Seryl wrote...
Subject9x wrote...
hey guys, did you know, any movie critic who's never made a movie? yeah their opinion and criticisms don't count.
you can't criticized politicians...until you run for office....
this guys logic is ridiculous.
This guy's logic does hold for some things. It's hard to discuss being in combat with somebody that's never been on a battlefield. Discussing the loss of a loved one IS difficult if you're speaking to somebody that's never had to go through that. For certain things, both people need a common point of reference. He is right for specific changes or experiences in life (ie. death of a loved one, getting married, staying married, getting divorced, raising kids, etc).
Critiquing video games (or anything else for that matter) does not fall into this category though. I don't need to write an orchestral piece of music in order to know that a piece I'm listening to is out of key. I don't need to be an accomplished writer to know that a story I'm reading is terrible. I don't need to be a structural engineer to point out that a building just fell over. In short, he's a pretentious idiot who thinks he's a lot smarter and more Important than he actually is.
This guy is pure arrogance and hubris. I'll give him the exact amount of attention he deserves.
I'll give him a little bit more credit than he probably deserves. He does have a point. Your example that you don't need to be able to write music to know that something is out of key is valid to a point. But you do need an ear that is tuned to hear something like that in order to know there's a problem, and you need some understanding of music in order to communicate what that problem is.
I think his point is both correct and incorrect. Some random play comes up to him and says "The ending of Mass Effect 3 sucks," should be given some amount of credence, but only in as much as saying that you have a dissatisfied customer. It shouldn't indicate anything more than that, because that person's argument doesn't contain anything other than that. However, if a player comes up and says "Can you explain your choice to use a deus ex machina ending; and why the ending is so similar to that of Deus Ex; and why your ending elevated one conflict that was shown as nothing more than a conflict between races, no different than the krogan rebellions or the first contact wars or the human batarian conflict, into an example of 'the created always turning on their creators', even though it was clearly the other way around; and why your previous choices had no impact on the game or the ending other than as a number; and why you would include an ending that uses a technology that transforms energy into complex circuitry and organic tissue, even though there's not a single shred of evidence to show anyone in the galaxy has ever had energy to matter conversion technology; ect." - then that person has clearly given thought to the ending, clearly has done some reasearch and knows about how to construct a plot, knows about the ME universe, and can discuss intelligently the issues with the ending beyond just saying "it sucks!!!!".
In other words, what a person does or doesn't do for a living shouldn't be the criteria for listening to their argument. How well their argument is constructed, and the data behind it should be the criteria.
Retour en haut
