's an issue. > You claim this is getting worse here, and other places (what other places?), but I would need to see some "proof" of this, only because for my own experience, I dont notice this happening that much on most channels I visit (including this one, but it does seem slightly more prevalent here, but still not at a level I would have created a video about it). Anyway... I provided proof in the video. I put comments of it happening on the screen. If you'd like to read through the comments on another video and make some comparisons in order to disprove what I'm saying then go for it. What do you mean other places? I don't know what part you're responding to there, sorry. Can you point it out? > Most of the time if the speaker is not getting the reaction he would like from his/her audience, it is NOT the audiences fault. ;-) Sure. But this is an exception. Subjectivity is implied. If you disagree then that's a problem on your end, not the creator's. Same for people who are commenting without finishing the video, or are purposefully taking it out of context. That is on the audience's end. > But I guess you didn't think you were the issue at all, and instead decided to create a condescending video pointing the finger at the viewers. Point out how you think it's condescending if you like. I went out of my way at least twice to say that I think most of my audience already knows what I'm saying and agrees with it. Maybe you missed those parts. > BTW 1 - there better ways to write "SOMA isn't a horror game, at least not...", that is, there are ways to get what you were ACTUALYL trying to say across that dont lead to it being mentioned over and over again in this very comment section. "SOMA is a horror game that failed to horrify me in the usual ways that horror games often do or at least aim to, but there were other things it made me think about which actually achieved that goal, perhaps moreso than your typical NPC-monsters ever could have". Something along those lines (didn't really put that much thought into proper sentence structure - I write code, not novels). And really, this is just picking the lowest hanging fruit (also, it was mentioned repeatedly in this comment section. Or I could just say what I said, which is much clearer and more succinct, and we can all agree that subjectivity is implied and that of course I'm not speaking for everyone because how could I possibly. > BTW 2 - You know damn well its not about "in my opinion" being the opening line of every paragraph, yet that is the strawman you are using as the alternative. Are you really so lacking in self awareness or humbleness that you dont think you are at least PART of the issue here? Most of these people aren't going into Mathew's or Noah's comments and saying the same things - what is it that they are doing different? It's not a strawman. This shows that you aren't familiar with the comments that I'm getting and that's probably why you've had this reaction. There are many people who are demanding that I do *exactly* what I did in the video with that example. I would stress that you pause and truly consider that. That is *literally* what some people are asking me to do. And those people are the ones this video was made for. Does that change anything?
It is pretty bad on other channels, but the thing is that it appears on more channels than others, and he is addressing the issue because its been going on with his channel a lot.
I think about this from time to time, because it's crazy how the phrase "in my opinion," and others like it are so effective at defusing a negative interpretation. YMS is a movie critic on RUclips who has went out of his way many times throughout his career to explain in various ways how his reviews aren't meant to be insulting toward anyone because they are only his opinions influenced by his own biases as all critics are. The internet is a very reactionary place and here there is an outlet to immediately express it. I'm sure many people have posted something negative they find regrettable in hindsight, although I'm afraid a far greater number refuse to admit any fault at all... I'm just thankful I'm an old, frail, brittle man at the ancient age of 37 that benefits from the wisdom of having already learned how destructive such unhealthy behavior/habits can be through experience! Faults can always be found if someone looks hard enough, but being in a habit of finding negative things to point out can be detrimental to all aspects of life. It's okay not to agree with someone regardless of who they are, and it's fine to admit you don't know something. It's good to keep things in perspective and not lose sight of the big picture. How important is something, and what benefits are there to be gained from being invested into it? This question helped me a lot back in the day so maybe if anyone actually reads this it can it can be of some small benefit.
I agree. Anytime some one brings up that something is just the other persons opinion or that they are entiled to there opinion and dont have to defend it it means they know they have effectively been proven wrong have no leg to stand on and you arent allowed to won this "discusions" that they definitly didnt preset as some kind of competion to you.
Personally my problem with your last video wasn't that you had an opinion that differed from mine. My problem was that the logic you used to explain your opinion made absolutely no sense. Every criticism you applied to horror games could also be applied to horror movies, yet horror movies still scare you. I'm not saying you should change your opinion. I'm saying you should look deeper into the issue instead of rushing out a video for Halloween's sake.
You aren't in control of the characters in the film. People saying "BUT YOU CAN JUST RESTART A MOVIE!!!" are being deliberately retarded. I choose to believe that because the alternative is that nuance is dead and everyone wants everything to be discussed or explained on a skin-deep level.
I feel like this video sort of encourages what your comment is saying. Criticism like this is fine, it brings up a fair counter argument and provokes discussion. Saying "well that's just your/my opinion" does the opposite.
@@Antiformed For most people saying "You aren't in control of the characters in the film" would be a point in favor of video games. Joseph tries to counter this by saying fail states ruin the immersion, and they certainly can, but hinging his entire argument on this premise implies that the threat of death is the only thing that can make a game or movie scary for him. If this were actually true then he would also find action movies scary too. I assume this isn't the case so there has to be something more to horror than what he is suggesting. Except he writes all this off as being "horror-themed" and not genuine horror. Joseph defends horror films by saying "they very well could die in the scene that you're watching...there's tension because every injury and every death is canon." This only applies to the first viewing, however. Once you already know what happens this idea is completely ruined, yet I find it hard to believe that Joseph thinks a horror movie is not scary at all after the first viewing. There is also the tendency for main characters in movies to have "plot armor" which means after watching enough movies you can be almost certain that select characters are not in any real danger for the majority of the film. I also find it funny that you're asking for more nuance yet you don't seem to understand the issues that so many people had with his last video. Or maybe I'm just being deliberately retarded.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean you aren't making an argument. An argument invites people to argue their own points. So when you try to rationalize WHY games aren't scary (to you), you are trying to persuade them to see your reasoning. It's natural that if you present all your points and your listener is unconvinced, you've invited them to present their argument. Criticism is a discussion and an exchange, just like in literature. In the end, no one has to yield their subjective view and we are all probably better for having everyone heard. I don't envy your position, being the one person all of this is directed towards.
What's the point of this comment? He literally says he's giving his opinion on things to open discussion. You're making it sound like he's trying to avoid any discussion but that's his goal.
If that’s his goal then why did he get so passive aggressive with folks who challenged his viewpoint and arguments after his horror games video? His stance on changing minds becomes null when he himself is not willing to change his mind or admit he was wrong about some things.
He never states he isn't making subjective arguments that can be discussed, but that people are attempting to dismiss the argument by stating 'it's an opinion', which is both stating the obvious and not contributing to the discussion in any way.
I commented because I got the impression he was misrepresenting some of these comments. I do see how some are worded "that's your opinion" but other comments he presents are more arguing that he made a poor argument, discounting things like themes and setting. It feels to me that while it is true that it was just presenting his opinion, he presented it as a persuasive argument. The tone of the video seemed to imply that "it's just an opinion" and that we should simply leave it alone instead of respond to it negatively. I could have misunderstood though, and he included those comments because of their proximity to the problematic comments.
I agree with the (seemingly common) practice of sprinkling a few "in my opinion" tags throughout the script, and generally assuming that most of the content is opinion. I also very much appreciate the work that goes into finding and correlating the evidence that backs up your opinions.
I don't know whether I did this as a teen. It seems similar to the kind of thing I would have done, but not quite my standard MO. I hope I didn't, but can't say for sure. Hmm. With regards to your point about how disagreeing opinions can strengthen your existing opinions, that's actually how I often use online discussion. Even when I know I'm talking to someone whose mind is never going to change and who isn't making particularly strong points, having to state my own views well enough that they might at least understand (even if they don't agree) really helps me clarify my positions to myself. Feelings that were general before get more carefully considered and refined, and I leave with a better thought-out stance than I started with, even if my ultimate position has changed very little. Also this doesn't relate to what you were talking about but was in the footage onscreen. I never realized you could use the dashmaster down-dashing combined with the shade cloak to spot-dodge in Hollow Knight. That's a cool thing that never occurred to me and is kind of blowing my mind.
Not going to lie, I found it hilarious that you spent a whole paragraph with those opinion tags. I'd love to see a review video with these tags (as I'd just be laughing about it), but I definitely see how it's annoying.
The long-awaited "Joseph pedantically and condescendingly explains why his videos cannot be criticized or responded to in any harsh way because 'it's all just my opinion, bro'" video. I expected something like this to be around the corner as soon as you published your video on horror games. Honestly, I'm not surprised you felt you had to make this. I've been a subscriber of yours for a few years now, and I've seen a lot of the flak you take in your comments for the way you word your videos. I can genuinely empathize with this. Scripting ain't easy. People will continue to find issues in your writing even after a million redrafts, and that's frustrating. You will never please everyone, and I get that. What I don't get is that you don't seem to understand why you receive the criticism that you do. As time has gone by, I have taken issue with your videos more and more, because more and more, you've veered away from what made your Fallout 4 and Uncharted videos so great. So as a service to you - assuming you read this - I am going to lay out my complaints about your channel as brutally as possible. Here's your problem: you still label all your videos as "critiques." This is great for SEO and promoting your channel, but it implies to your audience that you will be analyzing and comparing objective values with and between games. As long as you're actually doing that, it's fine. That's not the part of the videos people like me take issue with. But when you say things like "SOMA fails as a horror game," "Dark Souls has no story," "this fight is not fun or challenging," or "Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," without qualifying these statements at all, it comes across as extremely combative. Not just for people who enjoyed those games, but for people who appreciate a certain quality of writing from the analysts they listen to. I'm certain that you know this. Anyone who had a different experience than you could challenge you and prove you wrong. You're clearly aware that opinions work this way since you mention early in the video that these challenges have been posited to you since your very first video. But instead of altering your language since then, maybe asking yourself what you could do differently to avoid vitriolic retorts like this one, you've consistently doubled down to the point where you are now blaming your audience for taking issue with the things that you say. Beyond that, you're strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the way you word and structure your videos. Watching a movie and saying "I didn't like that" to open a discussion is entirely different to an hour long video called "Dark Souls 3 Critique". But even making that ridiculous, fallacious comparison is missing the point of the arguments against your content. You want to freely mix and match your objective statements with your subjective ones. You want to call your video a critique and discuss objective merits of design elements, but you also want to put your opinions in the middle of these sections. It's fine if you want to do that, but I'm sure you understand that it is bad writing. So then you want to avoid taking responsibility for the language you use. Put more simply, you want to create content without anyone who watches it holding you to any account. To that end, we now have a fourteen minute video of you smugly talking down to your audience about how we don't understand language and heavily implying that anyone who disagrees with you just isn't smart enough to watch or engage with your content. Then you have the nerve to preach about holding discussion to a better standard. I have, much to my dismay, watched the quality of your writing deteriorate over the years. But worse than that, I've watched your integrity as a game critic deteriorate as well. This video, more than anything, is proof that you're comfortable resting on your laurels, and when challenged, you will say things like "my video on Fallout 4 exerts more influence in one day than anything you create in your life." Hearing statements like that from a content creator is hearing a death knell for the creativity and passion for which you once subscribed to them. But more than than, it shows how deeply couched they are in their own ego. At this point, accepting a challenge on your content is admitting to yourself that maybe your work isn't as good as you think it is. Despite what you say, you don't want discussion. You can no longer take criticism. You don't want people airing conflicting opinions on your videos. But you absolutely cannot admit that to yourself or to your audience. Listening to you talk from @4:30 onward was hilarious to me, because you typically won't engage with dissenting commenters and will instead rely on your adoring fans to lambaste us into silence on your behalf. You are perfectly willing to sit tight in your echo chamber instead of responding to the people who don't agree with you. And don't get me wrong; I don't blame you. Dealing with the scope of negativity typically found in the comments section of just one RUclips video is extremely taxing. But then, having you turn around and profess that discussions must include opinions from all angles - while knowing for a fact that you don't practice this principle - demonstrates in no uncertain terms what a hypocrite you are. In short, this video was terrible, and I hope on some level you realize that. It's heartening to me to see that most of the people commenting here are calling you on your bullshit, despite the disproportionate like/dislike ratio. You have finally achieved peak smug, like Arin Hanson, H.Bomberguy, Thunderfoot, and so many others before you. The way I see it, the way things are going, this channel has nowhere to go but down. I truly hope I am wrong, as I have enjoyed so much of your content in the past. I genuinely want to see a return to the quality of writing and analysis that drew me to your channel in the first place. I guess a man can dream.
> So as a service to you - assuming you read this - I am going to lay out my complaints about your channel as brutally as possible. Okay let's go through the major points. > Here's your problem: you still label all your videos as "critiques." This is great for SEO and promoting your channel, but it implies to your audience that you will be analyzing and comparing objective values with and between games. As long as you're actually doing that, it's fine. That's not the part of the videos people like me take issue with. But when you say things like "SOMA fails as a horror game," "Dark Souls has no story," "this fight is not fun or challenging," or "Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," without qualifying these statements at all, it comes across as extremely combative. Not just for people who enjoyed those games, but for people who appreciate a certain quality of writing from the analysts they listen to. These statements were qualified in the videos. You are incorrect. Aside from the "Dark Souls has no story" one but I don't believe I've ever explicitly said that in a video, only in the comments or other discussions outside of the critiques. I think I briefly touched on it at the end of my series on Dark Souls 1 but it was a parting thought. I probably shouldn't have included it but hey that was first video ever. "SOMA fails as a horror game," - was discussed at length with examples to support why I think so in the video. I'm pretty sure I talk about why I think this for ten minutes. "this fight is not fun or challenging," - you're going to have to be specific about when you think I said this without giving a reason why but I am confident that I have always backed a statement like that up with evidence. The only video I may have not done that in was the Dark Souls 2 - Level Design and Bosses. I think that's my worst video so I'd agree there. "Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," - I went into arguably *too* much detail justifying this claim so I cannot begin to understand how you can say that I don't qualify these sorts of criticisms. Like this one isn't even remotely close. It's so out of the realm of accuracy that I question if you even watched the video. BTW--I'm not saying my reasoning for any of these is airtight and 100% correct. But you're not saying that--you're claiming that I didn't qualify any of these statements which is not true. > I'm certain that you know this. Anyone who had a different experience than you could challenge you and prove you wrong. You're clearly aware that opinions work this way since you mention early in the video that these challenges have been posited to you since your very first video. But instead of altering your language since then, maybe asking yourself what you could do differently to avoid vitriolic retorts like this one, you've consistently doubled down to the point where you are now blaming your audience for taking issue with the things that you say. I have not doubled down. The opposite is true--I have made a concerted effort to say "in my opinion", "I think that" more often than I think I should because of comments about objectivity. In my most opinion based video I even gave it a title that communicated without any ambiguity whatsoever that I was presenting my own perspective. How can you look at the previous video and think that I've leaned *harder* into the issue? > Beyond that, you're strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the way you word and structure your videos. Watching a movie and saying "I didn't like that" to open a discussion is entirely different to an hour long video called "Dark Souls 3 Critique". But even making that ridiculous, fallacious comparison is missing the point of the arguments against your content. You want to freely mix and match your objective statements with your subjective ones. You want to call your video a critique and discuss objective merits of design elements, but you also want to put your opinions in the middle of these sections. It's fine if you want to do that, but I'm sure you understand that it is bad writing. This goes against what I say in the video above this comment section. So what's happening here? Did you not pay attention or do you not believe me? There are no qualitative objective statements in my videos. There never have been. There never will be. There is no mixing and matching. Any statement about merits is subjective. No exceptions. The only objective statements are directly from in-game evidence and have no judgement about quality. They are examples to support subjective points. > Put more simply, you want to create content without anyone who watches it holding you to any account. To that end, we now have a fourteen minute video of you smugly talking down to your audience about how we don't understand language and heavily implying that anyone who disagrees with you just isn't smart enough to watch or engage with your content. Then you have the nerve to preach about holding discussion to a better standard. If you want to link to a point where you think I'm talking down to my audience and explain why to me then feel encouraged to do so, because I don't believe I did that. > I have, much to my dismay, watched the quality of your writing deteriorate over the years. But worse than that, I've watched your integrity as a game critic deteriorate as well. Examples? You criticize me above for not qualifying statements and then drop this with nothing to back it up whatsoever. It's a youtube comment so that's cool you don't *have* to but you said you're trying to provide constructive feedback and these sorts of statements are worthless. > This video, more than anything, is proof that you're comfortable resting on your laurels, and when challenged, you will say things like "my video on Fallout 4 exerts more influence in one day than anything you create in your life." Hearing statements like that from a content creator is hearing a death knell for the creativity and passion for which you once subscribed to them. But more than than, it shows how deeply couched they are in their own ego. That statement has the opposite meaning of what you're taking. It's demonstrating that I have a responsibility to support the statements I make in my videos because they have that much influence. It's *supporting* what you said above about qualifying statements in the videos, except that I'm arguing that I consistently do so. I also say right before that: my opinion is not worth more than anyone else's. How is this about ego? > At this point, accepting a challenge on your content is admitting to yourself that maybe your work isn't as good as you think it is. Despite what you say, you don't want discussion. You can no longer take criticism. You don't want people airing conflicting opinions on your videos. But you absolutely cannot admit that to yourself or to your audience. Listening to you talk from @4:30 onward was hilarious to me, because you typically won't engage with dissenting commenters and will instead rely on your adoring fans to lambaste us into silence on your behalf. You are perfectly willing to sit tight in your echo chamber instead of responding to the people who don't agree with you. And don't get me wrong; I don't blame you. Dealing with the scope of negativity typically found in the comments section of just one RUclips video is extremely taxing. But then, having you turn around and profess that discussions must include opinions from all angles - while knowing for a fact that you don't practice this principle - demonstrates in no uncertain terms what a hypocrite you are. This part is why I decided to respond because this is total bullshit. Have you gone through all the comments on all of my videos, read all of my twitter replies, and sat in on every stream and discord discussion? Because if you haven't you have no idea what you're talking about. I discuss my points with my audience *all the time*. How can you even begin to think you can speak so confidently about this when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about? Did you even look to see how many comments I replied to on the last video? Read back how condescending you're being when you are literally talking out of your ass. You do not need to make up shit to criticize me. I'm sure there's enough you can find and make an argument on. > In short, this video was terrible, and I hope on some level you realize that. It's heartening to me to see that most of the people commenting here are calling you on your bullshit, despite the disproportionate like/dislike ratio. Most of the commenters agree with the video. I know this because I have read almost all of them. Something tells me you haven't.
Bullshit, Joseph. I’ve seen your comments on that horror games video, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about discussion. You wanted to have the final say on your misinformed stance on horror games (“I don’t think that’s scary so it’s not a horror game.”) and couldn’t even bother with the notion that perhaps that some of your opinions could have been changed or challenged and that you were blatantly wrong about a few things. You couldn’t admit that you made a poorly researched, rushed video to cash in on Halloween and instead of owning up to that, you make this response video which is all about covering your dismissive ass and the video basically says, “It’s okay that I did a poor job of analyzing a topic along with making an unconvincing argument because it’s all subjective.” On that front that most commenters agree with this video, I suppose there are a lot who agree but there are also a great ton of folks who disagree. The fact that some of the most top rated comments are disagreeing tells me that your critics aren’t exactly in the minority. If you truly wanted discussion, Joseph, you wouldn’t willingly dismiss your critics or talk down to them like they were too stupid to watch the whole video. “*IMO* You’re melting down Joseph and I don’t think it’s cool that you’re being a smug egotistical hypocrite about this.
@@jman2856 > Bullshit, Joseph. I’ve seen your comments on that horror games video, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about discussion. You wanted to have the final say on your misinformed stance on horror games (“I don’t think that’s scary so it’s not a horror game.”) and couldn’t even bother with the notion that perhaps that some of your opinions could have been changed or challenged and that you were blatantly wrong about a few things. If I didn't care about discussion I wouldn't have replied to anybody. If I *did* care about the final say I would have fanatically responded to every comment. I do not think I'm objectively correct about what I said in the horror video. Most challenges in the comments were already addressed in the video itself. There were also good comments and I responded to some of them. Unless you went through all 3000 comments to check for a reply on all of them, you have no idea what you're talking about. > You couldn’t admit that you made a poorly researched, rushed video to cash in on Halloween and instead of owning up to that, you make this response video which is all about covering your dismissive ass and the video basically says, “It’s okay that I did a poor job of analyzing a topic along with making an unconvincing argument because it’s all subjective.” This is not a response video to the horror comments. This is a response to a common error that people make in the comments about objectivity that has happened on almost every video. If it was a response video to the horror comments I would have spoken about the most common arguments brought up in them. How can it be a response video when I'm not responding to anything specific to the horror video comments? The video was not poorly researched because it wasn't researched at all. It was not an objective video. It was the most personal, subjective video on the channel. It was about how *I* respond to gameplay in horror games. You are arguing that I did not research my own feelings enough. How can you claim to know more about my own feelings than I do? Of course you can disagree with how you think I play horror games or say that my proposed solutions are bad. But there was no "poor analysis" because there was no analysis. I do not get scared by horror games. Here's a video saying why. Here are some ideas I think could make me be scared by them. Agree or disagree. I'm not speaking for anyone except myself. That's the end. Again: unless you've read every comment on the video, every reply on twitter, listened in on every stream when we spoke about this topic, and read through all the logs on Discord, how can *possibly* think you know if I've been dismissive or not? > On that front that most commenters agree with this video, I suppose there are a lot who agree but there are also a great ton of folks who disagree. The fact that some of the most top rated comments are disagreeing tells me that your critics aren’t exactly in the minority. Some of the most top rated comments are currently at the bottom of this video's comment list. I don't know why. I don't think that's a good way to gauge a reaction. I don't know if RUclips is trying out a new algorithm for displaying comments or if the sheer amount of comments this video generated caused some weird change. But yeah this isn't a strong argument, unfortunately. > If you truly wanted discussion, Joseph, you wouldn’t willingly dismiss your critics or talk down to them like they were too stupid to watch the whole video. Link to when I've done this, please. > “*IMO* You’re melting down Joseph and I don’t think it’s cool that you’re being a smug egotistical hypocrite about this. I don't know how you can view this as melting down. I don't see how I'm smug or egotistical or a hypocrite. Argue why you think that if you like but right now I can only say "I disagree" because you didn't provide any arguments.
“I replied to some comments which means I fully welcome discussion.” Your comments were mostly comprised of you repeating your bad argument and maintaining that your argument was a good argument that couldn’t be criticized. “My horror games video wasn’t an analysis, wasn’t a research video, it was just a dumb and stupid opinion piece video even though I practically lumped my own personal issues onto others as of it was an objective issue.” Roughly all of your videos are classified as critiques, not short, stupid and thrown together opinion pieces so how did that change happen? Also, you kind of just admitted you rushed out the horror games video just to cash in on Halloween. “No, no, no I totally didn’t make this video as a response to the backlash of my horror game’s video even though I whined about the backlash the video got on Twitter.” If this was a prevalent issue then how come this video was made only just a few weeks after you did the horror games video? I’m not buying that one bit. “I didn’t dismiss anyone, please provide an example.” You literally provided an example in this thread by accusing the OP of not watching the video along with accusing him of not getting your language as if he just isn’t as smart as you are. “I do not think I am objectively correct about the things I talk about.” Would be great if you actually understood that yourself most of the time at least nowadays. Also, a little weird that you seemingly only responded to the OP because he criticized your attitude as if you have some “prideful ego” to maintain. Perhaps, you should start analyzing yourself, that way you might actually start getting better.
@@jman2856 > Your comments were mostly comprised of you repeating your bad argument and maintaining that your argument was a good argument that couldn’t be criticized. Prove it. Warning: you have to go through all 3,000+ comments, all my twitter logs, stream vods, and Discord chat to do so. If your answer is "I'm not doing that" then I have to ask: how could you possibly know what my comments *mostly* comprised of if you haven't read them all? > Roughly all of your videos are classified as critiques, not short, stupid and thrown together opinion pieces so how did that change happen? Also, you kind of just admitted you rushed out the horror games video just to cash in on Halloween. I didn't admit anything. These are shorter videos that I'm releasing while working on the big Witcher video. Because they're short they have a different focus but they still take relatively the same amount of time per minute of finished video. I have had shorter videos in the past if you'd like to scroll through my video list. Real quick off the top of my head: Infinifactory, Openings of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, T-Rex Runner, Minit, Cuphead, Hob, Stephen's Sausage Roll. Whether you think the video was stupid or not is of course up to you but most people liked it. Also just because I mostly make Critiques does not mean all my videos will be Critiques. Titles are important. > If this was a prevalent issue then how come this video was made only just a few weeks after you did the horror games video? I’m not buying that one bit. Two reasons: because it occurred more than ever on the horror video and that made me think it was time to address it. And because I had recently gone through every comment on that video so I had the examples handy. Also this isn't something you have to "buy". It is demonstrably true that this video is not a response to the horror video because *I don't respond to any criticism specific to the horror video*. > Would be great if you actually understood that yourself most of the time at least nowadays. Also, a little weird that you seemingly only responded to the OP because he criticized your attitude as if you have some “prideful ego” to maintain. Perhaps, you should start analyzing yourself, that way you might actually start getting better. Now you're just making shit up. How could you possibly begin to *think* you know why I responded to the OP here?
I've actually found myself doing that "in my opinion" or "I think that" a lot, especially on forums and social media. I don't necessarily think it's strictly related to this type of content, but instead a growing trend in general.
Yeah. Perhaps it has something to do with the real people that STATE their opinion as the fact? Remember, we live in an information age and there is a lot of misinformation, fakenews or just false information presented as truth. 'I think', I think, is a humility construct - it makes you humble on stating your opinion thus admitting that 'I don't care what you think, meaning we can disagree. But I'm here just discussing things, I aint preaching' Perhaps some people start spreading opinions that might be objectively bad or underdeveloped and then start believing themselves that this is now the fact just cause the majority supports it? The topic is not so black and white. The fact that such kind of comments make the author uncomfortable is already telling. Just add a god damn disclaimer in the beginning of the video and you're done. No harm done, everyone's pleased and is on the same terms. I think, instead of blaming the people you should address the problem yourself. There WILL be people that consider the videos as 'opinions become facts'. And your response to...shut them off? Cast them out? Yeah, it might be a good decision in controlles close quarters eg the tribe with its own set of rules but this is the internet. The rules here will be different from the real life or some debates with SET RULES. There is a lot of people on the Internet and we cantchange everyone, so I think we have to try to please everyone or at least accept that that kind of people exist and just...let them be. Without wasting your time and energy on them. So...what do YOU THINK about it?
This video helped me to formulate what is exactly my problem with the argument about subjective statements. Objective statement can be object to scrutiny, where subjective one is not. I do not consider objectivity of statement as simply true or false state though, but rather a spectrum. Moreover same statement could be one or the another depending on context in which it was used. Example of that could be "This movie was funny". Opinion like that, stated after you walked out from theater to a friend is obviously subjective. Same sentence though as a part of review and supported by pole, where 75% of viewers hold same opinion you may qualify as somewhat objective. It still an opinion, but statistical methodology was applied to it, so there is an angle for you to argue for it or against it. It is much more difficult to dismiss it as "just an opinion", because there is some substance to it. This doesn't mean it's 100% objective and definietly doesn't mean it's true. You could theoretically go even deeper though and reference a research paper examining the electrochemical reactions of our nervous system during laugh and prove that most people will have exactly the same reaction during the screening. If you logic from point A to B to C were flawless, then you could objectively say "the movie was funny", even though that is excatly same statement, we considered as subjective before. I think problem with subjectivity doesn't emerge when your whole video is on the "same level of subjectivity", but when that level varies. I personally have no issue with video, which is purely a subjective opinion, nor one which is series of well referenced objective statements. Problem is mixing those two, because you reduce merit of well argumented statement if the one standing beside it cannot be discussed, because it's cosidered as a subjective one.
+Joseph Anderson I'm trying to figure out what your goal was in creating this video, and I'm trying to assume it was done with good intentions, but I'm having trouble doing that when the most obvious function of it is to dictate the online behavior of the people who watch your videos. To all the people who don't comment on your videos, all this is going to look like is you getting caught up in some possibly bad-faith arguments on the internet that they're not even personally invested in. Like you said, you reach a lot more people than anyone in those comments does, so to the average viewer, you're just providing a more public platform for those people to make those complaints, and you're providing a certain level of legitimacy to those arguments just by taking time out to write and edit a full-fledged video response TO those arguments. To anyone who made those types of comments in previous videos, chances are high that that's not really the part of your videos that they were upset with in the first place, so you're not even addressing the actual issue with them. I know the Halloween video isn't the only example of this, but it's the most obvious one, so I'll just give my personal take of that video as my own example: I recognized that it was your own opinion, but I also felt that the factors you were taking into consideration for making your argument were not nearly comprehensive enough to cover everything that would be relevant to how the average gamer responds to horror games, and because of that, a lot of your video _felt_ (to me) dismissive of a lot of those aspects. Not because you didn't say "in my opinion" enough, but because you didn't acknowledge all the reasons most people feel the way they do about horror. I recognize it wasn't your intention to be dismissive of others' opinions, and I'm not saying you should have been more thorough in your analysis--I assume you were just being genuine about the few things that mattered to _you,_ and I assume you felt like that much should be obvious, since it's what you always do. But I think when you cover your opinion in most of your videos, it's _so_ thorough, and it _does_ cover the majority of things that the average gamer would take into consideration when judging the quality of a game, and so most people assume that that's your goal, to provide this all-inclusive overview and response to all factors that would matter to anyone. Even if you disagree with them, you're still acknowledging which parts are important to them. So when you suddenly put out a video that very much _isn't_ an all-inclusive overview, and is critical of the shortcomings of an entire genre on top of that, it leads to a lot of people feeling like you're being dismissive of the parts that _do_ matter to them, hence the complaint: "You don't understand that it's just YOUR opinion." Again, I know those comments aren't limited to just that one video, or even to just _your_ videos. But if anyone gets upset about opinions not being presented clearly enough as opinions... in most cases, I think they're upset because they feel like they're being ignored or unacknowledged in some way, not because they think you're trying to make objective statements or bully people (on purpose). And sometimes it's _not_ your fault that they feel that way, and there's not really much you can do to fix it. But if you think there's an issue of miscommunication here, and you think it's leading to a toxic comments section, and you want to set out to fix it... this isn't the way to do it. Whether they're in the right or not, no one's going to respond well to you saying "There's a big problem with how irresponsibly you're expressing your emotions." So in review, this video's not going to offer anything to people who skip the comments section, it's not going to improve the comments section for the people who DO use it, and it's only going to rile up the people you're complaining about even further. So the only thing it really accomplishes is to appeal to people who already agree with you... and you said that's not what your goal is, right? So what IS your goal?
I'm gonna stop you right there. Because you can not give me a single qoute that corroborates your claim that hes telling people how to act. He is merely addressing a problem he and many others perceive within criticism and criticism of criticism on RUclips.
@@thatonestormtrooper2760 I admit I don't know exactly what his intentions are, and that's why I wrote my post in the first place: To illustrate that I don't know, to provide the only interpretations I'm capable of coming up with based on the content of the video, and ask him if any of them are correct. I saw him responding to other posts and entertained the thought he would respond to mine, too, but I guess that was probably naive of me. But since you're here and are able to see another purpose behind the video, I might as well ask you instead: If this video is addressing a problem having to do with comment discourse, how is it addressing the problem if it's _not_ implying that people should change how they comment on these videos? What other solution is it offering to address the problem? If the problem it's addressing is not about how people comment on the videos, then what other problem is it addressing instead?
@@surrogatebigbrother2129 the problem he is addressing goes far beyond comments. It goes to discourse around criticism in general. It is about understanding subjectivity and being more civil
A totally objective review is impossible. You cannot rate something as good or bad objectively. It relies on the time at which you review it and your past experiences. It is impossible to objectively say if something is good or bad. A totally objective review would not be able to say if anything within the game would be good or bad, it would rather just explain what the game is, because explaining what something is is objective.
Nothing triggers me more than when people sling around the word "objective," but I have a different understanding than you. I make the distinction between "objective" and "absolute" which is pretty helpful for me in conversation. "Objective" just means that something is derived from a set of understood rules. If two people took it to be true that blue is better than red, and that is the majority of the value of any piece of art, it would be fair to say that a game like Subnautica (lots of blue in game) is "objectively" better than DOOM Eternal (red) in that particular conversation. "Absolutely true," is a concept that is helpful because almost nothing is "absolutely true," but people mistakenly conceive much of what they believe to be "absolutely true" even down to their taste in art. I take it to mean 100% true, like the claim "SOMETHING exists." I want to leave space for this niche use of the word "objective" because some philosophers spend a lot of time on aesthetic theories that aren't "absolutely true," but they are making conclusions that are logically deduced from rules they take to be true (called axioms). This applies to other stuff too like morality. You could make objective moral claims, but if you were to make them you would HAVE to be crystal clear what moral framework you're operating with, and that you have no pretensions about making an "absolute" moral claim. When someone says something is "objectively" good or bad, I'd say that it's almost "absolutely true" that they're talking out of their ass though. I don't know if I've ever seen someone deduce something about an art piece from a carefully constructed framework, it's like always just some rando with a really strong gut feeling that the thing they like is so likable that it's objectively true that it's good. I wanted to leave this comment to you, because I weirdly liked the way you explained yourself, and I'd like to hear what you think about this.
I've had this idea for a while where I'd make videos with a text-to-speech robot giving objective reviews(and by objective, I mean the actual meaning of the word) to various games, just to point out how stupid it is. I ran into a bit of a roadblock when I found that a lot of these reviews would end up sounding nearly identical to the gameplay section of a Wiki page.
Look up the word "objective." It does not mean "irrefutably factually correct." It means you are making statements or arguments about the object of your discussion (here it means a game or movie.) There can be two different reviews, both objective, with totally different conclusions. An opinion is a judgment that is often made by a combination of personal formative information and actual evidence, often a mix of your taste and your assessment of the things quality. An objective argument just means you are trying to eliminate personal bias in order to come to a judgment that people can agree with, argue against, or just think about because it's interesting. A subjective review discusses personal experiences and feelings about something, basically it's more about the speaker than the thing being spoken on. This has a lot of merit as well, since experiences with media can be as interesting as the media itself in some cases. If you say that in your opinion "two plus two equals five," and attempt to prove it using evidence, you are not making a subjective statement. You are trying to make a case about something, maybe bringing in some personal experience to add relatability or flavor, but there is something for other people to argue against. With subjective views, people cannot argue that you did feel scared when watching something that didn't scare you but they can highlight techniques that do allow the game to scare a lot of people. It's when you say "I didn't feel cared playing this therefore it's bad" that there is a problem. You're using subjective evidence to make an objective generalization. Reddit was a mistake
There is a saying that in an argument, both sides are incorrect or at fault - and it’s right. Most of the time, people aren’t ready to listen or read about something that has an opposing opinion to their own, no matter how many good points or facts you bring, which happens a lot especially in politics or debates of opposing ideologies. Both are right to some capacity, but also are wrong about something else. However, when someone does not even want to think about the other side’s perspective or listen to it - it’s useless and pointless to even argue with such people, and in the end you are better off conserving your own energy and ceasing the argument, concentrating your energy on something else. Sadly, I would say there are far more people like that than those who have learned to react calmly to situations when opinions don’t match. No matter how you phrase things in your analysis, people would still go off of their emotions than reflect on what was being said - that’s a problem that has ALWAYS existed, even before the age of internet. It existed in art, in literature, in basically everything that was created in existence. With the internet, it simply became more transparent, easier to see, though other factors - like our society’s failing educational system (not just US) that kills critical thinking - do worsen such things. There is also the other side: everyone has a right to their opinion. It is normal to get the topic within your work critiqued but also to get critiqued as a content creator, which is what happened with some of the comments that you’ve shown in the video (first long comment at 2:07, for instance). However, were they constructive in their critique or was it just abstract and non specific? And most importantly: what was the intention behind the comment (malicious or trying to communicate what the underlying issue is?). I know that sometimes it’s the tone of voice that can give the wrong impression when combining it with specific phrases. It often times happens in arguments where a person’s tone gets an entire statement misinterpreted because it sounded completely different from what the intention of the speaker was. We are all human beings, so it is to be expected that not all videos will carry over the exact same style and tone every time, which might be one of the culprits for the increase of such comments in some of the videos and not others. Overall, what I am trying to say is: a lot of comments that are fueled by just emotion and don’t offer any arguing sustenance (both can exist at the sane time, and that’s fine because we are human beings, after all) should be taken with a grain of salt. I do, however, think that those that have sustenance should be pondered over - and with all things considered, you’ll make the best call that you think is right for you and your channel. If we don’t at least think about what the other person is saying and can’t take criticism well, then how will we ever improve not only as creators, but as human beings too? There can be no discussion unless both sides are ready to listen and to think.
"Someone thinks the movie is bad, the other might think it's good. They can have an argument and someone might even change their mind." This is exactly what people who decry subjectivity don't want in the dialogue. They want observations. They want a mutual consideration of an object; This happens, this is a consequence of that, should this change, we might then expect...etc. However you value or feel about a thing doesn't factor into the discourse. That personal resonation is PERSONAL. If you liked something you aren't wrong. If you disliked something, you aren't wrong. They are your own feelings; no amount of arguing is going to validate/invalidate them, so why are you bothering? What WILL change you? Insight aided by additional perspectives will reveal things about a thing you might not have seen or had access to. Every one learns in this case and gains a greater appreciation for the world instead of explaining *why the other is stupid* for valuing the things they do or feeling the way they do. Recounting the aspects of a thing might sound boring and stuffy on its face, but it's just good etiquette.
I had an ex-girlfriend that had trouble with this and we would get into fights about me not explicitly telling her when I was stating an opinion and that it was ok for her to disagree, and it was ok for us to debate about it. It can be tricky to put these thoughts into words without sounding like an insensitive asshole, so thank you for this video. I think this may come from people's experience with unreasonable or abusive people in their lives (usually parents) that truly believe and state their opinions as facts that Shall Not Be Disagreed With, so to them the intentions of someone's statement can be blurry. It's the classic effect that trauma has on people: something bad happens, they learn that this bad thing can happen, and so they become extra extra careful of it in the future, sometimes leaning too far into caution and misidentifying a nonthreat as a threat. Also just to add on a reason that we shouldn't have to declare opinions every time that is separate from articles and essays: eventually conversations become inhibited by your worry of offending whoever you're talking to, having to walk on eggshells when bringing up potential points of contention. It can really have an insidious effect on a relationship --the creeping feeling that you can't or shouldn't say what you truly feel.
(Sorry for my bad english) Essays tend to have controversial thesis because they have to be intersting. For example: "I don't think horror games are scary". However, no essay is objective. They need a lot of research, but in the end they are always subjective. If people misunderstood your conclusions is not just because they are stupid. Most of the time, is because you didn't explain your thesis correctly.
Honestly. I just felt like that other video made me learn that you have a certain disconnect from immersion that not a lot of people do. You dont feel immersion like most people do. You are overly aware that you're playing a game therefore horror in games doesnt work on you. That's why I feel like the whole point of that other video was a little moot. Because you're discussing a change in horror games that while it would interesting, it's not really a necessary change for most people, because for the most part, a lot of gamers dont have the disconnect that you clearly do.
Yeah, I've always been the same way when I'm playing games, just, acutely aware I can press a couple buttons and the bad things go away, my brain won't let me forget it.
How do you choose what game footage to use? Do you just have folders of game clips to use when they fit, did you have to load up Doom to get the footage from the beginning, and then the rest to get all the footage, or do you grab the clips from other peoples' Let's Plays (with permission, I assume)?
Some parts of this video are me talking over unrelated game footage. I tried my best but I found it difficult to find something that could be paired with what I was saying for every section. Hopefully it's alright for something as broad as this.
I love hearing you review things! I'd led your softly caress my ENTIRE body and listen to you review it as you do ;)
I noticed you threw in some Danganronpa moments, and for a split second I was curious if you accidentally put any spoilers in the video, and was pleasantly surprised when i saw you blurred out the spoilers. Good attention to detail, well done.
Good video as always.
Opinions are facts to you
It might be that I am reading too much into this but claiming that : " My opinion is not worth more then anyone's else" could be construed as you advocating every opinion having the same worth or as you said unambiguously "no opinion is worthless".
This is objectively false. Some people have the opinion that our planet is flat, this is 100% objectively false and yet they have said opinion. You might want to engage and want to understand what's beneath that statement thus validating your idea of even said opinion having value except that it would not validate such a thing at all.
The opinion itself wouldn't have any value as it would be false no matter what's beneath. The only value you would get from engaging with such a thing would be some amount of exposure and experience dealing with people bias combined with a large amount of self-deceit on their part which, once again, would not be the opinion itself. Unless you would be okay conflating X with something used as it's foundation despite said foundation potentiality of being used for something else which could mean that two completely different thing could be one and a same just because they have one single foundation in common and regardless on how properly it is used in both case because you would be okay conflating something and said something's foundation.
So while I agree with your introduction that subjectivity is very often implied. Some of the things you say along the way are just wrong no matter how you look at it. The point brought up in my message being the most blatant one.
Have a good day.
Way ahead of you, Joseph, I'm always imagining friends.
yeet
What are these "friend" things he's referring to?
No.
@@JosephAndersonChannel God fucking damn it
@Surpasingly Psyquieous I'm imagining your wife.
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say.
Thanks for the chuckle
But that's just like your opinion man
I love this
Best comment
@Tabris he should been more sensitive to your views, what an asshole...
I remember my AP English teacher telling us we should never write "I think" in our essays because obviously, as the authors of our essays, what we were writing was what we were thinking.
Well then I hope you failed after writing "Soma is not a horror game" and then following it up with "Horror games are not scary" and then following that up with "anything you think is a claim i'm making is just my opinion and thus immune to criticism (somehow) and if you can't tell when I'm making claims that can obviously be argued with and my subjective feelings then you are probably a dumb dumb" because hoo boy that would be a spicy take.
@@toospooky5929 Are you talking to someone?
Now, as an interesting note: I have learned a lot from Roger Ebert film reviews, for every film ever made - a masterclass in essays. Curiously, he uses "I think", very effectively.
@@Daniel-Rosa. Roger Ebert also very often makes value judgement without qualifying them with "I think". Of course he would agree that subjectivity is implied in those cases since there can be no objective value judgments on art.
@@Daniel-Rosa. "I think" can be used when you want to express certain doubt. But not every damn time you want to give a statement.
I had always suspected that his videos contained opinions, but here he is finally admitting it.
I fucking knew it! 😂
more research is needed
Is this preparing us for the 37 hour Witcher video?
What?
Joe announced he was making a Witcher video?
MPW yeah it must have been over a year ago by now he said to do it right he’d have to read all the books, and then play all the games and that it would take a long time
Edit: he also mentioned at the end of the God of War video the next big thing will be the Witcher games
@@beneisma5345 Makes me wonder what will come out first, Star Citizen, Bannerlord, or the Witcher series review.
@@beneisma5345 We can basically forget about getting anything from him for a while. I'm playing through the first Witcher, for the first time, 20 hours in and still in chapter 2.
@@Rin-ve8zk the Witcher series is massive and I think it's unlikely we'll get it within a year. Maybe by the beginning of 2020 it'll be out.
Interesting. If we engage in internet rage, Joseph will give us additional videos.
Noted.
Shit, that's a good point, I can binge more.
Pavlov's Reviews
7 months and no video wai
Clearly we failed
Too may people think the duality of art critique is "objective vs. subjective" when the reality is closer to "critical thinking vs. personal taste".
For example, "This character was not compelling to me because his arc was incomplete" vs. "I like this character because I like his voice".
You know, I think you have a good point here. I think the issue is that a lot of people think Joe is mixing the two in several of his videos while still presenting the information in the same way as when it's all critical thinking.
Mayeur000Donz
No.
Saying "This character was not compelling to me because his arc was incomplete" is not an evidence based analysis, you haven't cited any examples, you have made zero effort to prove your case. Without evidence it is a subjective assertion masquerading as "critical thinking", it isn't criticism. Saying "I like this character because I like his voice" is less problematic as it is a personal opinion, it doesn't pretend to be something it is not, and actually by drawing attention to this aspect it affords the listener the opportunity to consider whether they like the character more or less based upon whether they also like his voice. Only they can judge this for themselves as this will be their own subjective qualia which they are apprehending with their senses and which evoke different memories and associations for them in their consciousness. For this reason it can be the case that over time we find reviewers who share the same opinions on things as us and can advise us fairly accurately as to whether we would enjoy the experience they had as we know that they share a similar taste to us. It isn't a precise science, but then we are talking about Art.
Geralt of Trivia Yeah, Rey could be revealed the daughter of Luke Skywalker - hence the title: _The Rise of Skywalker_ as she feels better about herself when she learns of he illustrious heritage. This would explain the source of her powers. Luke being cut off from the Force would explain why he didn't sense she was related to him. Luke could have exiled himself, like Yoda, when he was upset at his failures with Leia's son, who he had helped guide away from the path that consumed their father, and because in his failings Ben became Kylo and Snoke ordered Kylo to lead the Knights of Ren to hunt down and kill his wife, Mara Jade, who had been sent away from Jakku by Luke, for her safety, ahead of the final battle between the Empire and the Rebellion. Mara Jade never had a chance to tell Luke the good news that she was pregnant with their child. Years later as she is pursued by the Knights of Ren from one planet to the next she realises that she has to leave Rey in the care of Unkar Plutt on the remote world Jakku, and implant false memories in Rey's mind of being sold off drinking money by parents who are now buried in its desert. Consequently, Kylo isn't lying to Rey when he tells her that he has looked into her mind and seen the traumatic "truth" of who her parents were. Rey tearfully accepts they were nobodies, having spent years in denial that she could have been so unloved. It seems cruel, but this was necessary to protect Rey's identity, as she would have been seen as a threat to Kylo had he known she was a Skywalker. This means that they are cousins. Mara Jade killed the Knights of Ren, but was exhausted when she came to fight Kylo and died by his hand. When Luke senses this through his familial Force Bond to his nephew, he is struck with grief, and guilt, which lead him to exile himself on the remote island, like Yoda exiled himself in that remote swamp, following his failure to prevent the rise of Palpatine and the Jedi being destroyed by Order 66.
So, there is an opportunity for _Star Wars: Episode IX_ to fix what went before, to answer some serious questions which strain credulity if left unanswered. It can even explain how Snoke died so easily.
Geralt of Trivia
Luke had met Jedi Master Obi-Wan and been given a lesson fighting blindfolded before he was told by a disembodied voice to use the Force to guide his aim and destroy the Death Star. Sure, this is not much training but compare that to Rey and we have her use Force Persuasion, Force Grab, and defeat Kylo with Luke’s lightsaber, all without any training. You can either scrap the trilogy and start over, or explain how Rey didn’t need training as her early training had been repressed along with her identity, hence no surname.
“Kylo doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy that would go after your family and then go after him because you tried to kill him”
Snoke expects Kylo to kill Han and Leia, as well as Rey, in order to corrupt him, so why not Mara Jade and Luke too? Snoke needs to sever all of his apprentice’s familial Force Bonds to make it impossible for him to find his way back to the Light.
We don’t know the details of Mara Jade’s arrangement with Unkar Plutt, whether he was paid to look after Rey when she was a child, and if it was expected Mara would returrn soon, as well as how the economy of Jakku changed and become poorer with everyone struggling to scavenge and repair broken ships to sell them for some imported food rations, as nothing could be grown locally.
Kylo probes Poe and Rey’s minds. Luke does the same to Ben. Snoke does it to Kylo. Force Persuasion allows those using it to implant a thought in a weak mind to get them to do what you ask them to do. Personally, I think my idea is consistent with the franchise.
Mara would be killed before Episode VII and be shown being killed in an extended flashback in Episode IX, explaining why Luke seemed so nihilistic in Episode VIII.
I never said Luke kept his wife a secret from Leia or Han. Mara is already dead when Luke goes to Ahch-To.
Mara’s death is an additional reason to pile on to why Luke goes into exile, like Yoda and Obi-Wan before him. I didn’t mention your reasons as we know about those already.
I would have written it better if I had had the opportunity to do the trilogy. As it is I have to work within the silly plot given.
Wait.
Are you serious about saying: “It’s a good thing pretty much nothing was broken in the first place”?
I didn’t realise I was dealing with a fan of the sequels. Palpatine had an origin, but Snoke did not. When do we get to know how he rose to power? _Episode IX?_
Well, I’m sorry but for 98% of the audience all of this rumoured World Building is too late. Palpatine didn’t die without bringing about the death of Vader. Yet, Kylo is fine. This diminishes the threat of Snoke and makes him seem like a silly villain that wanted to be killed.
Go fuck yourself.
define "incomplete"
incomplete compared to what
etc etc
so yeah, *EVERYTHING* that is in natures has context and therefore everything is subjective
also watch this vimeo.com/24014769
Honestly one of my favorite parts about this video is that you were considerate enough to blur out Danganronpa spoilers. Thanks man.
As somebody who is currently playing through these games for the first time (finished 1, now playing 2), I couldn't agree more.
I was trying so hard to figure out what that game was cause that was really interesting to me and can't thank you enough for naming it!
"My videos on Fallout 4 get so many views that JUST TODAY more people will listen to me speak my opinions on that series than most people will be listened to about anything in their entire lives"
i dont watch these videos to get flexed on joseph
kinda cool to think about though
Lmfao
in his defense, they're like my podcast. I just let them run on repeat while I do whatever
this calls for weird flex but ok
You don't have any videos visible, let alone videos on Fallout 4.
Stop stating your opinion on subjectivity, as if it's an objective fact!
But that's just your opinion
@@jackhuber6835 *inception horn plays violently in the background for 10 seconds*
That's just your opinion, man.
*goes back to smoking weed*
got em
Subjective/objective have the same problem as figurative/literal. Decades of retards not knowing what the words mean muddying the definitions to the point of uselessness. It's merely your subjective opinion that this video is objectively about subjectivity.
Very late, but: a lot of discourse online in particular is very tied to people's sense of identity. It's scary - it scares me - to just go ahead and respond to well-made arguments that say such-and-such was trash with your own heartfelt expression of why you loved it. It makes you vulnerable. You can't expect much agreement, unless you're discussing the original point in some kind of hate-group for the OP. You'd rather jump back to a safe - invincible, even - position, like "that's just your opinion, man." I see this a fair bit in pseudonymous discussions.
There was a solid 2 minutes of video there where the audio went in one ear and out the other because I was so focused on the Hollow Knight gameplay. That was some smooth movement.
Same here. Had to rewind once I realised I had no idea what he'd been saying.
He really did turn into a weeb. He uses "No that's wrong" clips from Danganronpa, and a lot of the background is Persona. I didn't think it was possible, but we did it chat, we turned a man with a wife and kids into a weeb. Good job Us.
we destroyed this man
Joseph “I like anime” Anderson, as confirmed in the Undertale stream.
This right here is the most important thing to take away from this video.
@@ketrub we gave this man a second life
What have we done to this man
...As a person who naturally and at this point pretty much subconsciously adds "I think" "in my opinion" "It's just something I believe but" every 4 sentences or so anytime I speak, I felt incredibly called out when you started SPEAKING EXACTLY LIKE I DO omg I sound so annoying now I understand what my teachers were talking about when they told me to remove it from my vocabulary during class debates
Yeah because of the repitition. There are so many ways to say something subjective besides "i think" and "as far as im concerned"
@@DukePegasus There are many ways to say it, but even if you say it differently every time it gets annoying. Unnecessary information is unnecessary information.
@@MADMACHlNE it's not unnecesarry if it phrases your meaning. And it's not long or repetitive, I can come up with at least 50 ways off phrasing an opinion.
@@DukePegasus
Three things:
1) Redundant statements are redundant even if rephrased each time.
2) If you say the same thing over and over again, it's repetitive even if you say it differently.
3) Whether or not you actually utter the same words multiple times, if the same information is communicated multiple times, you're repeating yourself.
@@MADMACHlNE you get it
Inb4 an eight hour Mauler podcast in response to this
Today is your day
Lol you were right.
Is that a bad thing?
Joke’s on you, it was only four and a half!
Even the Wolf from on high descended to get in on this.
Man, but that's just your opinion!
(I recognize this joke isn't original, but I just woke up and am not intelligent enough to come up with anything better)
Hey man good to see ya
@@KingKlonoa obliously, that's just your opinion, that you just woke up and not intelligent enough. It think you just wanted to make that joke, and that you weren't sleeping for the past week
Love your channel as well.
HOLY CRAP CROSSOVER
Subjectivity: It’s A Masterpiece
Almost
Yeah, that shouldn't be a subjective statement... masterpiece has a meaning, though masterships and craftsmen have gone the way of the dodo.
That's why I get annoyed when people don't preface these opinions on the internet.
When some random dude asks about a game on a message board and they say "It's the best [game in this genre] this year"... that's not "obviously" an opinion. Well, it is, because they were wrong, but the person asking doesn't know that. It sounds factual, even ignoring that it's not helpful.
I suppose a better response would be "obviously that's an opinion, but it doesn't get any ideas across, except that I shouldn't assume your words are meaningful."
Is it really so hard to worded subjectively, like "I loved it", and then give a reason why?
@@AusSP yes. Yes that's very obviously an Opinion. If they don't try to elaborate their statement with arguments, it's obvious they're not trying to make a statement that applies to anyone other than themselves.
The problem is that you are assuming a person doesn't recognize that "It's the best game this year" has to be an opinion, because as you said, it cannot be a fact.
Now, apparently there are a lot of people who don't understand that, but are we responsible for those people? It frankly just becomes patronizing to everyone who clearly understands that a phrase like that cannot be objective.
Maybe saying this phrase in a message board like in your example wasn't very helpful, but at the very least the person who asked knows that one person really liked it (assuming they can in fact, tell it has to be an opinion).
Looking back on the horror game video, there seems to be more comments with valid criticisms than there are dismissing the video because its subjective. I think people may be frustrated with you creating an entire video on the fringe group of people that don't like subjectivity, without addressing the actual problems people had with your video.
La0bouchere It’s the worst way to criticize something. That’s why he covered it.
It's not a fringe group. Lots of people are this way. People who cant understand that if I say i say overwatch is a bad game. I am not infact saying it is objectively poorly made and my opinion is final but am just stating that according to what I look for in a game it is flawed.
The top comments can be valid, but when you get deeper, you find people who are more condescending than the person you are trying to criticize.
Essays tend to have controversial thesis because they have to be intersting. For example: I don't think horror games are scary. However, no essay is objective,. They need a lot of research, but in the end they are always subjective.
If people misunderstood yor conclusion is not just because they are stupid, most of the time is because you didn't explain your thesis correctly.
+a box in the black No... He covered it this way as trying to paint all his detractors as morons who don't understand what subjectivity is when he's the one who doesn't proofread.
Can never go wrong with that ‘mario’ gameplay
Don’t you mean Merry-o
I hate it when people say that "you need to stop presenting your opinions as facts." The idea that you need to say "IN MY OPINION" before every sentence is ridiculous. It's obvious that it's just an opinion.
that shit is one of the top 5 most annoying things on the internet
most of the time it's not so obvious to a lot of people though
You're right, in 80% of cases or so, but sometimes it is unclear whether the person understands that what they're saying isn't factual. Some people really do think their opinions are facts, and I think it's legitimate to tell them that it's just an opinion, and that it should be phrased as such and not presented in objective terms. But yes, most of the time, prefacing a statement with "in my opinion" is not needed, as it's usually implied and obvious.
The thing is that there are sections that are opinion intermixed with true or false factual statements, so making the distinction can be prudent.
Saying something is mechanically under or overpowered, some story beat being a plothole or unresolved, or anything related to mechanics venture into the realm where objectivity matters.
Saying a game is a failure or not hard enough also seem like factual statements that could be phrased better to address their subjective nature.
Mauler literally made a 3-hour response/analysis of Joseph's 15-minute opinion on why horror games don't feel scary for him, and in the comments his followers are all up in arms about Joseph having opinions... why can't people just, like, chill and talk. You know like you do after the movies?
Props to Joe for blocking out the dead student portraits in Danganronpa 3
As someone who's never played the games I was wondering what that was
@@mrf4ncyp4nts it's a game about the world's best students who are trapped in a school and the only way out is to kill someone without getting caught
warrick74 honestly sounds like a good roblox minigame.
@@mattzr1550 ... Its way too dark for that.
Poptart is Salty there are actual pedos on roblox
That's just like, your opinion, man!
*sees video in feed and then realizes what his last video was*
oh boy this whole ordeal is gonna be a shitshow
That's just like, your opinion man
I also like "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole."
Objectively the best movie ever
Don't mess with the Jesus!
@@rikard-4412 Actual facts
Did he just use Nagito and Yusukes voice for the comments?
As someone that watches the streams, yes. But you need to consider the perspective of someone that doesn't watch the streams, in which case, no.
THE WEEBNESS IS SEEPING THROUGH
in my opinion
He's going to beat that rubbish mentality into submission.
WE ARE NAGITO *woke*
Dude the parallel you're drawing to academic work (specifically regarding history as that's my area of expertise) just doesn't exist. When using facts as a historian I am expected to be able to source my information. If I cannot reliably source that information then the fact is unreliable and unusable. Some facts do not require a specific citation in academic articles because they are so commonly known to be true. The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, near Hastings, for example. Nothing more than a quick google search is required to find a deluge of cross-references that confirm this fact as true. And as the INTENDED AUDIENCE of the essay becomes more specific; from historian, to medieval historian, to medieval Europe historian, to medieval France specialist, the understanding of what 'common knowledge' is, changes. Common knowledge to an audience of specialists in medieval France is a very different matter to the common knowledge of your average, educated reader/watcher. Hence, the need to cite thoroughly is dependent on exactly who your audience is. The average reader will trust a professor of history when they make an un-cited claim because that professor speaks with authority, and their work has more than likely gone through a lengthy process of peer-review in order to vet out inaccuracies. The historian cites information so their work is reliable, and contextually does not need to do so if the information is common enough to their target audience that it needs no verification.
How is this process in ANY WAY similar to signifying that you are giving an opinion, not stating a fact? It is vitally important that a critic make sure that their audience understands when they are describing the mechanics and how they correspond to the developer's intentions, versus how they as the consumer responded to the subject. The differences between analysis of art and debate over history is that games, implicitly, have intentions behind them. But more importantly, we have clear understandings of the mechanisms at work, and how they could be changed or improved to further the intentions of the developer. When you say 'death ruins horror games', that is a blanket statement about a genre, and hence applies to every single horror game ever made.
Have you played every single horror game ever made? I doubt it. Making statements abour ENTIRE GENRES is a very difficult endevour, with very low returns. Your language indicates that death is an issue that plagues the entire genre. But what of a horror game where death isn't even a possibility? Or a horror game that can only be attempted once, eliminating the possibility of respawns? You see what's happening here? You've made a statement, and I'm attacking it. Because your previous video presents a very strange idea, that is argued for in a way that isn't convincing. Not to mention the presentation giving the very explicit impression that your criticisms are faults of the GAMES, not a personal reason for not caring for them. If your video was intending to share a personal feeling, why were references and mechanics brought in, criticisms made, and solutions proposed? If there's a solution, there's a problem. If there's a problem, we're talking in objective terms. If you just want to share your sentiments, you can't be caught saying 'death ruins horror games', as that's a straight up objective claim. A vulnerable, underinformed one, but an objective one. Objective doesn't mean true, it means measurable. Your statement has qualifiers. These qualifiers can be true or false. Your claim's validity depends on the validity of its qualifiers. So when you make claims that seem, from an audience's perspective, to talk about an entire genre of a medium, you fail to make the line between description of reality and personal assessment clear.
I really hope you can see why your audience is having trouble here. The language you use makes it incredibly unclear whether you're assessing mechanics or giving a personal feeling. "Horror games fail to scare me" is not the same as "Horror games fail to scare", and you use the latter with the unreasonable expectation that your audience will hear the former.
beautiful
>Objective doesn't mean true, it means measurable.
Thank fucking god for people like you.
The parallel he's drawing between academics and "stating you're giving an opinion" admittedly fails on many levels. However, that fact doesn't discount his overall argument.
When he says "death ruins horror games" this is clearly, CLEARLY an opinion. Anyone who takes that statement as objective fact or believes there's an attempt to present it as a "fact" merely must have problems discerning between the two. There's no way to make that statement, "death ruins horror games," look like it's a fact unless the person being told this statement already understands the statement as objective truth.
Prove me wrong. Form that basic statement for me in such a way that it inarguably becomes a statement of objective fact instead of a statement of personal opinion. It simply CAN NOT be done.
The problem stems from people forgetting what the actual fuck we are debating here. Joseph does not talk about historic facts, neither does he want to convince flat earthers that the earth is in fact a sphere. He reviews video games.
Who would have thought that video game reviews (any reviews, really) are subjective? The sole reason why there are so many different magazines and RUclipsrs and whatever reviewing games is because it CAN'T be done objectively. So, naturally, you seek out a reviewer who shares a particular taste in games, like someone who likes the Soulsborne series for similiar reasons you do yourself. If this reviewer then reviews a Souls-like game and says it's bad explaining why, you have good reasons to believe him. Not because he's objective, because again, that is not truly possible, but because he shares a similar taste to you and makes good (SUBJECTIVE) arguments.
So any medium critizing ANY other medium is 95% (made up percentage ofc) subjective. There is no reason to say "in my opinion", at least there shouldn't be. It's just so obvious.
And I'm not saying this because I 100% agree with Joseph. I actually got scared by many horror games to take his lates video for example, FEAR and Dead Space come to mind (with respawn and safe mechanics), but I absolutely understood that he's making subjective statements and was fine with it.
TL;DR: We are talking about critizing media, not history or science, and the problem lies at the viewers in this case, not the OP
If you make a review or analysis channel please tell me because you are more equipped to do it than the grand majority of those that do. I'd love to watch a channel that cares about organization and isn't always on the backpedal from it's own incompetence, which it seems nearly every channel is, which is why many just ignore criticism aimed at them. This was a joy to read
Those clips of Dues Ex Human Revolution made me want to watch Ross's Game Dungeon's episode of that game. I love that the content you two make is similar, but wildly different.
In college, they tell you to not write with "in my opinion" because what you're writing is an opinion and, unless otherwise stated, it's assumed to be yours, so there's no reason to write that. Additionally, phrases like "I think" sound weak because it looks like you're not sure enough to assert your stance.
Curiously, the people who complain about stating opinions as facts are very strange. They're smart enough to recognize what you have said as an opinion. But then they go the extra step to complain about how it could look like a fact. It doesn't reflect well on them, and writing / talking in such a way to clearly state opinions as opinions to cater to the lowest common demoniators out there does not treat your audience with any semblance of respect.
I would like to point out a caveat to your statement... specifically where you point out that "I think" sounds weak.
This is true! And should generally be avoided when trying to convince others of your point. But that is intended for debate styled writing, where the objective is to convince the reader regardless of whether you're actually correct or not.
When presenting for discussion rather than debate, certain tonal changes are useful in facilitating the format. And so statements like "I think" or "Perhaps" become both and invitation to discussion on a point, and a clear mark between fact and opinion. Which can be blurry in a long an complex discussion of subjective issues and objective facts.
Perhaps most importantly, they allow an 'in' for your discussion partner. Indicating good will from you towards the discussion. Emotions should never drive a discussion, and being civil and charitable goes along way in helping people to keep themselves in check.
Was it an opinion? Or is the fact just against their OWN opinion?
They have to teach that in college? We must have far too many unintelligent people going to college.
College is basically a day care for adults.
@@idiamin5224 This was actually something I learned in high school English classes
It’s a problem that’s bigger than just video games, as it’s a failure in communication.
The rise of the internet has given numerous people a platform to voice their opinions, yet it is mostly a one-way street. While you can make a RUclips video that’s 3 hours long, most responses will have to settle for a comment that will either be ignored outright or drown in plethora of other comments.
People wish to communicate and response, but very few, if any platform truly allows for this at the time.
Some of it is the age, and level of debate that person has engaged with too. All opinions are equal, but not all are equally valid.
An even bigger problem is that the default RUclips comment is just to repeat a popular opinion from a RUclips video as though it’s your own, including just repeating a line from the video itself.
Gamers Vs Basic Media Literacy
I never thought I would see My Time at Portia footage in a Joseph's video.
Where's the other 50 minutes of my Jo video?
Ikr I feel shortchanged
He's selling out. He got over 10 minutes for a 2nd ad and that's all he needs now. He's all about the clickbait titles and ad revenue now, it's time to jump ship.
I knew this day would come, I just didn’t think it would be so soon.
@@Sultimate93 There is no 2nd ad on this video.
>Imagine you're going to the movies with a friend
>Who left the station one stop early to save money
>To watch the cake knight rises
You're a psycopath who bakes for money.
Sorry i lost at the voices, it always cracks me up for some reason, god. Can't wait for your debut as a VA man.
I commend you on your ability to lay out an argument in such a way that I get a complete and total (as far I can tell) understanding of it. Not just in this video, but in all of the content that I have watched of yours. A rare trait in reviewers, or RUclipsrs, or even people in general
I find it hilariously absurd that this is such a point of contention for some people that it required a video response. Looking forward to more content from you Joseph, "I think that" you're doing a great job.
Randy Marsh C’mon man that’s subjective nobody cares ffs
He does do a great job when he remains properly objective, I'd say. But, statements like at the end there: "SOMA fails as a horror game". That isn't an opinion, that's a direct statement. You've got to back that up, it's stupid to say "well, that's just my opinion", when challenged on that.
And for the most part, I think Joseph usually does, when he gives statements like that.
An opinion is "I don't like SOMA, I think it's a bad horror game".
I can say "Okay. Why?", and you can break that down into subjective items. That's how most discussion occurs.
You can say it does this, or that, and we can talk from there finding your own personal tastes.
Starting off with "SOMA fails as a horror game", though, being a statement, doesn't really follow the same items.
You say "Okay, why?", and instead of subjective and personal tastes being discussed, you have to go to objective items, because you've made a statement. A claim.
And, honestly, I wish Joseph would stop these rather passive-aggressive runs seemingly insulting his audience and generally coming off as a bit of a smarmy cunt. Like, I love his videos, but, I've started noticing this more and more, especially in his livestreams, and, it's really starting to grate on me.
He spends a good portion of the video talking about how people who enjoy horror games have to ignore the cognitive dissonance from your character's immunity.
He's not just saying "horror games are scary", he says "horror games are only scary when everyone is ignoring XYZ". That is blatantly outside of individual subjectivity.
@@BobtheX
Such a negative outlook on others, I think, is rather unproductive. Personally, I try not to take such a snide outlook of superiority when dealing with others. It just makes you look like, to be quite blunt, an asshole. Which is why generally it's best to assume the best in people.
Anyway; "SOMA fails as a horror game" is not a subjective opinion, it's a statement.
If I said "I think SOMA fails as a horror game", that'd be an opinion. But, you can't claim a claim isn't a claim.
I agree that if Joseph didn't support his opinions, it'd be unsatisfying. Which is actually part of my issue with Joseph's videos. Sometimes he makes a claim, and then doesn't support it, and when it's called out or critiqued, he pulls the 'my opinion' card. It's very bothersome. But, this is, fortunately, relatively rare, and usually he does very solid, usually quite objective, videos outlining major problems in games.
Personally, I don't think Joseph intentionally uses 'my opinion' to block criticism or argument, I just think he slips up, and has a bit of a really nasty self superiority outlook that requires him to do no wrong. It seems when he does accidentally inject his opinion without thought, he has a habit of assuming himself to be correct on his claims, anyway.
Love his videos, but, seriously, between this, the horror video, and his livestreams, I'm starting to take significant issue with his outlook on life.
Well go and read the comments from his last video and you'll see that this video was probably needed.
The title made me think 'I wonder if Joe is spending too much time on the internet'
I see this as an extension of a pretty universal problem of communication is hard, communication via internet is harder since it lacks the huge reliance on non verbal clues for context.
I do disagree somewhat with your premise of "I think everyone can identify the difference" as I see this issue more as overlapping bell curves and somewhat inevitable. If we get 100 people to rank 100 varied statements as if they are presented as objective or subjective I believe there is a good chance no two people would have the exact same list. The people ranked as better communicators would match the most common results of that population group but you would still haves scores within that group arguing about what the person "meant"
The reason why law documents are lengthy and blander the sawdust is that is that the cost of maximising clarity is incredibly specified language. We happily choose to dismiss that approach to playful construct poetry and metaphor accepting that we will miss-communicate to a percentage of our audience. The biggest hope is to gain niche specified audiences or endear yourself enough that smaller miscommunications are given the benefit of the doubt. At least in my opinion
I completly agree with your statement towards communicating over the internet. You can´t be sure if a statemante is going to be understood by every one as being subjective so miss-communicating is a given when talking via the internet but I dont think the same can be applied to a normal human interaction.
Normal "face-to-face" interaction is alot more complex so i would say that miss-cimmunicating isn´t a given since we expect clarity from the person we are talking with either by using specified language or/and by the tone/ "way of talking" they're presenting.
Just to clarify, im not trying to challenge your opinion, im just adding to your comment what is my 2 cents on the topic. (also english is not my first language so sorry in advance :) )
"I see this as an extension of a pretty universal problem of communication is hard, communication via internet is harder since it lacks the huge reliance on non verbal clues for context."
It's exactly why no one has been able to communicate via books, newspapers, of pamphlets.
In school they teach you to avoid using "I think" all the time in your essays even if you are stating an opinion. An argument is by definition open to being disagreed with. It's a proposal. You don't need to put "I think" on it.
Nope, when i say 2+2=4. Feel free to disagree with it but then you are just wrong.
@@DukePegasus Okay I get that I'm replying to this a year later but I just had to.
Even the statement "2+2=4" is only objectively true in certain subjective contexts you're already presupposing here, namely the use of a number system in which 4 exists as a digit. In, for example, a ternary number system (like binary, except the possible digits are [0,1,2] instead of only [0,1]), 2+2 does not equal 4. 4 does not exist. In a ternary number system, 2+2=11. But I understood that you're using a decimal numeral system because it's the standard, despite the fact that your use of it is entirely subjective. Humans probably settled on a decimal numeral system because most of us have 10 fingers. Subjectivity is indeed implied.
@@Fusseliko Hello Hello, thanks for taking the time to type your thoughts out well :). I agree with your beginning but not your conclusion. You could indeed make the case that we might be working with different number systems or galois fields and therefore the statement is ambigious and up for interpretation. I beg to differ tho that this is an example of subjectivity. It is no secret that the decimal number system is the most common number system by a country mile, therefore when equations get used in non scientific applications it is the norm. Just because different systems excist does not mean that 2+2=4 is wrong, you just need to specify the number system and the statement would be factually true again. Although I would like to hear your response :). Have a great day good sir.
*clears throat*
I THINK THAT I’ve always loved this video but it gets a lot more fun for me when I pay attention to each “I think” or “in my opinion”
2018, explaining viewers, what an argument is. Sad.
I miss his actual content :(
@@Eassstt well he is working on a bunch of reviews, he's just pumping out smaller videos to keep us "at bay".
While I do agree with your comment, I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that your comment is phrased like a Donald Trump tweet.
Guess part of the problem is alot of young ppl are used to consume info on the internet but more and more don´t discuss the info with ther friends inrl.
I am so, SO glad you made this video. The cliche comments you described are a method of effortlessly shutting down productive conversation that has become more and more obnoxious over the past few years. You hit all the right notes, and I especially like how you pointed out that blind _agreement_ can be problematic as well. Your dedication to opening up thoughtful conversation rather than looking for plain validation is why I always respect your content, even when I don't agree with it myself. Great job.
Im not sure if its become more obnoxious or if I'm just more sensitive to it and notice it more often. Just like how when I bought my car ( a Golf), I noticed a lot more golfs on the road.
I agree, and I'm so tired of people just trying to shut down any form of critical discussion without even trying to make counter arguments. Some people actually enjoy examining works and discussing them, and if others don't like that no one is forcing them to join in. If there's no critical examination at all, why even bother with looking at reviews and analyses and not just skip straight to commercials then? Because a video on a movie or video game might as well be a commercial if there is no analysis or criticism presented.
@Frank Cauldhame given every word in the comment, probably not. Probably talking about what was discussed in the video as basically an effortless shutdown tool.
@Frank Cauldhame Bad wording on my part, I now see how unclear that was. Edited the comment, thanks!
Can't believe I let this sit for so long. Glad I finally got around to watching it.
12:53 "We're all intuitive enough to know when something is an opinion even if it isn't being formally presented as such." - You added a footnote to this later, but I want to talk (or rather type) about this.
I'm an asperger's autist and I have genuine issues with figuring out the meaning behind someone else's "implicits". This is due to an impairment of my theory of mind ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Deficits ). I can think deeply about something someone else said that I don't quite understand and maybe I will come to a better understanding, but more often I will just get more confused instead.
When I don't spend much time thinking about what was said, I sometimes get a knee-jerk painful or anxious feeling because I want to be completely objectively accurate at all times, because autism causes a lot of misunderstandings with neurotypical people and I want to avoid those misunderstandings pretty much without compromise.
I classify "implicits" that I use myself in conversations as mistakes, and sometimes go as far as hating myself for being less accurate than I could be. I know that this is very unhealthy thinking, but I'm trying to treat it, it just takes a lot of time (and when I'm in a worse mood it resurfaces and gets more intense).
The irony in that is that I am usually much less accurate than when I just "go with the flow", probably because my thinking gets incredibly messy, I start expressing myself nonlinearly, coming back to almost irrelevant things again three sentences later because I have something else to add, I start using unconvential vocabulary in an effort to be even more accurate, etc.
When others do the same, I get a similar knee-jerk reaction, on top of already being confused about what people are trying to communicate vs. what their choice of words is.
I want them to be accurate enough for me to understand without having to put in a lot of effort, and I also want to move them in a direction where they are less "faulty" than I am.
In my case, correcting someone because they wanted to convey some information implicitly is because it gives me a feeling of safety. I can rest easy knowing I really understood the other person. I also have the chance to think that this person will make fewer "mistakes" in the future, and as a result will also face less hardship because of the way they communicate.
It's a positive reinforcement loop. Each time I "fix the mistake", it's as if I had saved myself from some major disaster. I will pay more attention to the "disaster" and I will be more anxious about it, because in my mind the only thing that has saved me from a misunderstanding with another person was me intervening and being pedantic. In the case where I correct other people, I simply extend it to another person.
TL;DR: Sometimes I don't know when something is an opinion, and sometimes I'm scared when I see someone being less explicit than they could be. Correcting that someone gives me safety, and the whole thing is a neatly wrapped-up unhealthy positive reinforcement loop.
hey there, just wanna pop in here and say you are valid. i do not have autism, but i do have ADHD and OCD and i struggle similarly as you. i have anxiety even writing youtube comments, fearing that i am not communicating clearly or efficiently enough, or that i do not know enough. anyway, i just wanted to let you know you are not alone in this struggle! i am often hurt when people say "it's common sense," or "it's obvious," or "everyone knows" because actually, no, I DON'T KNOW lol.
Hey, I'm a fellow Asperger's person. I struggle the same way often, but not with language. The accuracy you describe is similarly important to me. I suppose you could say I ended up focusing very very heavily at a young age on language specifics and proper word definitions. It bothers me when people misuse ANY words because I don't really understand implications or subtleties socially most of the time. As a result, I'm very meticulous with the words I use. I think Joseph Anderson makes some important points in this video, because people misusing and misunderstanding words leads to far more confusion for me than anybody using words correctly would bring.
Beyond that, it's hard to tell myself "this person is not necessarily very stupid" when somebody says something is "objectively good" or "objectively the worst" because, as Joseph pointed out here, those statements contain oxymorons. It's not possible to describe anything that way because that doesn't fit the words used. It's a failure of laguage, the sort of thing you might expect from somebody taking a high school foreign language class for beginners, a simple error.There's no opinion on this,as it's an error. It's almost indistinguishable to me from people simply lying, which I also detest perhaps partially due to my inability to discern whether somebody is lying, trolling, or actually dumb, when doing something that indicates a lack of understanding, especially online, where you can find an abundance of people in every category.
I sometimes watch Mauler's videos and agree with him about a film's quality, but there's no such thing as "objective criticism" or "objective quality" and if somebody tells you otherwise, they are incorrect. It's like saying the name of that popular video game plumber character is spelled 'miroa' instead of 'mario'.
Personally, I think everyone who has access to RUclips surely has access to the Merriam Webster's website, which is full of helpful word definitions and examples. If you don't know something, you can learn. That's how I've always gotten by. You don't need to ask Joseph Anderson, or me, or anyone else whether something specific is an opinion or fact, or if it is subjective or objective.
Objectivity Rule: If something is black-and-white, irrevocably true as described, regardless of any thought from anyone else, or any ego, or any feeling anyone has, it is objective. Example: "My dog is a dog. If somebody says "that is not a dog" in reference to my dog, they are incorrect. No opinion is applicable to this.
Subjectivity Rule: Anything that doesn't fall under the above rule is subjective. This applies to anything that is not absolutely either true or false, anything that has any thought or feeling from an individual. If I say "This is the greatest movie ever made" it doesn't matter which movie it is, it's subjective and an opinion.
You could also use variables if it helps. If somebody says "*X* is objectively bad" they have made an error, because nothing is objectively good or bad, since that is an oxymoron.
I hope this helps. I'll gladly respond if there are any questions for anybody who reads this.
>Sometimes I don't know when something is an opinion, and sometimes I'm scared when I see someone being less explicit than they could be
On the other side, I don't know how the others felt but having the variations of "in my view" in every other sentence infuriates to no end, significantly lowering the quality of video.
@@Rezenbekk I think it infuriates the people doing it too, but much of this comes down to a simple question: "Should viewers be expected to understand the words being used, or, if they do not understand the language being spoken, to educate themselves as opposed to expecting a significant change in content to accommodate their lack of knowledge."
I would say the onus is on the viewer. I'm not going to watch a video in spanish and then complain when I don't know exactly what they mean, because even though I took spanish classes and I'm good at it, I can recognize that it might be my fault for not knowing the words being used.
English is made up of words and definitions with rules in their usage. If you don't know, learn, but don't complain to content creators who know what they are talking about, or you'll sound like an idiot, and all of that is your fault if so.
Part of the reason why you got that response on your last video was that, rather than judging the quality of an individual work, you were bringing up a broad concept and weighing in on it. I read a lot of those comments, and many people felt that you didn't appreciate the sympathetic response a player might have to a work of fiction, even if no threat is presented directly to the player.
I agree that these people were wrong in how they described their disagreement with you. They didn't really think you weren't being _objective_ enough. They thought that you were wrong, and in a particularly egregious way, and that made them think you were full of yourself. These people had a much bigger problem with your *tone* and the extreme nature of your opinion, and maybe they just had a hard time sorting that out in their own heads.
Anyone who's written a persuasive essay knows that you don't need to qualify every statement you make. What you say is an argument for your position, and you're both allowed and basically required to present it as fact. At the same time, you're also more persuasive when you consider all the reactions a reader might have to your opinion and bear them in mind as you write. That, in my opinion, is what "objectivity" means in a positive sense for reviewers.
I'm glad that you included that bit at the end mentioning that you have a large audience and a lot of influence, but I hope you realize that also partially invalidates your claim at the beginning that the critics are like people yelling at their friends for liking a movie. I don't personally agree with your critics, since I think all your viewers are responsible for their own opinions, but I can understand why they'd be upset at you. It's _because_ you're normally so persuasive that when you say something that seems wrong it sounds like sophistry. You can't just turn off the charm, but weak arguments make that charm seem manipulative.
Just to sum up, it's a shame that relations with your viewers have gotten so troubled that you felt the need to put out a video like this. The Gaming Brit experienced a very similar turn of events recently, and I think he really dealt with it the wrong way and just dug himself in deeper. This is probably the only video of yours that I'll never have a reason to re-watch.
Good luck with future reviews.
Cinnamon Noir so it almost sounds like they just hate how persuasive he is in making others accept his strong opinions on a topic
Cinnamon Noir This video is not a direct response to the criticisms of his last video, but rather to a growing trend among viewers of his channel and other critical content on the platform.
If you have a problem with the arguments presented in his video on horror games, disagree with and/or refute them. But you’re assuming that Joseph is responding to critics of both his arguments and how he conveys them, which is not the point of this video.
@@kaziislam2785
It doesn't help that he has a nasty habit of presenting his opinions in the same manner as facts.
A good example being the "SOMA fails as a horror game" example.
That's a statement. A claim.
Maybe it's also his opinion, but, it's been presented as a flat claim, not as an opinion.
Being someone that didn't look into it too much, I started disliking Joe more and more as I watched his content, he starts to grind you out when he's being incompetent at something and blames it on everything but himself, you helped me understand where that's coming from, thanks
That's only if you take this comment on it's own though. He then went on
and explained why he felt that way, using proper arguments to support
his claim, after which people can can make up their on opinion on
whether his claim on it failing as horror or not is fair.
He literally said in this video that he'll sometimes put his opinion
before the argument ...
Your critique on Darkest Dungeon, a game which you clearly despised by the end, actively encouraged me to pick it up. The evidence that you brought up helped me discover one of my favorite games. The problem isn't your opinions, it's the need for others to fit in, and you have a weighty opinion on this platform that makes others want you on "their" side.
@@hieronymus_bis I think Radiant mode was introduced shortly afterward, and it does tackle his largest issue with grinding. But there were a multitude of things at the core of gameplay that didn't click with Joe, and I can more than understand why he didn't enjoy the experience. I love it, as I've grown tired of conventional extravagance.
My issue with your soma review and your "why horror games don't scare me" video, is not a misunderstanding of subjectivity. It is that I do not consider some of your opinions to be a reasonable opinion to hold. As a single example, In your soma review. I believe you state something along the lines of, "Soma isn't a horror game." This statement is unreasonable. Even if we change this to "In my opinion, Soma isn't a horror game." I would still take issue with this statement.
Let me try to explain. If I were to make the ridiculous statement, "Joseph Anderson isn't a youtube critic." People would be outraged. Even if I were to qualify that statement in the same way you did your statement about Soma, ("Soma isn't a horror game, It isn't scary.") By saying, "Joseph Anderson isn't a youtube critic, his videos are neither insightful nor informative." People would still be outraged and rightly so, because that opinion, however subjective is not reasonable.
If a piece of media does not provide the intended experience, that does not invalidate that piece of media.
If you had only said, "Soma isn't scary." I would have had no problem with that statement despite the lack of explicit subjectivity. Not finding Soma scary is a valid opinion to hold. Saying it isn't a horror game is ridiculous.
I intend no disrespect towards you, Joseph Anderson. I admire the work you do. I only wish to explain why your videos offended me, and why they may have offended some of the others.
As another example. Someone could read my comment, disregard it and move on. This is a valid opinion. But to reply to my comment and state, "Malcolm P.L. is not a commenter, his comments are worthless." This is not a valid opinion. I have commented, anyone with sense can see that I am a commenter. Anyone with sense can see that Joseph Anderson is a youtuber, and I would have thought that anyone with sense could see that soma is a horror game. Despite all three of us failing to deliver the intended experience.
It's not as ridiculous as you think. And to say "I don't think soma is a horror game" is a valid opinion. If you disagree that's fine, and it's fine if you express that, but to him Soma clearly doesnt fit the description. His definition of horror and your definition don't line up.
Is it a valid opinion for me to say that you didn't make a comment because it didn't fit my definition of a comment? No. That's ridiculous. Words have definitions, my opinion of those definitions does not change their meaning within the language.
Saying that Soma isn't scary is fine. He can say that, that's subjective, the definition of scary is something that elicits a certain response, it can be true or false for different people. Saying it isn't a horror game is objectively incorrect. There are definitions of the horror genre, Soma meets these definitions regardless of whether it scared me or not. When I read Frankenstein, it didn't scare me. That doesn't change the fact that it is a horror novel.@@fallenmango8420
@@MalcolmPL
> Words have definitions, my opinion of those definitions does not change their meaning within the language.
Which definition of the horror genre is correct? And who decides that?
As Fallen Mango has pointed out, your definition of horror and Joseph Anderson's definition of horror are not identical.
I'll spell it out: Words *DO NOT* have objective meanings. And *THAT* is an objective fact, not just my subjective opinion.
I agree, words do not have objective meanings, but that does not mean that everyone's interpretation of a word is valid.
If I try to speak to a frenchman and I try to say, "hello, how are you doing," but because my french is terrible I really say, "your mother was a penny whore." Is that frenchman wrong to get offended?
I would argue that it is the duty of the person who is trying to communicate to speak in a way that his audience can understand. Not the duty of the audience to try and muddle through what he means.
As for who decides the meaning of a word. I would say it is the majority of speakers of a language. As for the definition of a genre, that is based around the subject matter and the themes, not about the way the audience feels about it. Because if it is based around the way the audience feels, then a genre suddenly becomes something meaningless. "Psycho" is a lot less scary if you watch it eight times in a row. What does that mean? Does that mean that it ceases to be a horror movie? Or if I watch "rudolph the red nosed reindeer," and I am terrified because I was once mauled by a reindeer, does that make it a horror movie?
The whole point of genres is to help direct people to media they are interested in based on themes and subject matter. Genre is not a word for how you feel about something, we have other words for that.
I will repeat my original point because no one up to this point has addressed it. If I say, "Fallen mango and maple ice cream didn't make comments." Or "Malcolm P.L. didn't make a response." Or "Joseph anderson didn't make a video." Or if I say, "this isn't a comment." Am I correct?
If@@mapleicecream4819
This video is like therapy for me
I wonder what the people that don't watch the streams think about the Yusuke voice...
To make the "but that's just your opinion!" argument legitimately you'd have to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of how communication works that I'd worry about your ability to interpret the material you're arguing against.
You cant make it in good faith. If you do you have defeated yourself by characterising discussion itself as meaningless.
It’s such a non-argument. “But that’s just your opinion,” ...Yeah, no shit. As if the mere fact that I’m stating my own personal views and feelings towards something inherently diminishes whatever it is I’m trying to say. Saying that in response to another person’s perspective or perceptions is literally just telling them that the fact that they tried to engage in a discussion about it already invalidated whatever stance they may have. I have people at school who think like this, and I can say for certain that there is nothing more irritating than hearing that when you’re trying to have an educated back-and-forth on whatever topic.
@@swissidol8403 I’m sorry to say that an unfortunate amount of people seem linguistically challenged.... so many people are either shit at talking, shit at listening, or shit at understanding.
What triggers me more, though, is when someone blatantly focuses on the wrong part of a point you’re trying to make, and thinks that by dismantling the least related part of that point they are invalidating the whole point you’re making... or your entire position on the subject.
What about making the 'that's just my opinion' defense
2:50 your inner Yusuke is showing Joe.
I've honestly never seen a RUclips controversy more pointlessly contrived than this one.
The Horror game video was literally titled 'Why Horror Games Don't Scare Me." Not "Why Horror Games Aren't Scary" or "Why Horror Games Suck", but "Why Horror Games Don't Scare ME".
The title itself says, upfront, that the video is going to be a explanation of why Anderson personally doesn't find horror game scary. You can't get more obviously subjective than that. But the critics didn't care about that, because they weren't being intellectually honest. They just wanted to get some clicks by hating on a more popular RUclipsr.
Or maybe it also has something to do with his braindead statements like "SOMA isn't a horror game. It isn't scary." This isn't a subjective take anymore.
@@Lunartic_ Yes it is. Especially in a video titled 'Why Horror Games Don't Scare Me."
It is literally impossible for the statement "It isn't scary." to not be objective. If you want to hate on him saying "Soma isn't a horror game.", then honestly that's fine. But it is perfectly okay for him to say that Soma isn't scary, since he personally doesn't find it scary; especially since he gives reasons why he doesn't find it scary.
It's like when Dunkey says a game sucks. The fact that there are people out there that like the game doesn't make Dunkey a liar. He thinks the game sucks, he gives his reasons, and he comes to his conclusion. Nothing more is needed. Dunkey never needs to say "in my opinion" or "I think". He just says "The game sucks" and we understand it is his subjective opinion.
This is basically the same thing.
Subjectivity is Implied.
@@eddiea8468 I know it's fine for him to say "it isn't scary" but he justifies his claim that SOMA isn't a horror because he didn't find it scary.
He makes many objective claims. It doesn't matter if he finishes a objective claim with a "in my opinion" because it's not his opinion anymore. Joseph should probably just write his scripts better and take a head out of his ass because he can't stand the fact that he might be wrong.
@@Lunartic_ So that is the only line in the video you have a problem with? Him saying "Soma isn't a horror game"?
I'm fine with that. I agree that its the weakest part of the video. Trying to say Soma isn't a horror game is just wrong, because whether or something is classified as a horror game (unlike whether or not something is scary) isn't automatically a matter of opinion. I just don't think that mistake matters, at all.
I just do not think something like that, an incredibly minor nitpick, warrants the massive out cry of anger the video caused. A minor mistake like that does not warrant entire 'take down' videos. It seems to me like everybody else has their head up their ass - everybody seems so eager to 'prove' how much smarter they are than Joseph Anderson that they're trolling through the video, pulling out small mistakes, and entirely ignoring the wider point he was trying to make. It really, truly, does not matter that he said Soma isn't a horror game. That kind of nitpick has absolutely no bearing, at all, on the actual point of the horror game video.
it's like when Dunkey made that video about game critics, and a bunch of people got titled, and started pouring through the video searching for the smallest mistakes (like how lied about the level of a snail in Octopath Traveler while he was ripping into the game for being to grindy), and completely ignored the actual main point of the video - that game reviewers should be purposefully opinionated and very subjective, so that their reviews are unique and actually mean something instead of being endlessly regurgitated drivel. People were screaming about how Dunkey should shut up because he isn't an objective game reviewer, when the entire point of his video was about how reviewers shouldn't be objective. Note how Dunkey didn't (in the Part 2 he released) come out and talk for five minutes about how he was wrong about the snail - because the snail doesn't matter, and focusing on it is pointless.
This feels like pretty much the same thing. A lot of stuff about how 'this statement isn't 100% accurate' or 'This statement can't automatically assumed to be subjective!', and not a lot about the actual points he made in the video - the actual reasons he doesn't find horror scary, and the potential solutions he laid out. Because there's really nothing to be argued about. He doesn't find horror games scary for completely subjective reasons. He admitted himself that his potential solutions are probably trash. And so all people who don't like the video have left is nitpicking.
@@Lunartic_ Only what is horror is 100% a matter of subjectivity. "Horror, noun - an intense feeling of fear shock or disgust." what disgusts shocks or makes you afraid is entirely subjective. just because something might be meant to scare you does not mean that is does. to Joseph Soma was not a horror game, because it did none of the things the noun "horror" describes.
Yeah, I get really irritated when people dismiss stuff as just being 'subjective opions' when their opinions are just as subjective.
my opinion is not subjective because i don't even believe in it
You can still point out things that literally exist and say “i think that, based on that thing, what I think will probably be more accurate and reliable; unless you have something else that proves your point that I didn’t know about.”
That’s all objectivity is. Having the diligence to clarify what is opinion, and what is fact; that way, we can skip past the arguments on whether or not black people are “good” or “inferior” and skip straight to conversations that actually make sense and can reach a meaningful conclusion. “Black people have the same anatomy and material as white people, and any small differences have simple reasons that can be accounted for as having no relation to strength, intellect, or emphathetic capability” is an objective statement that can successfully debunk “yeah but black people suck because I don’t like them” as invalid. It’s easy to ignore objectivity when it’s a game, but games are built out of mechanics and principles of nature, the same as people. Why should we ignore an entire section of our cognitive function?
@@samwallaceart288 while you can make objective statements, whatever you conclude from those statements is subjective. You can say , for example, how a game looks a game has, but whether that's good or bad or doesn't matter is up to you. All opions, even if based on fact, are subjective. Games are art, and art is subjective.
Me The Guy But based on the information I gave about Divinity Original Sin 2, you can accurately predict whether or not you will be interested in the game; the subjective “I like the dialogue but hate the teleport spell” gives you virtually no information unless you personally know what I do or don’t like. “Like” or “hate” are meaningless words without context.
@@samwallaceart288 I didn't say context doesn't matter, but it doesn't make views any less subjective
It's true that subjectivity is implied, but you're making the erroneous claim of "Because it's in a video, it MUST be subjective!"
"That movie is bad" is clearly subjective, and is not worthy of qualifications of "in my opinion".
However, when you say something like "That movie has such glaring plot holes, that to enjoy it you have to actively ignore the failings of it's writing." that's clearly overstepping the bounds of reasonable subjectivity. Sure, there is still discussion to be had, but clearly this individual is making a bold claim that can not simply be lumped in as another "subjective opinion".
When you make the claim of "Current horror games require those who enjoy them to ignore it's failings", you are extending not only your own personal opinions, but also VERY CLEARLY making a statement about those who do. You spend a good portion of the video literally talking about how people who are scared by horror games must be XYZ. This is obviously not talking about yourself, because you literally start the video with the fact that horror games don't scare you anymore.
TL;DR You made a video talking about how other people are scared by horror games because they can/are ignoring XYZ failings. That is by no measure a subjective claim that is on the level of "that movie was bad", and making that comparison is rather baffling.
So, how did that make you *feel?*
> That movie has such glaring plot holes, that to enjoy it you have to actively ignore the failings of it's writing." that's clearly overstepping the bounds of reasonable subjectivity.
No, this is still subjective. It's forceful and it could get your back up. But it's still subjective.
> When you make the claim of "Current horror games require those who enjoy them to ignore it's failings", you are extending not only your own personal opinions, but also VERY CLEARLY making a statement about those who do.
Here's the problem: I never said that. Link to the part of the video if you disagree but I just watched the whole thing and at no point do I say those words or even something close to them.
Joseph Anderson I was going to say that is was still subjective, but you beat me there by a mile. I’m late to this video, but what I’m learning in the comments section of this video is people really don’t understand the difference between subjective and objective. For anyone that is still confused, that last statement was subjective, not objective. Even though I know and fully comprehend the definitions of subjective and objective, in the end, it is still my opinion and opinions are inherently subjective. That was the whole point of this video. Anyone out there trying to say that his video was passing opinions off as fact are missing the point
@@JosephAndersonChannel I understand this is old, but I've just seen the videos and I can safely say you make some very questionable claims, in your "why horror games don't scare me you straight up say.
"And remember no matter how weak a horror protagonist may be compared to other genres there's no way to dismiss their immortality. You are a person safely separated from the horrific world remotely controlling an unkillable god."
This doesn't come across as subjective, it comes across as you stating it as if it were fact. Because there are plenty of people who never feel like "unkillable gods" when playing horror games.
Also people have taken issue with your Soma video because you state in it that "Soma isn't really a horror game it's not scary in the same way other games are. Frictional was trying to make Soma a scary tense experience, and they failed." The game is still a horror game, you just weren't scared by it. This would be the equivalent of saying "Monty Python isn't comedy, because I didn't find it to be funny." It's still a comedy series/movie you don't get to claim its genre.
I've liked a lot of your videos(fallout 4/the witness), but these just felt lazy and poorly thought out. Hopefully you can see that there were some issues with your scripting and wording. We shall see.
Man, I remember the discussion about "good drawings of a square and bad drawings of a square" after (or shortly before?) this. Fun times :)
I’ve actually got into the habit of using “I think that” or whatever in virtually everything I say when discussing anything on the Internet. I think (there I go again) there is actually some value in it, because online discussion can so often default to being nasty or confrontational, so I like to try and put people at ease and make it clear that I’m after a friendly discussion - but that very fact speaks volumes about online culture. When did we all start assuming that anyone who disagrees with us is somehow out to get us, or hates us, or wants to make us look stupid or something?
I actually think the people who obsess over objectivity and subjectivity are really worried about something else. I don’t know what exactly, but it feels like there’s something very personal at stake for these people, like they really need to be able to dismiss other people’s perspectives.
Anyway good video. In my opinion.
i'm not sure it has something to do with online culture. there are studies presenting evidences that hatred to those who disagrees is a hard wired response in humans.
@@stupidpol Yes I have also heard about that people tend to dislike those with different values and ideas (my experience also agrees with that), but calling it a "hard wired response" is in my opinion an exaggeration (or at least that's what i want to believe). We should not use our impulses as a way to excuse bad behaviour. Any person who wants to call himself "educated" should be able to express his disagreement in a polite and civilized manner.
People latch on to terms that have been proven to be powerful, and whether or not they agree with them, they use them as weapons. They're use as a battering ram so that they can get their real opinions through the door. You can see this playing out everywhere in Western culture at the moment, and the "IMO, I think, in my view" thing is just another example of that. The people saying those things do it to get people to leave them alone and to avoid being so easily dismissed, and the people demanding those things use it as a way to hit back at an argument that they dislike whether or not they actually have a counter-argument. And that's the thing about this, ain't it? You don't even need a strong counter to argue back, so any numbskull can launch a disturbingly effective attack on a well thought out idea without even having to think.
i think that no one cares about what you think
Couldn't have said it better myself. Online culture is such a paradox, really. I'm physically exhausted of having to imagine this constant crowd of highly-judgmental people reading every single thing I write, yet I can't stop browsing the internet for almost every non-working minute of my life.
Then again, maybe the fact that we're all on the internet so much is actually what's making us think this is all a bigger issue than it really is. Not to speak for anyone else, but I'm finding myself in these kind of paranoid thought patterns more and more recently and it's not fun or healthy.
Or maybe there really is this big looming cloud of judgment hanging over every action we make, because, well, every dollar that could end up being spent on x or y product could be a dollar supporting child labour here or workplace harassment there and, I don't know, maybe we just need to abolish capitalism entirely.
Fuck... let me ponder the nature of human discourse in a digital age for at least five more years in silent contemplation and maybe then I'll have a solution to all this shit, if the world hasn't literally burned down around us in the meantime.
You touched on the heart of the problem with your starting example: context.
In a personal setting - when you're talking with a friend who you know - subjectivity is assumed, and contact is immediate. The exchange of information is both quicker and aided by mutual knowledge of each other. The internet is different.
Written words are perceived differently from spoken ones. Text tends to feel more authoritative, more declarative, by being nontransient unlike speech. Additionally, text allows more interpretation than in-person discussion. The identity of the author and the tone of their text aren't as clear, which can lead to personal bias filling in the blanks in a way that doesn't happen in a casual interaction.
Similar holds true with video-essays. While the text is spoken, its entirely noninteractive, spoken by a person who you know very little of. If a person wishes to engage the author in discussion, their tool is a simple comment. There is no guarantee it's ever read, and even if it would, the speed of the exchange is vastly outperformed by a face-to-face interaction.
To make a crude example: posting an opinionated written or video piece on the internet is like walking to a public space and starting to shout real loud. And people around you are armed with pens and paper they can use to give their feedback, but aren't allowed to actually talk to you, or interact in any expedient way. And they still want to "win", because people are like that. So at the end of the day you've received a bunch of letters telling you how your opinion is not fact and you should stop shouting at others. Because your opinion is not special, you don't have the right to bring it up.
To summarize, the perceived context of "authority" (provided by a large view count or high production values) combined with the limitations of online interactions create an atmosphere that is not beneficial for constructive discussion.
That's exactly why MauLer invited him to a discussion on stream. Seeing those two talk face to face about this subject would be great, but Joe refused because MauLer called him a faggot in his SOMA analysis 2 years ago.
I admit that this was low of him to resort to insults, but since then his way of dealing with conflicting ideas has changed and he's probably the youtuber the most open to discussion that I know of.
Joe is putting on a smug attitude that I'm starting to get a bit tired of to be honest. I hope this downward spiral of defensiveness won't continue and that he'll start taking criticism into account instead of automatically thinking that he's above it because people don't know what they are talking about.
@@arenkai
"but since then his way of conflicting ideashas changed" sure. Judging by that wall of text he wrote now he's just an arrogant passive agressive asshole instead of outright cussing someone out while being a condescending dick. Big improvement.
You can't start a debate while thinking the other side is beneath you in any form. It kills any sort of cooperation between the two sides.
@@cyann6445 "The door is open."
I think it depends. I would agree in the vast majority of cases, saying "this is just my opinion" is superfluous. But it really does depend on how you phrase your statement, because sometimes it can legitimately seem like the person speaking is completely unaware that what they're saying is not a matter of fact. Example : Mr. A dislikes Rockstar games and says "Rockstar's games are known to be poor quality products". He's presenting it as a fact, when it's just his opinion that R* games are poor quality, and this is by no means a "known fact".
Another example could be someone who thinks video games aren't art, and says "Video games are not art, they don't fit the definition, and that's a fact". In reality the definition of art is highly complex, debated, controversial, and has been the subject of philosophical and literary discussions for thousands of years. There is no objective truth about what constitutes art. So sometimes people do need to be reminded or informed that what they're saying is purely subjective and is not factual. Statements that purport to be factual when they aren't should be amended, and in those cases, saying "in my opinion" is useful, or even necessary.
repeating words 50+ times just for you feelings is a bit redundant when by definition, the work of a critique is subjective.
@@marclebest Good job completely missing the point and utterly disregarding what I said. Read the first line of my comment again.
replied to the wrong comment, I actually liked your comment lol.@@MarkHogan994
I adore how you went through the effort of motion tracking blur circles on the dead characters in the Danganronpa footage despite it not being drawn attention to in the voiceover. You didn’t need to and most people wouldn’t notice/care, but I imagine Danganronpa fans are massively grateful
First: Huge fan, just found your channel a few weeks ago and I'm binge watching you at the moment. Great content!
Regarding the topic: I think it's more about disagreeing with you instead of not understanding that its subjective. It's not about adding "in my opinion" to every sentence, but statements like "soma fails as a horror game" come off wrong, and maybe need more in depth explanation. (It fails as a traditional horror game, as an example)
The issue isn't that people disagree with the opinion, the issue is that there are people who say "that isn't an objective fact." As though it was ever presented as such.
Very late here but I feel the need to point out that this is probably a reply to people like mauler who will put on a video and spend 8 hours pausing it, saying "this isn't objective fact so ur wrong" in a different way, and then continuing
"Look, Joe, you don't understand. Himiko isn't a bad character, you just don't like her".
This actually makes sense though. There is a difference between liking something and thinking it's good.
@@Theo_Caro It doesn't make sense...its just shoving your opinion into someone else's mouth... And it also implies the character is factually/objectively good. Ya know, the thing they're getting butthurt over.
@@Theo_Caro True. I love Face/Off. But it's not a good movie.
Nyeeh~
@@CerpinTxt87 Eeeh it's debatable. There certainly is a diffirence between a well written character and one that you like. If in this hypothetical situation the reviewer was claiming a character was badly written because they disliked them than that response could make sense.
Saying this character is annoying therefor they are badly written isn't valid criticism. If the author ment for the character to be annoying than that's goal accomplished. (Author intention is another giant mess but sometimes I'd say it's obvious enough if you end up disliking the villain congratulations that was probably intended. You wouldn't call a villain badly written because you hate them.)
However saying a character is poorly written because they are annoying when they aren't meant to be is valid criticism. This all got very confusing.
Now that I’ve seen your streams, I can never see you in the same way again.
C: The curse that sweeps across every gaming forum.
Watching this video now is incredibly eye opening. It’s almost like you can see the slow incline of people hating you if you disagree. It’s like if you don’t think like me, then you must be wrong, stupid, or disrespect other people that think differently. People keep getting stranger over time
I don't really get this video. Why do you even go to the movies with your friends if you're not going to rip your shirt off and start screaming at them afterwards? That's the fun of it.
I love subjectivity, specially when concerning the opinions on videogames. Since it can give you a real perspective into that game, for example, I sometimes feel like playing a game you might like, while other times I feel the same but with Matthewmathosis, or Raycevick or any of those deliciously, 3 hour long criticisms, overly-analytical youtubers, you can almost feel, by the end of the video, that you understand the point of the narrator as if you've known him your whole life, and that you can create a concise opinion on whether or not that game is worth your time and money.
I think that subjectivity is what makes or breaks this kinds of channels, people come over to watch you speak about a game you both are interested in, if you wanted to have your opinion aired in the same way, well, youtube is a free (albeit pretty strict) platform, you can do it, same as they did.
Joseph: *movie length video with weeks of research and analysis backing it*
Viewer: "You are nitpicking and biased. I win, bye bye!"
lol
Those are his good videos, his Soma one though...
@@DoubLL
It had a few glaring mistakes. Like him denying what genre the game was, quite embarrassing. Wasn't all bad though his thoughts on the plot/story were interesting.
Meris so you think that the only good parts were when he praised the game he was say it wasn’t a horror game for him which just means that the cheap jumps scares and lack of stakes on death didn’t scare him as he said subjectivity is can be implied but I guess some people don’t understand that if someone is writing an essay on their thoughts on a game that it is theirs thoughts
@@bradybravo7137
Would be nice if you had punctuation in your comment, makes it hard to read without.
It is his thoughts but if he's ignoring facts like the genre of a game, then there's a problem.
So let's see - other people have similar channels, often cover the same games, and even sometimes make the same claims (about a game) in the same way - and yet, THEY do not have this problem (mainly I mean Mathew and Noah, based on similar games covered and sometimes the same general arguments used, but there are others as well). You claim this is getting worse here, and other places (what other places?), but I would need to see some "proof" of this, only because for my own experience, I dont notice this happening that much on most channels I visit (including this one, but it does seem slightly more prevalent here, but still not at a level I would have created a video about it). Anyway...
Most of the time if the speaker is not getting the reaction he would like from his/her audience, it is NOT the audiences fault. ;-)
But I guess you didn't think you were the issue at all, and instead decided to create a condescending video pointing the finger at the viewers.
BTW 1 - there better ways to write "SOMA isn't a horror game, at least not...", that is, there are ways to get what you were ACTUALYL trying to say across that dont lead to it being mentioned over and over again in this very comment section. "SOMA is a horror game that failed to horrify me in the usual ways that horror games often do or at least aim to, but there were other things it made me think about which actually achieved that goal, perhaps moreso than your typical NPC-monsters ever could have". Something along those lines (didn't really put that much thought into proper sentence structure - I write code, not novels). And really, this is just picking the lowest hanging fruit (also, it was mentioned repeatedly in this comment section.
BTW 2 - You know damn well its not about "in my opinion" being the opening line of every paragraph, yet that is the strawman you are using as the alternative. Are you really so lacking in self awareness or humbleness that you dont think you are at least PART of the issue here? Most of these people aren't going into Mathew's or Noah's comments and saying the same things - what is it that they are doing different?
"They do not have this problem" haha, what?
okay, so how _is_ joe being "part of the problem," exactly?
Matthew gets a lot of bullshit in his comments section and a large amount of ''your opinion isn't fact'' statements. Look at his discussion of Va11-Ha11a (if you mean Matthewmatosis) for a good example of that. I'm not sure if they're still the top comments as I saw that video a long time ago but that is a perfect example.
> So let's see - other people have similar channels, often cover the same games, and even sometimes make the same claims (about a game) in the same way - and yet, THEY do not have this problem (mainly I mean Mathew and Noah, based on similar games covered and sometimes the same general arguments used, but there are others as well).
They absolutely do have this problem. Many, many other youtubers retweeted this video with their own messages of support and agreement that it's an issue.
> You claim this is getting worse here, and other places (what other places?), but I would need to see some "proof" of this, only because for my own experience, I dont notice this happening that much on most channels I visit (including this one, but it does seem slightly more prevalent here, but still not at a level I would have created a video about it). Anyway...
I provided proof in the video. I put comments of it happening on the screen. If you'd like to read through the comments on another video and make some comparisons in order to disprove what I'm saying then go for it.
What do you mean other places? I don't know what part you're responding to there, sorry. Can you point it out?
> Most of the time if the speaker is not getting the reaction he would like from his/her audience, it is NOT the audiences fault. ;-)
Sure. But this is an exception. Subjectivity is implied. If you disagree then that's a problem on your end, not the creator's. Same for people who are commenting without finishing the video, or are purposefully taking it out of context. That is on the audience's end.
> But I guess you didn't think you were the issue at all, and instead decided to create a condescending video pointing the finger at the viewers.
Point out how you think it's condescending if you like. I went out of my way at least twice to say that I think most of my audience already knows what I'm saying and agrees with it. Maybe you missed those parts.
> BTW 1 - there better ways to write "SOMA isn't a horror game, at least not...", that is, there are ways to get what you were ACTUALYL trying to say across that dont lead to it being mentioned over and over again in this very comment section. "SOMA is a horror game that failed to horrify me in the usual ways that horror games often do or at least aim to, but there were other things it made me think about which actually achieved that goal, perhaps moreso than your typical NPC-monsters ever could have". Something along those lines (didn't really put that much thought into proper sentence structure - I write code, not novels). And really, this is just picking the lowest hanging fruit (also, it was mentioned repeatedly in this comment section.
Or I could just say what I said, which is much clearer and more succinct, and we can all agree that subjectivity is implied and that of course I'm not speaking for everyone because how could I possibly.
> BTW 2 - You know damn well its not about "in my opinion" being the opening line of every paragraph, yet that is the strawman you are using as the alternative. Are you really so lacking in self awareness or humbleness that you dont think you are at least PART of the issue here? Most of these people aren't going into Mathew's or Noah's comments and saying the same things - what is it that they are doing different?
It's not a strawman. This shows that you aren't familiar with the comments that I'm getting and that's probably why you've had this reaction. There are many people who are demanding that I do *exactly* what I did in the video with that example. I would stress that you pause and truly consider that. That is *literally* what some people are asking me to do. And those people are the ones this video was made for.
Does that change anything?
It is pretty bad on other channels, but the thing is that it appears on more channels than others, and he is addressing the issue because its been going on with his channel a lot.
To be fair I’ve once eaten fried ice cream. The ice cream itself wasn’t hot though. It did have a hot crust.
These points are amazing! Although there is never going to be a RUclips video uploaded that sparks a civil discussion, we can still wish Joseph
I think about this from time to time, because it's crazy how the phrase "in my opinion," and others like it are so effective at defusing a negative interpretation. YMS is a movie critic on RUclips who has went out of his way many times throughout his career to explain in various ways how his reviews aren't meant to be insulting toward anyone because they are only his opinions influenced by his own biases as all critics are. The internet is a very reactionary place and here there is an outlet to immediately express it. I'm sure many people have posted something negative they find regrettable in hindsight, although I'm afraid a far greater number refuse to admit any fault at all... I'm just thankful I'm an old, frail, brittle man at the ancient age of 37 that benefits from the wisdom of having already learned how destructive such unhealthy behavior/habits can be through experience! Faults can always be found if someone looks hard enough, but being in a habit of finding negative things to point out can be detrimental to all aspects of life. It's okay not to agree with someone regardless of who they are, and it's fine to admit you don't know something. It's good to keep things in perspective and not lose sight of the big picture. How important is something, and what benefits are there to be gained from being invested into it? This question helped me a lot back in the day so maybe if anyone actually reads this it can it can be of some small benefit.
I agree. Anytime some one brings up that something is just the other persons opinion or that they are entiled to there opinion and dont have to defend it it means they know they have effectively been proven wrong have no leg to stand on and you arent allowed to won this "discusions" that they definitly didnt preset as some kind of competion to you.
Personally my problem with your last video wasn't that you had an opinion that differed from mine. My problem was that the logic you used to explain your opinion made absolutely no sense. Every criticism you applied to horror games could also be applied to horror movies, yet horror movies still scare you. I'm not saying you should change your opinion. I'm saying you should look deeper into the issue instead of rushing out a video for Halloween's sake.
You aren't in control of the characters in the film. People saying "BUT YOU CAN JUST RESTART A MOVIE!!!" are being deliberately retarded. I choose to believe that because the alternative is that nuance is dead and everyone wants everything to be discussed or explained on a skin-deep level.
I feel like this video sort of encourages what your comment is saying. Criticism like this is fine, it brings up a fair counter argument and provokes discussion. Saying "well that's just your/my opinion" does the opposite.
I have to agree with you for sure.
If his logic made absolutely no sense to you, I suggest not watching further videos here.
But that’s just my personal opinion.
@@Antiformed For most people saying "You aren't in control of the characters in the film" would be a point in favor of video games. Joseph tries to counter this by saying fail states ruin the immersion, and they certainly can, but hinging his entire argument on this premise implies that the threat of death is the only thing that can make a game or movie scary for him. If this were actually true then he would also find action movies scary too. I assume this isn't the case so there has to be something more to horror than what he is suggesting. Except he writes all this off as being "horror-themed" and not genuine horror.
Joseph defends horror films by saying "they very well could die in the scene that you're watching...there's tension because every injury and every death is canon." This only applies to the first viewing, however. Once you already know what happens this idea is completely ruined, yet I find it hard to believe that Joseph thinks a horror movie is not scary at all after the first viewing. There is also the tendency for main characters in movies to have "plot armor" which means after watching enough movies you can be almost certain that select characters are not in any real danger for the majority of the film.
I also find it funny that you're asking for more nuance yet you don't seem to understand the issues that so many people had with his last video. Or maybe I'm just being deliberately retarded.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean you aren't making an argument. An argument invites people to argue their own points. So when you try to rationalize WHY games aren't scary (to you), you are trying to persuade them to see your reasoning. It's natural that if you present all your points and your listener is unconvinced, you've invited them to present their argument. Criticism is a discussion and an exchange, just like in literature. In the end, no one has to yield their subjective view and we are all probably better for having everyone heard.
I don't envy your position, being the one person all of this is directed towards.
What's the point of this comment? He literally says he's giving his opinion on things to open discussion. You're making it sound like he's trying to avoid any discussion but that's his goal.
If that’s his goal then why did he get so passive aggressive with folks who challenged his viewpoint and arguments after his horror games video?
His stance on changing minds becomes null when he himself is not willing to change his mind or admit he was wrong about some things.
He never states he isn't making subjective arguments that can be discussed, but that people are attempting to dismiss the argument by stating 'it's an opinion', which is both stating the obvious and not contributing to the discussion in any way.
I commented because I got the impression he was misrepresenting some of these comments. I do see how some are worded "that's your opinion" but other comments he presents are more arguing that he made a poor argument, discounting things like themes and setting.
It feels to me that while it is true that it was just presenting his opinion, he presented it as a persuasive argument. The tone of the video seemed to imply that "it's just an opinion" and that we should simply leave it alone instead of respond to it negatively.
I could have misunderstood though, and he included those comments because of their proximity to the problematic comments.
Joe is just terrible at taking criticism. Ironic.
I think that some of my friends need to watch this video
I’m going to send it to them
Oh my god we've broke him, there is so much anime in this youtube video. I fucking love it.
I agree with the (seemingly common) practice of sprinkling a few "in my opinion" tags throughout the script, and generally assuming that most of the content is opinion. I also very much appreciate the work that goes into finding and correlating the evidence that backs up your opinions.
I completely respect your opinion, but you're wrong.
Yay, i now can like Mario odyssey again..
You are the best. I enjoyed your Mario Odyssey video, I actually almost watched it twice.
I don't know whether I did this as a teen. It seems similar to the kind of thing I would have done, but not quite my standard MO. I hope I didn't, but can't say for sure. Hmm.
With regards to your point about how disagreeing opinions can strengthen your existing opinions, that's actually how I often use online discussion. Even when I know I'm talking to someone whose mind is never going to change and who isn't making particularly strong points, having to state my own views well enough that they might at least understand (even if they don't agree) really helps me clarify my positions to myself. Feelings that were general before get more carefully considered and refined, and I leave with a better thought-out stance than I started with, even if my ultimate position has changed very little.
Also this doesn't relate to what you were talking about but was in the footage onscreen. I never realized you could use the dashmaster down-dashing combined with the shade cloak to spot-dodge in Hollow Knight. That's a cool thing that never occurred to me and is kind of blowing my mind.
C is the reaction of people who regularly get told they have shitty taste ^^
Not going to lie, I found it hilarious that you spent a whole paragraph with those opinion tags. I'd love to see a review video with these tags (as I'd just be laughing about it), but I definitely see how it's annoying.
Good video. I wish I had this to reference on the GameFAQs forums back in 2003!
The long-awaited "Joseph pedantically and condescendingly explains why his videos cannot be criticized or responded to in any harsh way because 'it's all just my opinion, bro'" video. I expected something like this to be around the corner as soon as you published your video on horror games. Honestly, I'm not surprised you felt you had to make this. I've been a subscriber of yours for a few years now, and I've seen a lot of the flak you take in your comments for the way you word your videos. I can genuinely empathize with this. Scripting ain't easy. People will continue to find issues in your writing even after a million redrafts, and that's frustrating. You will never please everyone, and I get that. What I don't get is that you don't seem to understand why you receive the criticism that you do. As time has gone by, I have taken issue with your videos more and more, because more and more, you've veered away from what made your Fallout 4 and Uncharted videos so great. So as a service to you - assuming you read this - I am going to lay out my complaints about your channel as brutally as possible.
Here's your problem: you still label all your videos as "critiques." This is great for SEO and promoting your channel, but it implies to your audience that you will be analyzing and comparing objective values with and between games. As long as you're actually doing that, it's fine. That's not the part of the videos people like me take issue with. But when you say things like "SOMA fails as a horror game," "Dark Souls has no story," "this fight is not fun or challenging," or "Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," without qualifying these statements at all, it comes across as extremely combative. Not just for people who enjoyed those games, but for people who appreciate a certain quality of writing from the analysts they listen to. I'm certain that you know this. Anyone who had a different experience than you could challenge you and prove you wrong. You're clearly aware that opinions work this way since you mention early in the video that these challenges have been posited to you since your very first video. But instead of altering your language since then, maybe asking yourself what you could do differently to avoid vitriolic retorts like this one, you've consistently doubled down to the point where you are now blaming your audience for taking issue with the things that you say. Beyond that, you're strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the way you word and structure your videos. Watching a movie and saying "I didn't like that" to open a discussion is entirely different to an hour long video called "Dark Souls 3 Critique". But even making that ridiculous, fallacious comparison is missing the point of the arguments against your content. You want to freely mix and match your objective statements with your subjective ones. You want to call your video a critique and discuss objective merits of design elements, but you also want to put your opinions in the middle of these sections. It's fine if you want to do that, but I'm sure you understand that it is bad writing. So then you want to avoid taking responsibility for the language you use. Put more simply, you want to create content without anyone who watches it holding you to any account. To that end, we now have a fourteen minute video of you smugly talking down to your audience about how we don't understand language and heavily implying that anyone who disagrees with you just isn't smart enough to watch or engage with your content. Then you have the nerve to preach about holding discussion to a better standard.
I have, much to my dismay, watched the quality of your writing deteriorate over the years. But worse than that, I've watched your integrity as a game critic deteriorate as well. This video, more than anything, is proof that you're comfortable resting on your laurels, and when challenged, you will say things like "my video on Fallout 4 exerts more influence in one day than anything you create in your life." Hearing statements like that from a content creator is hearing a death knell for the creativity and passion for which you once subscribed to them. But more than than, it shows how deeply couched they are in their own ego. At this point, accepting a challenge on your content is admitting to yourself that maybe your work isn't as good as you think it is. Despite what you say, you don't want discussion. You can no longer take criticism. You don't want people airing conflicting opinions on your videos. But you absolutely cannot admit that to yourself or to your audience. Listening to you talk from @4:30 onward was hilarious to me, because you typically won't engage with dissenting commenters and will instead rely on your adoring fans to lambaste us into silence on your behalf. You are perfectly willing to sit tight in your echo chamber instead of responding to the people who don't agree with you. And don't get me wrong; I don't blame you. Dealing with the scope of negativity typically found in the comments section of just one RUclips video is extremely taxing. But then, having you turn around and profess that discussions must include opinions from all angles - while knowing for a fact that you don't practice this principle - demonstrates in no uncertain terms what a hypocrite you are.
In short, this video was terrible, and I hope on some level you realize that. It's heartening to me to see that most of the people commenting here are calling you on your bullshit, despite the disproportionate like/dislike ratio. You have finally achieved peak smug, like Arin Hanson, H.Bomberguy, Thunderfoot, and so many others before you. The way I see it, the way things are going, this channel has nowhere to go but down. I truly hope I am wrong, as I have enjoyed so much of your content in the past. I genuinely want to see a return to the quality of writing and analysis that drew me to your channel in the first place. I guess a man can dream.
> So as a service to you - assuming you read this - I am going to lay out my complaints about your channel as brutally as possible.
Okay let's go through the major points.
> Here's your problem: you still label all your videos as "critiques." This is great for SEO and promoting your channel, but it implies to your audience that you will be analyzing and comparing objective values with and between games. As long as you're actually doing that, it's fine. That's not the part of the videos people like me take issue with. But when you say things like "SOMA fails as a horror game," "Dark Souls has no story," "this fight is not fun or challenging," or "Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," without qualifying these statements at all, it comes across as extremely combative. Not just for people who enjoyed those games, but for people who appreciate a certain quality of writing from the analysts they listen to.
These statements were qualified in the videos. You are incorrect. Aside from the "Dark Souls has no story" one but I don't believe I've ever explicitly said that in a video, only in the comments or other discussions outside of the critiques. I think I briefly touched on it at the end of my series on Dark Souls 1 but it was a parting thought. I probably shouldn't have included it but hey that was first video ever.
"SOMA fails as a horror game," - was discussed at length with examples to support why I think so in the video. I'm pretty sure I talk about why I think this for ten minutes.
"this fight is not fun or challenging," - you're going to have to be specific about when you think I said this without giving a reason why but I am confident that I have always backed a statement like that up with evidence. The only video I may have not done that in was the Dark Souls 2 - Level Design and Bosses. I think that's my worst video so I'd agree there.
"Hollow Knight's pacing is bad," - I went into arguably *too* much detail justifying this claim so I cannot begin to understand how you can say that I don't qualify these sorts of criticisms. Like this one isn't even remotely close. It's so out of the realm of accuracy that I question if you even watched the video.
BTW--I'm not saying my reasoning for any of these is airtight and 100% correct. But you're not saying that--you're claiming that I didn't qualify any of these statements which is not true.
> I'm certain that you know this. Anyone who had a different experience than you could challenge you and prove you wrong. You're clearly aware that opinions work this way since you mention early in the video that these challenges have been posited to you since your very first video. But instead of altering your language since then, maybe asking yourself what you could do differently to avoid vitriolic retorts like this one, you've consistently doubled down to the point where you are now blaming your audience for taking issue with the things that you say.
I have not doubled down. The opposite is true--I have made a concerted effort to say "in my opinion", "I think that" more often than I think I should because of comments about objectivity. In my most opinion based video I even gave it a title that communicated without any ambiguity whatsoever that I was presenting my own perspective. How can you look at the previous video and think that I've leaned *harder* into the issue?
> Beyond that, you're strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the way you word and structure your videos. Watching a movie and saying "I didn't like that" to open a discussion is entirely different to an hour long video called "Dark Souls 3 Critique". But even making that ridiculous, fallacious comparison is missing the point of the arguments against your content. You want to freely mix and match your objective statements with your subjective ones. You want to call your video a critique and discuss objective merits of design elements, but you also want to put your opinions in the middle of these sections. It's fine if you want to do that, but I'm sure you understand that it is bad writing.
This goes against what I say in the video above this comment section. So what's happening here? Did you not pay attention or do you not believe me? There are no qualitative objective statements in my videos. There never have been. There never will be. There is no mixing and matching. Any statement about merits is subjective. No exceptions. The only objective statements are directly from in-game evidence and have no judgement about quality. They are examples to support subjective points.
> Put more simply, you want to create content without anyone who watches it holding you to any account. To that end, we now have a fourteen minute video of you smugly talking down to your audience about how we don't understand language and heavily implying that anyone who disagrees with you just isn't smart enough to watch or engage with your content. Then you have the nerve to preach about holding discussion to a better standard.
If you want to link to a point where you think I'm talking down to my audience and explain why to me then feel encouraged to do so, because I don't believe I did that.
> I have, much to my dismay, watched the quality of your writing deteriorate over the years. But worse than that, I've watched your integrity as a game critic deteriorate as well.
Examples? You criticize me above for not qualifying statements and then drop this with nothing to back it up whatsoever. It's a youtube comment so that's cool you don't *have* to but you said you're trying to provide constructive feedback and these sorts of statements are worthless.
> This video, more than anything, is proof that you're comfortable resting on your laurels, and when challenged, you will say things like "my video on Fallout 4 exerts more influence in one day than anything you create in your life." Hearing statements like that from a content creator is hearing a death knell for the creativity and passion for which you once subscribed to them. But more than than, it shows how deeply couched they are in their own ego.
That statement has the opposite meaning of what you're taking. It's demonstrating that I have a responsibility to support the statements I make in my videos because they have that much influence. It's *supporting* what you said above about qualifying statements in the videos, except that I'm arguing that I consistently do so. I also say right before that: my opinion is not worth more than anyone else's. How is this about ego?
> At this point, accepting a challenge on your content is admitting to yourself that maybe your work isn't as good as you think it is. Despite what you say, you don't want discussion. You can no longer take criticism. You don't want people airing conflicting opinions on your videos. But you absolutely cannot admit that to yourself or to your audience. Listening to you talk from @4:30 onward was hilarious to me, because you typically won't engage with dissenting commenters and will instead rely on your adoring fans to lambaste us into silence on your behalf. You are perfectly willing to sit tight in your echo chamber instead of responding to the people who don't agree with you. And don't get me wrong; I don't blame you. Dealing with the scope of negativity typically found in the comments section of just one RUclips video is extremely taxing. But then, having you turn around and profess that discussions must include opinions from all angles - while knowing for a fact that you don't practice this principle - demonstrates in no uncertain terms what a hypocrite you are.
This part is why I decided to respond because this is total bullshit. Have you gone through all the comments on all of my videos, read all of my twitter replies, and sat in on every stream and discord discussion? Because if you haven't you have no idea what you're talking about. I discuss my points with my audience *all the time*. How can you even begin to think you can speak so confidently about this when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about? Did you even look to see how many comments I replied to on the last video? Read back how condescending you're being when you are literally talking out of your ass. You do not need to make up shit to criticize me. I'm sure there's enough you can find and make an argument on.
> In short, this video was terrible, and I hope on some level you realize that. It's heartening to me to see that most of the people commenting here are calling you on your bullshit, despite the disproportionate like/dislike ratio.
Most of the commenters agree with the video. I know this because I have read almost all of them. Something tells me you haven't.
Bullshit, Joseph. I’ve seen your comments on that horror games video, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about discussion. You wanted to have the final say on your misinformed stance on horror games (“I don’t think that’s scary so it’s not a horror game.”) and couldn’t even bother with the notion that perhaps that some of your opinions could have been changed or challenged and that you were blatantly wrong about a few things.
You couldn’t admit that you made a poorly researched, rushed video to cash in on Halloween and instead of owning up to that, you make this response video which is all about covering your dismissive ass and the video basically says, “It’s okay that I did a poor job of analyzing a topic along with making an unconvincing argument because it’s all subjective.”
On that front that most commenters agree with this video, I suppose there are a lot who agree but there are also a great ton of folks who disagree. The fact that some of the most top rated comments are disagreeing tells me that your critics aren’t exactly in the minority.
If you truly wanted discussion, Joseph, you wouldn’t willingly dismiss your critics or talk down to them like they were too stupid to watch the whole video.
“*IMO* You’re melting down Joseph and I don’t think it’s cool that you’re being a smug egotistical hypocrite about this.
@@jman2856
> Bullshit, Joseph. I’ve seen your comments on that horror games video, you didn’t give a rat’s ass about discussion. You wanted to have the final say on your misinformed stance on horror games (“I don’t think that’s scary so it’s not a horror game.”) and couldn’t even bother with the notion that perhaps that some of your opinions could have been changed or challenged and that you were blatantly wrong about a few things.
If I didn't care about discussion I wouldn't have replied to anybody. If I *did* care about the final say I would have fanatically responded to every comment. I do not think I'm objectively correct about what I said in the horror video. Most challenges in the comments were already addressed in the video itself. There were also good comments and I responded to some of them. Unless you went through all 3000 comments to check for a reply on all of them, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> You couldn’t admit that you made a poorly researched, rushed video to cash in on Halloween and instead of owning up to that, you make this response video which is all about covering your dismissive ass and the video basically says, “It’s okay that I did a poor job of analyzing a topic along with making an unconvincing argument because it’s all subjective.”
This is not a response video to the horror comments. This is a response to a common error that people make in the comments about objectivity that has happened on almost every video. If it was a response video to the horror comments I would have spoken about the most common arguments brought up in them. How can it be a response video when I'm not responding to anything specific to the horror video comments?
The video was not poorly researched because it wasn't researched at all. It was not an objective video. It was the most personal, subjective video on the channel. It was about how *I* respond to gameplay in horror games. You are arguing that I did not research my own feelings enough. How can you claim to know more about my own feelings than I do? Of course you can disagree with how you think I play horror games or say that my proposed solutions are bad. But there was no "poor analysis" because there was no analysis. I do not get scared by horror games. Here's a video saying why. Here are some ideas I think could make me be scared by them. Agree or disagree. I'm not speaking for anyone except myself. That's the end.
Again: unless you've read every comment on the video, every reply on twitter, listened in on every stream when we spoke about this topic, and read through all the logs on Discord, how can *possibly* think you know if I've been dismissive or not?
> On that front that most commenters agree with this video, I suppose there are a lot who agree but there are also a great ton of folks who disagree. The fact that some of the most top rated comments are disagreeing tells me that your critics aren’t exactly in the minority.
Some of the most top rated comments are currently at the bottom of this video's comment list. I don't know why. I don't think that's a good way to gauge a reaction. I don't know if RUclips is trying out a new algorithm for displaying comments or if the sheer amount of comments this video generated caused some weird change. But yeah this isn't a strong argument, unfortunately.
> If you truly wanted discussion, Joseph, you wouldn’t willingly dismiss your critics or talk down to them like they were too stupid to watch the whole video.
Link to when I've done this, please.
> “*IMO* You’re melting down Joseph and I don’t think it’s cool that you’re being a smug egotistical hypocrite about this.
I don't know how you can view this as melting down. I don't see how I'm smug or egotistical or a hypocrite. Argue why you think that if you like but right now I can only say "I disagree" because you didn't provide any arguments.
“I replied to some comments which means I fully welcome discussion.”
Your comments were mostly comprised of you repeating your bad argument and maintaining that your argument was a good argument that couldn’t be criticized.
“My horror games video wasn’t an analysis, wasn’t a research video, it was just a dumb and stupid opinion piece video even though I practically lumped my own personal issues onto others as of it was an objective issue.”
Roughly all of your videos are classified as critiques, not short, stupid and thrown together opinion pieces so how did that change happen? Also, you kind of just admitted you rushed out the horror games video just to cash in on Halloween.
“No, no, no I totally didn’t make this video as a response to the backlash of my horror game’s video even though I whined about the backlash the video got on Twitter.”
If this was a prevalent issue then how come this video was made only just a few weeks after you did the horror games video? I’m not buying that one bit.
“I didn’t dismiss anyone, please provide an example.”
You literally provided an example in this thread by accusing the OP of not watching the video along with accusing him of not getting your language as if he just isn’t as smart as you are.
“I do not think I am objectively correct about the things I talk about.”
Would be great if you actually understood that yourself most of the time at least nowadays. Also, a little weird that you seemingly only responded to the OP because he criticized your attitude as if you have some “prideful ego” to maintain.
Perhaps, you should start analyzing yourself, that way you might actually start getting better.
@@jman2856
> Your comments were mostly comprised of you repeating your bad argument and maintaining that your argument was a good argument that couldn’t be criticized.
Prove it. Warning: you have to go through all 3,000+ comments, all my twitter logs, stream vods, and Discord chat to do so. If your answer is "I'm not doing that" then I have to ask: how could you possibly know what my comments *mostly* comprised of if you haven't read them all?
> Roughly all of your videos are classified as critiques, not short, stupid and thrown together opinion pieces so how did that change happen? Also, you kind of just admitted you rushed out the horror games video just to cash in on Halloween.
I didn't admit anything. These are shorter videos that I'm releasing while working on the big Witcher video. Because they're short they have a different focus but they still take relatively the same amount of time per minute of finished video. I have had shorter videos in the past if you'd like to scroll through my video list. Real quick off the top of my head: Infinifactory, Openings of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, T-Rex Runner, Minit, Cuphead, Hob, Stephen's Sausage Roll.
Whether you think the video was stupid or not is of course up to you but most people liked it. Also just because I mostly make Critiques does not mean all my videos will be Critiques. Titles are important.
> If this was a prevalent issue then how come this video was made only just a few weeks after you did the horror games video? I’m not buying that one bit.
Two reasons: because it occurred more than ever on the horror video and that made me think it was time to address it. And because I had recently gone through every comment on that video so I had the examples handy. Also this isn't something you have to "buy". It is demonstrably true that this video is not a response to the horror video because *I don't respond to any criticism specific to the horror video*.
> Would be great if you actually understood that yourself most of the time at least nowadays. Also, a little weird that you seemingly only responded to the OP because he criticized your attitude as if you have some “prideful ego” to maintain.
Perhaps, you should start analyzing yourself, that way you might actually start getting better.
Now you're just making shit up. How could you possibly begin to *think* you know why I responded to the OP here?
I've actually found myself doing that "in my opinion" or "I think that" a lot, especially on forums and social media. I don't necessarily think it's strictly related to this type of content, but instead a growing trend in general.
Yeah. Perhaps it has something to do with the real people that STATE their opinion as the fact? Remember, we live in an information age and there is a lot of misinformation, fakenews or just false information presented as truth.
'I think', I think, is a humility construct - it makes you humble on stating your opinion thus admitting that 'I don't care what you think, meaning we can disagree. But I'm here just discussing things, I aint preaching'
Perhaps some people start spreading opinions that might be objectively bad or underdeveloped and then start believing themselves that this is now the fact just cause the majority supports it?
The topic is not so black and white. The fact that such kind of comments make the author uncomfortable is already telling. Just add a god damn disclaimer in the beginning of the video and you're done. No harm done, everyone's pleased and is on the same terms.
I think, instead of blaming the people you should address the problem yourself. There WILL be people that consider the videos as 'opinions become facts'. And your response to...shut them off? Cast them out?
Yeah, it might be a good decision in controlles close quarters eg the tribe with its own set of rules but this is the internet. The rules here will be different from the real life or some debates with SET RULES.
There is a lot of people on the Internet and we cantchange everyone, so I think we have to try to please everyone or at least accept that that kind of people exist and just...let them be. Without wasting your time and energy on them.
So...what do YOU THINK about it?
In my opinion, his opinion about opinion is the same as my opinion.
This video helped me to formulate what is exactly my problem with the argument about subjective statements. Objective statement can be object to scrutiny, where subjective one is not. I do not consider objectivity of statement as simply true or false state though, but rather a spectrum. Moreover same statement could be one or the another depending on context in which it was used.
Example of that could be "This movie was funny". Opinion like that, stated after you walked out from theater to a friend is obviously subjective. Same sentence though as a part of review and supported by pole, where 75% of viewers hold same opinion you may qualify as somewhat objective. It still an opinion, but statistical methodology was applied to it, so there is an angle for you to argue for it or against it. It is much more difficult to dismiss it as "just an opinion", because there is some substance to it. This doesn't mean it's 100% objective and definietly doesn't mean it's true.
You could theoretically go even deeper though and reference a research paper examining the electrochemical reactions of our nervous system during laugh and prove that most people will have exactly the same reaction during the screening. If you logic from point A to B to C were flawless, then you could objectively say "the movie was funny", even though that is excatly same statement, we considered as subjective before.
I think problem with subjectivity doesn't emerge when your whole video is on the "same level of subjectivity", but when that level varies. I personally have no issue with video, which is purely a subjective opinion, nor one which is series of well referenced objective statements. Problem is mixing those two, because you reduce merit of well argumented statement if the one standing beside it cannot be discussed, because it's cosidered as a subjective one.
"That's just your opinion" has to be the most useless phrase of all time
Probabaly one of the most important ones
@@DukePegasus nah
+Joseph Anderson I'm trying to figure out what your goal was in creating this video, and I'm trying to assume it was done with good intentions, but I'm having trouble doing that when the most obvious function of it is to dictate the online behavior of the people who watch your videos.
To all the people who don't comment on your videos, all this is going to look like is you getting caught up in some possibly bad-faith arguments on the internet that they're not even personally invested in. Like you said, you reach a lot more people than anyone in those comments does, so to the average viewer, you're just providing a more public platform for those people to make those complaints, and you're providing a certain level of legitimacy to those arguments just by taking time out to write and edit a full-fledged video response TO those arguments.
To anyone who made those types of comments in previous videos, chances are high that that's not really the part of your videos that they were upset with in the first place, so you're not even addressing the actual issue with them. I know the Halloween video isn't the only example of this, but it's the most obvious one, so I'll just give my personal take of that video as my own example: I recognized that it was your own opinion, but I also felt that the factors you were taking into consideration for making your argument were not nearly comprehensive enough to cover everything that would be relevant to how the average gamer responds to horror games, and because of that, a lot of your video _felt_ (to me) dismissive of a lot of those aspects. Not because you didn't say "in my opinion" enough, but because you didn't acknowledge all the reasons most people feel the way they do about horror.
I recognize it wasn't your intention to be dismissive of others' opinions, and I'm not saying you should have been more thorough in your analysis--I assume you were just being genuine about the few things that mattered to _you,_ and I assume you felt like that much should be obvious, since it's what you always do. But I think when you cover your opinion in most of your videos, it's _so_ thorough, and it _does_ cover the majority of things that the average gamer would take into consideration when judging the quality of a game, and so most people assume that that's your goal, to provide this all-inclusive overview and response to all factors that would matter to anyone. Even if you disagree with them, you're still acknowledging which parts are important to them. So when you suddenly put out a video that very much _isn't_ an all-inclusive overview, and is critical of the shortcomings of an entire genre on top of that, it leads to a lot of people feeling like you're being dismissive of the parts that _do_ matter to them, hence the complaint: "You don't understand that it's just YOUR opinion."
Again, I know those comments aren't limited to just that one video, or even to just _your_ videos. But if anyone gets upset about opinions not being presented clearly enough as opinions... in most cases, I think they're upset because they feel like they're being ignored or unacknowledged in some way, not because they think you're trying to make objective statements or bully people (on purpose). And sometimes it's _not_ your fault that they feel that way, and there's not really much you can do to fix it. But if you think there's an issue of miscommunication here, and you think it's leading to a toxic comments section, and you want to set out to fix it... this isn't the way to do it. Whether they're in the right or not, no one's going to respond well to you saying "There's a big problem with how irresponsibly you're expressing your emotions."
So in review, this video's not going to offer anything to people who skip the comments section, it's not going to improve the comments section for the people who DO use it, and it's only going to rile up the people you're complaining about even further. So the only thing it really accomplishes is to appeal to people who already agree with you... and you said that's not what your goal is, right? So what IS your goal?
I'm gonna stop you right there. Because you can not give me a single qoute that corroborates your claim that hes telling people how to act. He is merely addressing a problem he and many others perceive within criticism and criticism of criticism on RUclips.
@@thatonestormtrooper2760 I admit I don't know exactly what his intentions are, and that's why I wrote my post in the first place: To illustrate that I don't know, to provide the only interpretations I'm capable of coming up with based on the content of the video, and ask him if any of them are correct. I saw him responding to other posts and entertained the thought he would respond to mine, too, but I guess that was probably naive of me.
But since you're here and are able to see another purpose behind the video, I might as well ask you instead: If this video is addressing a problem having to do with comment discourse, how is it addressing the problem if it's _not_ implying that people should change how they comment on these videos? What other solution is it offering to address the problem? If the problem it's addressing is not about how people comment on the videos, then what other problem is it addressing instead?
@@surrogatebigbrother2129 the problem he is addressing goes far beyond comments. It goes to discourse around criticism in general. It is about understanding subjectivity and being more civil
A totally objective review is impossible. You cannot rate something as good or bad objectively. It relies on the time at which you review it and your past experiences. It is impossible to objectively say if something is good or bad. A totally objective review would not be able to say if anything within the game would be good or bad, it would rather just explain what the game is, because explaining what something is is objective.
Nothing triggers me more than when people sling around the word "objective," but I have a different understanding than you.
I make the distinction between "objective" and "absolute" which is pretty helpful for me in conversation. "Objective" just means that something is derived from a set of understood rules. If two people took it to be true that blue is better than red, and that is the majority of the value of any piece of art, it would be fair to say that a game like Subnautica (lots of blue in game) is "objectively" better than DOOM Eternal (red) in that particular conversation.
"Absolutely true," is a concept that is helpful because almost nothing is "absolutely true," but people mistakenly conceive much of what they believe to be "absolutely true" even down to their taste in art. I take it to mean 100% true, like the claim "SOMETHING exists."
I want to leave space for this niche use of the word "objective" because some philosophers spend a lot of time on aesthetic theories that aren't "absolutely true," but they are making conclusions that are logically deduced from rules they take to be true (called axioms). This applies to other stuff too like morality. You could make objective moral claims, but if you were to make them you would HAVE to be crystal clear what moral framework you're operating with, and that you have no pretensions about making an "absolute" moral claim.
When someone says something is "objectively" good or bad, I'd say that it's almost "absolutely true" that they're talking out of their ass though. I don't know if I've ever seen someone deduce something about an art piece from a carefully constructed framework, it's like always just some rando with a really strong gut feeling that the thing they like is so likable that it's objectively true that it's good.
I wanted to leave this comment to you, because I weirdly liked the way you explained yourself, and I'd like to hear what you think about this.
I've had this idea for a while where I'd make videos with a text-to-speech robot giving objective reviews(and by objective, I mean the actual meaning of the word) to various games, just to point out how stupid it is. I ran into a bit of a roadblock when I found that a lot of these reviews would end up sounding nearly identical to the gameplay section of a Wiki page.
Look up the word "objective." It does not mean "irrefutably factually correct." It means you are making statements or arguments about the object of your discussion (here it means a game or movie.) There can be two different reviews, both objective, with totally different conclusions.
An opinion is a judgment that is often made by a combination of personal formative information and actual evidence, often a mix of your taste and your assessment of the things quality.
An objective argument just means you are trying to eliminate personal bias in order to come to a judgment that people can agree with, argue against, or just think about because it's interesting.
A subjective review discusses personal experiences and feelings about something, basically it's more about the speaker than the thing being spoken on. This has a lot of merit as well, since experiences with media can be as interesting as the media itself in some cases.
If you say that in your opinion "two plus two equals five," and attempt to prove it using evidence, you are not making a subjective statement. You are trying to make a case about something, maybe bringing in some personal experience to add relatability or flavor, but there is something for other people to argue against. With subjective views, people cannot argue that you did feel scared when watching something that didn't scare you but they can highlight techniques that do allow the game to scare a lot of people. It's when you say "I didn't feel cared playing this therefore it's bad" that there is a problem. You're using subjective evidence to make an objective generalization.
Reddit was a mistake
There is a saying that in an argument, both sides are incorrect or at fault - and it’s right. Most of the time, people aren’t ready to listen or read about something that has an opposing opinion to their own, no matter how many good points or facts you bring, which happens a lot especially in politics or debates of opposing ideologies. Both are right to some capacity, but also are wrong about something else. However, when someone does not even want to think about the other side’s perspective or listen to it - it’s useless and pointless to even argue with such people, and in the end you are better off conserving your own energy and ceasing the argument, concentrating your energy on something else. Sadly, I would say there are far more people like that than those who have learned to react calmly to situations when opinions don’t match. No matter how you phrase things in your analysis, people would still go off of their emotions than reflect on what was being said - that’s a problem that has ALWAYS existed, even before the age of internet. It existed in art, in literature, in basically everything that was created in existence. With the internet, it simply became more transparent, easier to see, though other factors - like our society’s failing educational system (not just US) that kills critical thinking - do worsen such things.
There is also the other side: everyone has a right to their opinion. It is normal to get the topic within your work critiqued but also to get critiqued as a content creator, which is what happened with some of the comments that you’ve shown in the video (first long comment at 2:07, for instance). However, were they constructive in their critique or was it just abstract and non specific? And most importantly: what was the intention behind the comment (malicious or trying to communicate what the underlying issue is?). I know that sometimes it’s the tone of voice that can give the wrong impression when combining it with specific phrases. It often times happens in arguments where a person’s tone gets an entire statement misinterpreted because it sounded completely different from what the intention of the speaker was. We are all human beings, so it is to be expected that not all videos will carry over the exact same style and tone every time, which might be one of the culprits for the increase of such comments in some of the videos and not others.
Overall, what I am trying to say is: a lot of comments that are fueled by just emotion and don’t offer any arguing sustenance (both can exist at the sane time, and that’s fine because we are human beings, after all) should be taken with a grain of salt. I do, however, think that those that have sustenance should be pondered over - and with all things considered, you’ll make the best call that you think is right for you and your channel. If we don’t at least think about what the other person is saying and can’t take criticism well, then how will we ever improve not only as creators, but as human beings too?
There can be no discussion unless both sides are ready to listen and to think.
Settle it with a duel to the death. Whichever side wins is right by default, since the other guy is outta the picture so what he thinks doesn't matter
Honestly the defeat of a debate is the emotional attachment that comes with the subject. You can quickly run out of ammo and go on personal attacks.
"Someone thinks the movie is bad, the other might think it's good. They can have an argument and someone might even change their mind."
This is exactly what people who decry subjectivity don't want in the dialogue. They want observations. They want a mutual consideration of an object; This happens, this is a consequence of that, should this change, we might then expect...etc. However you value or feel about a thing doesn't factor into the discourse. That personal resonation is PERSONAL. If you liked something you aren't wrong. If you disliked something, you aren't wrong. They are your own feelings; no amount of arguing is going to validate/invalidate them, so why are you bothering? What WILL change you? Insight aided by additional perspectives will reveal things about a thing you might not have seen or had access to. Every one learns in this case and gains a greater appreciation for the world instead of explaining *why the other is stupid* for valuing the things they do or feeling the way they do. Recounting the aspects of a thing might sound boring and stuffy on its face, but it's just good etiquette.
I had an ex-girlfriend that had trouble with this and we would get into fights about me not explicitly telling her when I was stating an opinion and that it was ok for her to disagree, and it was ok for us to debate about it. It can be tricky to put these thoughts into words without sounding like an insensitive asshole, so thank you for this video.
I think this may come from people's experience with unreasonable or abusive people in their lives (usually parents) that truly believe and state their opinions as facts that Shall Not Be Disagreed With, so to them the intentions of someone's statement can be blurry. It's the classic effect that trauma has on people: something bad happens, they learn that this bad thing can happen, and so they become extra extra careful of it in the future, sometimes leaning too far into caution and misidentifying a nonthreat as a threat.
Also just to add on a reason that we shouldn't have to declare opinions every time that is separate from articles and essays: eventually conversations become inhibited by your worry of offending whoever you're talking to, having to walk on eggshells when bringing up potential points of contention. It can really have an insidious effect on a relationship --the creeping feeling that you can't or shouldn't say what you truly feel.
13:00 visions of MauLer ranting in a DS2 video about you and Soma...
This video was really good!
(Sorry for my bad english)
Essays tend to have controversial thesis because they have to be intersting. For example: "I don't think horror games are scary". However, no essay is objective. They need a lot of research, but in the end they are always subjective.
If people misunderstood your conclusions is not just because they are stupid. Most of the time, is because you didn't explain your thesis correctly.
Honestly. I just felt like that other video made me learn that you have a certain disconnect from immersion that not a lot of people do.
You dont feel immersion like most people do. You are overly aware that you're playing a game therefore horror in games doesnt work on you.
That's why I feel like the whole point of that other video was a little moot. Because you're discussing a change in horror games that while it would interesting, it's not really a necessary change for most people, because for the most part, a lot of gamers dont have the disconnect that you clearly do.
Yeah, I've always been the same way when I'm playing games, just, acutely aware I can press a couple buttons and the bad things go away, my brain won't let me forget it.
I'll go with option F mention that the butter looks like mysterious liquid on the floor to ecape
How do you choose what game footage to use? Do you just have folders of game clips to use when they fit, did you have to load up Doom to get the footage from the beginning, and then the rest to get all the footage, or do you grab the clips from other peoples' Let's Plays (with permission, I assume)?