Skyweir wrote...
There is no such thing as an unbiased person.
It exists in the sense that you don't consider the issue only on your "preference" (whatever that is). Everyone filters information personally, so everyone is biased on way or another. However when you are expressing a judgment then you have also to consider this point and force yourself to see the contrary of what you see. You should know your personal "bias" and, knowing the same, also consider it for what it is. If you instead voluntarily consider only that "bias", to the exclusion of all else, then you are what I consider a biased individual. This can be fine for what it concerns an opinion (since an opinion is, inherently, a biased consideration), but it's out of place for a judgement.
Every statement possess a contradiction. When I was young I did this: I considered a subject (whatever) and see what was my impression on it, then I forced myself to find something that would contradict my assertions and what I considered as "true" at first sight, and did so as if I really had that impression instead. In this way in the end you come to the soul of the subject and what could have been overimposed by your bias it's removed.
Skyweir wrote...
And this must hold both ways. Many people claim that the game is great in these threads, yet their opinon is as unfounded as the rest of us.
I don't have nothing wrong with those that for example say "I don't like the look of darkspawns" or things as that. What bothers me are remarks of the type as "FF is needed to have a complex gameplay" that is based on an obvious lack or knowledge and it is stated as a fact masked by a parvence of opinion. Everyone can prefer a thing in respect to the other, but to judge something you should not to base your judgement only on what you like, but see the thing on its objective parameters.
In the case of FF, for example, since it is a context parameter, the complexity of gameplay isn't removed by the lack of it automaticallly, just because the specific parameters are those that control that aspect primarily. If the gameplay is tailored on not having FF then there's no problem, if that gameplay specific parameters are complex. You can have a complex and challenging gameplay without FF as you can have an absolutely "dumbed down" and unchallenging gameplay with FF.
Skyweir wrote...
I agree that knowledge of a subject is crucial to judge it, but I would also argue that a depth of experience in the RPG genre would qualify many people on these forums to critique Dragon Age 2 based on the available information.
As I said, as true "objective" knowledge about what constiute the perfect computer RPG still eludes us, as long as we make clear what kind of measure or standard we use for our judgment, many people here are qualified to make judgments upon this game.
Naturally you can base a judgment on your experience, and you can also be "biased" if you have the common sense of knowing that bias of yourself. If however you only, and voluntarily, focus on that bias to express a judgment and then you don't either consider the other parameters than your judgment cannot be plausible.
It doesn't exist a thing absolutely bad. There are always shades, there are always pros and cons. If you focus only on what you consider the drawbacks and don't minimally care about the positive aspects then your judgment it's clearly, and voluntarily, faulted.
Modifié par Amioran, 01 mars 2011 - 11:48 .
Retour en haut
You must be extremely acknowledged about the thing you are nitpicking about, C) You must not be biased one way or another. Failing those "rules" then you just become a fool, or, at worst, pathetic. An example of a good elitist? Wilde or Baudelaire. An example of a pathetic elitist? You have the luxury of choice.
