inb4 people complain about the Gamespot rev- oh wait.

The game looks fantastic to me, personally, and I will most likely eventually get it. However, you guys should stop treating Tom's review like it's meaningless. He brought up some legitimate complaints about the game, which other review sites failed to mention.

Metacritic should never be a deciding factor. If I read their info page correctly, they put more weight on "trusted" gaming sites and less weight on other ones, as if one site's opinion is "superior" to the other. Also, some gaming sites (Destructoid) use the full scale, meaning a 5.0 game is just average (like a 7.5 on Gamespot), whereas a 9.0 game is incredible, which can horribly unbalance scores. Plus, it's just a single number. Judge the game based on its own merits, not jut a single number which a website throws at you.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Gotta disagree with you in a big way here.

Art is WORTHLESS to anyone but the artist unless it is providing something desireable to someone other than the artist. They can make paintings and put them in a box, never to be seen again. If they DON'T do that, and choose to make it available to a larger audience, then it ceases to depend solely on the standards of the artist, and becomes subject to the standards of society.

I could call my freaking diary "art" if I want to. If I treat it like just any old personal diary and never show it to anyone, then the question of how good or bad it is becomes completely irrelevant. However, if I decide to call it "art" and stick it up on display for everyone to see, then that's the precise moment when it becomes subject to society's standards.

And that's the thing...when people show their "art" to a larger audience, it is almost ALWAYS a deliberate decision for thenm to gain an audience. If at that point the "art" doesn't conform to society's standards for what art should be, then it's bad art. Same way that a car mechanic does bad repair work when he gets a job and screws up your transmission. He could've spent his entire life ruining cars in private just for the hell of it, and good/bad never would have been an issue since he was isolated from society's standards.

LJS9502_basic

As such no-one can objectively say "This song is good", and "This song is bad" because "Good" and "Bad" are Subjective, they're reflective of that one person's opinion and no-one else's.

Sure, someone might agree or disagree, but that doesn't matter when we're talking about one person's opinion. Which is why i said that popularity is a great way to judge if a song is "good" or "bad". If a lot of people like the music, then it will be a popular song and the amount of fans will reflect that.

However that doesn't make one person's opinion on a song moot, because everyone likes different genres and songs for different reasons. As such, for one person to try and go "what are you talking about? This is a great song! You must just have terrible taste" is silly.

Oh never mind, I don't want to start this again :P

Here's a conclusion to a paper titles How Can We Objectively rank and rate Musicianship....

Conclusion Musicality is the greatest variable when evaluating music performance at the highest level. Most groups can achieve technically proficient performances. The value put on the demand of the literature being played, the context of the performance, and the expressive and stylistic qualities – the musicality – can make one performance better than another. Assessing musicality is ultimately an aesthetic judgment on the part of the evaluator and is at least partly intellectual and interpretative. By creating rating scales and systems that serve to enhance the understanding of the criteria for the evaluators and the participants in the assessment process, musicianship can be quantified fairly and objectively.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Philosophy is a science. Is science an opinion?LJS9502_basic

Philosophies certain have opinions in them.

It is a "science" in that it is a discipline. It is not science in the way that the scientific method is science.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] If there is no objective good nor bad THAT is the outcome. You cannot have it both ways....that is double talking. And I don't fall for that.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]murder is good, genocide is good, assistance is bad, charity is bad. Because one can certainly skew your basis for good and evil to encompass those ideas.LJS9502_basic

I don't believe any of the opinions which you listed are invalid.

[QUOTE="chrisPperson"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Is it?....as I made the statement in regard solely on humanitarian terms and not personal opinion at all...you would be wrong. Personally...I'm apathetic.

LJS9502_basic

As stated, morality is also subjective.

[QUOTE="chrisPperson"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then you misspoke....it was not an opinion statement as I expressed not my opinion but about the desired outcome...which is part of the definition. And since I posted it...it can be attributed as no one individual''s opinion either. LJS9502_basic

I hope you realize how many times you have contradicted yourself in this thread.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But how do you determine whether an opinion on art is wrong? If someone says, "I think this song is good," how do you objectively prove that it's not a good song?

I do agree with the some of what you're saying. If I wanted an opinion on music, I would probably go to someone who knows something about music. But that doesn't mean their opinions are always more valid, just that they are more likely to be well-supported.

superfluidity

I don't think you can prove someone is wrong in their opinion about music. You could try to persuade them to change their own opinion by providing them with more information that would give them a broader perspective.

Same goes for a musical context. If I was informed that my favorite song was not musically complex, it would not change my opinion on the music itself.