You still fail to meet the challenge and fall back on "I already did that." Like I said, you keep saying something without demonstrating it. Saying it over, and over without examples doesn't make it more true.
Because, Joshua, I have no need to do your homework for you. If you want to participate in a discussion, read through the posts and cull the information yourself. I won't itemize things I've repeated multiple times. I simply won't. I refuse. (Actually I don't, but read on.)
And I am tired of you playing the wounded rabbit. Indeed, you did say exactly what I quoted and accusing me of misreading you is your typical insult. You have no problem generalizing people's points as "strawmen" but when you are specifically called on such, quoted, and explained why the very specific quote is a strawman you cast dispersions. Again, you said:
Scott never indicated that, "a game can [not] be deconstructed at all" but you continue such exchanges. How is that statement even honest at all to what Scott has said?
Joshua, Scott's quote says he can look at things in separate, as long as you don't forget about their contribution to the whole. How do you conciliate that with a willingness to deconstruct a game's graphics?
He
just said that he can't answer a very simple question about whether more resolution, on its own, is better than less resolution. It's not a trick question.
And that's again, misreading what I said. I said that if Scott is unwilling to concede that the criteria I gave can be analyzed in isolation then there's no point to this discussion. It's such a fundamental point of dissent that there can be no further argument. Even if I did mischaracterize what Scott said, I didn't argue against it, there was no attempt to tear the strawman down. I said that there's just no reconciliation between our opinions, they're too different. That was me agreeing to disagree.
Apologies if English isn't your first language, maybe that is your barrier. But addressing me constantly without my points and quotes isn't dialogue. The lack of technical examples in your posts as proof cases of relevance shows we are also talking after different technical levels of understanding. Essentially your plea doesn't even begin to address the complexity I see graphically. You see graphics as a handful of features--I see a single feature (like aliasing) is a robustly signfiicant hurdle that your suggestions inadequately address.
Joshua, the reason I don't address the technical issues directly is because what the actual details are is immaterial to the discussion at hand. All of these questions that I 'refuse' to respond are your attempts to change the subject to discredit me. But even then, I've given very simple examples: framerate, AA, resolution. All of these affect image quality very directly. I think, and I'm not the only one, that these things can be taken in isolation, can be weighed against each other and against the product itself. Scott, who I'm presently arguing with, disagrees, as I said above.
Maybe I'm unable to come up with a better set of criteria; that's quite possible, I personally do
not care about graphics. My issue is with bad reviews. I'm not saying
I have a set of criteria to analyze graphics; I'm saying that it's possible, and I've even given you examples that you have never responded to, such as what the Lens of Truth and Eurogamer do in their platform comparisons. The analysis in those could be ported to a single product review, without the console war angle, as part of something bigger.
Which is why when you say I'm not addressing your points, you're not being perfectly fair. I responded to all of your points at first, but then you started responding selectively, arguing around me rather than with me. It seemed like a waste of time to actually try and carry a discussion with you, which is why I'd rather focus on Scott.
I know English is your first language, so I have to wonder why you have misread my points so consistently. And by this little outburst and previous ones in this thread, it seems you're offended that I pointed out your fallacious arguments. I can't apologize for that, I can only suggest that you take more care when building your points.
Which is not to diminish the relevance of actually providing more information to relevant markets, only the entire exchange is self selecting, not objective, and flawed as it is based on false assumptions and lack of technical insight and would provide inconsistent results.
Only if you accept the slippery slope that each reviewer will pick and choose which criteria to grade games against, arbitrarily. If a publication establishes a fixed set of criteria according to what they find important (and force their reviewers to be able to do such analysis), we won't have any of these problems. And we'll have more information. As others have pointed out, all sorts of other markets have more detailed analysis than gaming and it's almost shameful.
