‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ can be a fantastic experience and a bad game at the same time.
Those are in fact all objective measures of a game’s quality. FPS on certain hardware, game length, frequency of crashes, the presence of microstuttering, lists of features, these are all things that can be quantified, and by being quantified they are made objective. You can take this information and compare games against each other to make purchasing decisions, critique them, etc. Those decisions are subjective, yet they are based on objective data.
But I didn’t say that we should only use objective measures to evaluate games, nor do I agree that we can only evaluate games subjectively. We need both, gaming media should give us both, but we both need to be able to distinguish between them.
Yes, those are objective, but if we run a PS2 game in modern hardware it’ll have high FPS. What does that mean for quality?
There are objective measured, but they’re useless without context that requires subjectivity. Do you like retro-asthetics? You may like the PS2 looking game with high FPS. If you don’t then you might not.
Bugs existing I guess is a useful objective-ish measure. It depends on what happens, how often, and when though, not just the number of them or them existing.
I agree we need media looking at both, but purely objective reporting should not be giving a game a rating on overall quality.
(I’m nit arguing with you. I’m pretty much agreeing. I just wanted to clarify what I meant.)
