<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>
The "independent of individual thought" part of your definition of objective is the most important part; focusing on it is not nitpicking. That's the whole point of an objective judgement; it's can't be subject to a person's biases and prejuidices.
You've got me there. I can pontificate about tightass-ness all I want, but you're absolutely right. Continuing that train of thought in the next reply...
I realize that you can objectively compare, say, the polygon count of one game to the other. But a game that is more technologically advanced does not necessarily have <i>better</i> graphics. While it's not an opinion I share, someone can easily claim they like FF6's graphics over FFX because they prefer FF6's style of presentation. That difference is what prompted my point that "best" is still a value judgement.
True, I hadn't quite considered that - I was more locked in to the differences between the PSOne era-FFs and FFX, where the polygon count and texture resolution differences are quite stark.
Of course the equivalence or non-equivalence of "objective" to "technical" is subject to individual interpretation. Everything is. But the words have different meanings. I don't see why they should be conflated. This is of course subjective, and you can feel free to continue ironing if you enjoy it so much.
As I mentioned above, I felt that in the realm of video games, technical improvements - especially cross-generational ones - in the areas of graphics, sound quality, and useability could be judged objectively. I'll freely admit that it is a bit of a logical jump, and one that you're not willing to make (nor should you have to).
And jeez, does no one involved in this argument watch the Simpsons? Where's Lox when I need him?
The misunderstanding we have here is that you equated "objective" to "technical." I see no reason to do this. You do. I see no problem in assuming you have a basic misunderstanding of a concept if you use the wrong word to describe it. The reason I apologized is I honestly didn't intend to be patronizing, but at this point, I don't care if you think I am.
The misunderstanding was my cavalier use of the term, which you had every right to object to.
However, since you say you honestly didn't intend to be patronizing (and I believe you), that suggests to me that you should work on your tact. (If, however, your lack of tact is localized to this board and doesn't bleed over into the rest of your life, then I'll learn to live with it.) Anyway, since you suspected misuse, asking me what my interpretation of "objective" meant in this particular argument would have done a better job of defusing the situation instead of assuming I lacked understanding of the concept, which I found insulting.
And you also should learn what is an apology and what isn't. The section of your post that constituted your apology stated, "If you find me patronizing, I'm sorry." Hm...let's look at a section of an <a href="
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... article</a> written for ESPN's Page 2 back in June, shall we?
<i><b>The Bill Parcells Method</b>
The Apology: "Today during my news conference I made a very inappropriate reference, and although I prefaced it with the remark, 'no disrespect to anyone intended,' it was still uncalled for and inconsiderate. For that I apologize to anyone who may have been offended."
What He Did Right: By suggesting that he meant "no disrespect to anyone" and apologizing to any (weak-minded sissies) who "may have been offended," Parcells subtly shifts the blame onto the audience for taking offense at his innocent remark.</i>
Looks pretty familiar, doesn't it? By apologizing for what I did instead of for what you did, you actually didn't apologize at all (and is why I called it bullshit). Now, an <i>apology</i> would have been "Wait, you found that patronizing? That's really not what I intended, but sorry anyway."
<i>-57</i></div>
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/Twxabfn][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/360/Twxabfn.gif[/img][/url]
