Everyone is WRONG about level criticism except ME
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2023
- setting the record straight once and for all. shoutouts to mindcap for letting me use a random out of context voice clip
video links:
• What Is The Perfect Ni...
• The Autistic Horror of...
• GD Community's Art Cri...
• Seeing Through Selenite
• Level Review - Melody ...
• Game Critics
music credits: docs.google.com/document/d/1d...
discord: / discord
twitter: / brilliantgd
twitch: / wherwin - Ігри
Exactly. A lot of people are so caught up in technical analysis of levels, they forget to think about how they actually feel about them. I always try to think of levels as an experience, and so if it delivers on its premise, even though some parts might not be the best, I'll send it anyways. It's all about how I feel about it really, and less about the technical side of things, which could get boring pretty fast. That's not to say that highly technical levels aren't impressive, but in the end levels are art and it isn't the only thing to focus on.
When it comes to reviewers, a perfectly objective one just doesn't exist. What I like to do when it comes to movies is to find a reviewer that thinks similarly to I do, and then when they say they like a movie, it makes me think I might like it as well. I think that's the beauty of listening to reviews is that there are so many different opinions out there, that there's going to be a reviewer you can eventually find that aligns with your tastes, and you can follow their advice. Like you said, you can also listen to ones that have a differing opinion and it can give you a different perspective, but I mostly use reviews to see if I want to invest time in a piece of media that could take awhile (like a book or game).
Good video.
Hit the nail on the head, some of my absolute favorite levels are those, that completely immerse me in their atmosphere. Feeling trumps technique for me a thousand out of a thousand times
Holy shit you are awesome
eric jumpscare
damn didn't expect to be brought up. actually kinda spooked me haha.
to clarify, in my video the objectivity i was looking for was on a level basis not an art basis. what i was looking for was a level that could be enjoyed by the most players possible while being faithful to the original.
don't worry i hate the idea that art is objective.
aside of that thanks for the criticism, its nice to see someone passionate enough about art to give a fair criticism to a content creator.
And fair of you for handling criticism towards you so well
Your comment reminded me to watch your video, so I just did. I liked it. It's a cool idea!
The level quality you're looking for is just as subjective as the decoration quality you mentioned in this comment. I find the criteria you came up with agreeable; I think I'd set it up in a similar way, and it definitely created an interesting video. However, you could've dropped the word "objective" from your claim, and it would've made the point of the video much clearer.
You can define criteria with the goal of narrowing down a list to one level while also recognizing that the criteria is subjective. If you've watched that one Tom Scott video about "the best thing," he did exactly that. You both used subjective filtering to create an interesting video with a similar result. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this approach.
If you've watched efext's videos, I feel like his style would work better for future videos like this that you might create. There is no "end result" in his videos. Instead, he focuses on his criteria: what some levels do well, what other levels do poorly, and justifications for those claims. Towards the end of your video, you mention some levels that got ruled out and why that happened. That's more or less the style I'm describing, but applied globally to your topic.
I hope you found my comment interesting! I'll definitely be checking out your channel; once again, really cool video!
Thats not objectivity. That is just what the community enjoys subjectivly. And a level that tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator is going to be pretty milk toast and boring. Its more interesting if you try to appeal to a neiche
Omg i love ur videos
@@coocoo3336 It is objectivity, just looking at a different quality. He's not analysing the level as a piece of art. The aim wasn't to get the most interesting or exciting level.
I like to say there's something between subjectivity and objectivity which I'd call "collective subjectivity"
but that's still not objectivity or anything close to it
Exactly! Communities like this one adopt their own standards for what they consider quality art. It still varies from person to person, but those standards still exist. I think people get caught up in this when they talk about objectivity in art critique.
This is the exact sentiment I like. It completely rubbed me off how yes, theoretically this creator is right, but what's the point? What, you've officially proven that art criticism can't be subjective, and your solution is that everyone should embrace their chaos in their own reviews? Get a grip. Yes, claiming that it's purely objective like StormFly is unhealthy, but on the other side of spectrum it's unprogressive to disregard everything as equal value since everything is "subjectivity."
Sure to a 4th dimensional being, those railroads are completely unappealing and hideous, but what, you really consider that 4th dimensional being as relevant for our purposes? Sure you can blabber about how _technically_ because of that one being, art criticism can't be objective, but they aren't significant in any way for the true purpose of art criticism.
Collectively subjectivity is enough objectivity for our standards.
Also, from what I read, CherryTeam was perfectly rational in their anger. No clue why the creator drew such a specific and weird vibe from their statement.
the word is intersubjective, i think he mentioned that as the "average person" argument
the potential existence of someone who finds the second half of love baba visually pleasing makes it entirely subjective imo, and the entire point of the video is that it's (subjectively) better to be honest to just say that you think X is cool or X looks like dogshit or X adds or subtracts value from a level for any reason (or at least my interpretation of it)
my personal experience is that if you put any standards aside of that your own (even intersubjective standards) you'll eventually find things that you think are absolutely terrible and disgusting, but are "objectively" ok. i find that kind of thing restraining, especially if you're creative yourself. making things for the acceptance of other people is soul sucking and its best to strive for your own idea of quality, and restraining your opinions is similarly frustrating
Objectivity is collective subjectivity.
True objectivity doesn't exist.
@@billy6678thank you bro I agree
its crazy that to this day, people still want to label art as objective (and say that their opinion is also objective)
This comment is objectively based.
Becaue we need the perspective of the artist to know wether they did a good job or not. If not there is no good or bad art as it is 100% up to the consumer to find its qualities - which is something anyone can do with anything. with this view drake could actually be a good artist and if any view allows for drake to be a good artist it is a bad view. You are not a good artist and your art is not good if you thought nothing when you made it. You litterally thought nothing. The only way to be sure that an artist has actual brain activity is if they tried to do something specific with their art. Subjective art is meaningless and takes no skill or brain to create. There is nothing to respect or admire (except from maybe visuals). fuck drake
No, they label the QUALITY of art as objective, which it absolutely can if established standards are used to judge it.
@@zen0x50yeah I see what you mean
@@zen0x50 But most people that think like this only consider *their* standards to be the objective ones
Thank God someone finally talked about this. I've had so many arguments about this very thing so it's a relief seeing you cover this topic
just from this title i can tell that this will be worth watching lmao
And it absolutely was. I personally want to start creating youtube videos in which I talk about gd levels at some point in the future, and this video is definitely something that I'm glad I have seen before starting all of this. i will definitely keep this in mind if i ever decide to actually do this stuff
I was surprised to see that I wasn't talked about considering my use of the scoring system. Even though every individual part of the scoring system still obviously includes my own opinion like there's nothing that can objectively judge if a level has "7/10 decoration." I'm usually not able to make long arguments for why I like / dislike a level for the sake of conciseness but I can see the value of doing so. Interesting to see your take on this stuff
Im a fan
IM A FAN TOO!
@@AdamantWind2071 no your the ac
@@elvpse what did I do to you lol.
Something I find funny about the cherry team tweet is that it says “there aren’t that many criteria for evaluating levels” and then, despite that, needs an “and so on”.
TRUE
I remember when I commented "why this level" on deadlox's KOCMOC part Vernam replied to my comment like 3 times and then went on my channel and made angry comments on most of my community posts, genuinely one of the funniest afternoons ever
He just had a long convo of basically talking completely brain-dead nonsense for like two hours while I just tried to get him to shut up, he's one of the most annoying people in the GD community...
Sought out your channel to read them. Vernam was so sigma when he said “L no one cares” four times.
I think that something people forget when trying to filter out their opinions is that, once you have consistently set the guidelines of what you like or not in a level, someone can always surprise you a lot! They can find a level that you never had seen or even make one which then could become one of your favorites, just by knowing what you're into and thinking about it!
In my opinion, this is the best type of interaction possible, the moments where someone is talking about things that they enjoy and they manage to find out that *there's even more stuff to appreciate*
The opposite is also true, someone could make a list of the most normal complaints made by someone and proceed to make "the worse thing made for X person", but in both cases the thought can stay similar: If you share something about you, someone might try to use the knowledge they got!
I just REALLY want to see an actual live debate between you and Stormfly on this subject, since Stormy is really the only other person I've ever seen manage to take a strong middle ground between "art is completely objective" and "art is completely arbitrary" on the subject of Geometry Dash.
There are plenty of people with that stance, they just aren’t very prominent in the gd community and their time is better spent not arguing with stubborn 14 year olds
@@gdartho which I why I suggested a debate between Wherwin and Stormy since they aren't stubborn 14 year olds (well at least they aren't 14 year olds)
I love NothingIsScary as much as the next person subscribed to him, but seriously thank you so much for talking about this. I've recently noticed how much people base their opinions on what other people think, and not what they think. It's annoying when people not only suppress their own opinions for the sake of "objectivity", but also for the sake of telling everyone who disagrees how to think. I'll admit, I've done this before, even outside of Geometry Dash, but I feel very guilty about it and I'm trying to change.
I think that the best way to state your opinions is to give your unfiltered, not "objectified" opinion on something , and then justify why you think that. This is helpful not only to the reader, but also to help yourself in a way. The human brain is an extremely complex thing, and to figure out why you like something helps you understand your own way of thinking just a little bit more. Look at that, level criticism in GD can help you in the real world.
I have an opinion on Slaughterhouse that's validated by this video.
Slaughterhouse has incredibly agonizing gameplay, it's awful and I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree with that. But I still love the level. To me, when paired with it's song, I get the idea that the level is a manifestation of ones inner demons. It's completely unfun, absolutely agonizing, and would make you cry. But, assuming you have the skill in GD, as long as you keep trying and don't give up you will eventually overcome it. The song is like this demon screaming at you about all the evil it's enacted through you. And when the level ends? It just.. cuts away. It's gone and you're left in silence. Neither of you won, both you and the demon suffered from this conflict.
Slaughterhouse is terrible, and that's why it's perfect. It near perfectly represents spiritual struggle.
I've been following Icedcave for 3 years I have and always had an appreciation for his levels since they always made me feel a certain way as well as just being extremely good levels in general. It really annoys me how people hate Slaughterhouse just because its a hell level and how people claim he is a bad creator. The way this community judges levels is really frustrating.
You’re confusing a level’s quality with your personal enjoyment for it. It’s completely possible to like and enjoy an objectively poorly made level, same as I can enjoy watching a bad kids cartoon (because of nostalgia for instance)
@@gdartho Did you... watch the video? What do you mean by objectively poorly made level? What criteria are you using here? Personally, I think the deco of SLH is really good, it's pretty and well made. The song representation is fantastic; the dispair in the screams fit so well with the brutal and unforgiving indifference of the gameplay. Nothing I just said was objective, but I truly believe all of it. I really like SLH and I can "objectively" rank it all I want, but at the end of the day it's all opinion. It's not low quality or poorly made because you say it is. Personal enjoyment in my opinion is the most important criteria for a level. Afterall, GD levels only exist to be enjoyed... whether that be by the people who play them, the people who make them, or the people who watch them on youtube.
@@zmitter4844 I already addressed all the points you made in a different comment thread on this video. If you care enough, find my original comment. I had a pretty long discussion with wherwin as well as a few other people.
@@gdartho I just finished reading the thread and I found your stance really interesting actually! I do disagree with it though, or at least the thought process behind it. Yes, techniques exist and you can improve in those areas with study and practice. Painters for example can get better at perspective or shading, and that could be understood as objective. The thing about these techniques though: they are not what make art good. The art is. You mentioned the Mona Lisa a couple times, saying it's objectively good. It's not. Is it impressive? Absolutely! The skills and techniques required to create such a piece are astonishing. It checks off all the realism boxes and that is a difficult thing to do. That doesn't make it good art. Instead, it puts the work under a certain umbrella: realism in this case. You compared it to cubism, saying that a cubist work could be an objectively bad realism painting and an objectively good cubist painting. This is true, but only if your standard on what is "good" is soley based on arbitrary checkboxes used to determine what genre a piece of art falls under (and yes, they _are_ arbitraty for every genre except realism). Really ask yourself, what makes a good cubist painting? And I don't just mean what makes it impressive, I mean what makes it worthwhile? Why does the artistic work deserve to exist? If your answer is technique, then is it really worthwhile? I don't enjoy good art because of the artist's technique, I enjoy it because it makes me feel a certain way, or think about a topic from a new perspective, or understand myself in a way I never had before, or some other personally or culturally significanct reason. How skillful an artist may be has absolutely _no_ bearing on whether or not the final product is actually good. This applies to music, painting, GD levels... every artistic medium out there.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that artistic principals are not scientific rules. They can be objectively analyzed, sure, but they are not what makes art good or bad. You had the counter example about grammar rules, and I do disagree with WHErwin here. Ignoring spelling and grammar rules _is_ objectively incorrect, BUT it doesn't result in objectively bad writing, either. I feel that this is the source of where our opinions differ. I can objectively analize any piece of art by how well it follows certain criteria, but whether that makes the art good or bad is 100% subjective. Art is not objectively worse for not adhering to these rules. How closely a work follows artistic principals _is_ objective, but these artistic rules are not, and were never, meant to judge how "good" art is; they are just meant to describe the art. Grammar rules exist to we can understand each other. As long as meaning is preserved, breaking grammar rules is fine in an artistic context, and believe it or not is pretty common. There are rules that can more consistently give you better results, but works that don't follow those rules are not inherently worse than works that do.
To summarize, art can be objectively analyzed but whether the art is good or not is entirely subjective.
Something i have noticed is that the way Robtop decides to rate levels has had a huge effect on what the community deems as objectively "good" and "bad". A level could have a really good atmosphere and well executed ideas that would make it "objectively" good but still only be eligible for a rate or not even get rated at all which feels unfair. Ironically, the people who care the least about getting a rated level often times make really interesting stuff. In my opinion, anything beyond making sure the level is playable and free of bugs shouldn't ever matter.
objective is the new official
this vid especially relevant considering all the tidal wave debate going on recently
to me, as long as a level has at least some effort put into it, its a good level. doesnt mean that i like the level, but it isnt a bad one. and by effort, i dont mean making it your life project and putting ur entire geometrussy into it. even if it was just for fun and something you didnt really think about, its still something. even if a level is "soulless" or "ugly" "lazy" it can still have effort in it. thats just my take tho, and i can totally see why other people have different criteria for their own opinions
oh boy what does mr. whirling wind have to say this time
also don't lie you definitely got the 'tism
I won't lie i went into this expecting it to be the worst video of all time based on the title and thumbnail, and i came out with it being my favorite gd commentary of all time. I've always hated the term objectivity in art, I could rant for hours but I hated to see the music community and GD community combined treat levels like there's an objective set and stone criteria for what makes a "Good" and "Bad" level.
To talk about myself for a moment on this #Relateable content, I created my level MISFIRE [furry rap level] as a sort of protest against this narrative of objectivity in art. I wanted to create the most publicly accepted genre of what the community defines as "Objectively good" decoration and gameplay, sporting a clean, in theme list extreme demon that generally would've been conceived as well regarded otherwise. However, the catch being that the song is outlandish and generally regarded as what we be calling #Cringe in an attempt to heavily mix that status quo of what makes an objectively good criteria for a level, which ended up causing a lot of fighting in the community and backlash as planned and expected, despite the level otherwise adhering to what is considered to be "Objective" in its quality standards. Refering to stormfly's objective part, it represents execution, originality, and song representation aswell as all the other basic things.
In a sense this was also a way for me to vent out my frustration in the community's backlash to my more serious projects song choices, as those were often seen as "Objectively terrible" [Mori calliope, VOCALOID, etc.], in a sense it was also a way of saying "if you wont let me have fun with the songs i use then neither of us will". But back on the main point, despite everything adhering to their standards, the song heavily set them off and made everyone generally hate the level due to the general perceived cringe nature of the song devaluing the rest of the work, as it is an OBJECTIVELY bad song by most people. Notice that word again, "Objectively" , it all came down to pulling that word into making people devalue the level in its whole.
In short, I've always been one myself to say something is "not my taste" or "I dont like it" rather than "its bad". I find my own value and meaning in the levels and music I enjoy, and to see this artform based purely in expression of onesself be put into this idea of an objective truth in good and bad, is truly saddening. Thank you for exceeding my expectations heavily.
This video actually changed my perspective about reviewing levels. I thought that the whole "human perspective is subjective" point was meaningless at first, but now I realize that trying to act like you can make it objective will do nothing but lead to less interesting and convincing reviews. Thanks for making this video!
The other issue with level criticism is that you get the most random of takes physically possible. It makes sense because everyone sees a level differently, but it also just makes it impossible to know what to improve, because someone will manage to call every single detail of your level bad somehow, but also never follow up on what could be better without being super vague. Just my experience though, which clearly was not a fun one.
This video feels to liberating to watch because its exactly what I've wanted to hear for such a long time
the first intelligent gd player:
Okay okay thank you for this video. This is one of the first videos talking about critique that bring up learning fundamentals before figuring out ways to break the rules in a way that is innovative. Like, no form of art can really be classified as "bad" because that is based entirely on a set of made up rules. While there are a loose set of attributes that generally appeal to the masses, that doesn't mean that art that breaks these guidelines is any less appealing as some people might find it more appealing than pieces that follow conventional rules.
I swear there aren't very many of Wherwin's takes that I disagree with (and this is yet another take I agree with). I watch level tier lists bc more often than not the people try to be aware that they are subjectively ranking levels. Just watch EVW, Technical, and Doggie rank their extremes and all of them have a few unpopular opinions on certain levels.
There are a FEW takes I disagree with Wherwin on (for example that wherwin thinks the demons list has had a negative impact on the community). But hey, opinions are subjective right?
objectivity is a social construct for conforming art critiquing, there for making “objective” statements nothing more then an agreed upon checklist of subjective opinions a group of people had. And then enforcing that checklist on others to mark progression, which usually results in a “higher” quality more widely appreciated art.
another thing to consider while critiquing a level is that your feelings might be unappealing to the viewer so to combat this you should add subway surfers gameplay
good video btw
I watched Stormfly's video a month or two ago and felt like I generally agreed with it when I first watched it, but since then there's always been some cognitive dissonance in my head that I could never get behind. I didn't understand why the criteria he picked for judging levels stood out among other criteria like you, or additionally why it matters that someone's opinion be "consistent" (a point he emphasizes at the end of the video), or why, if art can be objectively judged by how effectively it achieves its goals (i.e., whether it makes people feel the things the author wanted to), he downplays people's/the author's subjective experiences with the art (like in the extreme demons clip you showed or in his featured levels video). The observations and partial-rationalizations I'd came to had been:
- In his ranking videos, like his best form or best RobTop level video, he expresses that he's trying to gauge the community's opinion and not his own, so he provides a variety of survey opinions. Although the prescribed criteria he chose and the linear ranking format still confused me. Maybe he's assuming or guessing at the goals of the author? How accurate can that be?
- Maybe when he says the enjoyability of a level to any one person doesn't matter, he's trying to emphasize that there should be more diversity and experimentation in the pool of art. But then how do we know which things should be regularly experimented with and which things should stay constant, since he says there are some objective criteria?
What about the circumstantial context a person consumes art in? Why does subjectivity make reviews pointless? I kept just coming away with more questions every time I thought of his videos. After watching your video I'm once again feeling like I agree, but now with much fewer reservations. I felt like your video spoke to me more deeply, mirroring many thoughts I've had about the "human" perspective and differences in people's experiences with art, especially speaking as a person who's possibly neurodivergent and hangs out with other neurodivergent people. I felt like its handling of "appeal" and of art 'achieving its goals' reflected the experiences I've had a lot more.
As with Stormfly's video I'm probably going to think about this video over the next few days to see how my thoughts align with it then. I appreciate this video greatly, thanks for making it!
My *GOD* this guy is *SO* based.
real
Really well articulated, I wholeheartedly agree!
The whole ”objectivity” thing has been very annoying because mf’s really call you ”biased” if you dont like the hottest and newest thing released lmao
Your points are incredibly thought out and clever. I’ve had similar thoughts but I wasn’t really able to put it into words. You helped make me more open minded about levels and giving feedback too!
starting discussions and (civil) disagreements with reviews is FUN, like when i said i wanted a top 1 with no theme, and i remember a lot of ppl disagreeing when you called tidal wave a nine circles level, seeing your perspective was great and more people need to start showing theirs
This is a great video! Really appreciate how insightful your points are in regards to art objectivity.
i guess now we can understand aeonair when he gives level a rating LOL
good video tho
thanks for making this video, from someone who mainly lurks the weird gd drama surrounding creating, it always seemed that the community has a weird relationship with art, with some oddly large figures in the community saying things bordering on literal 1950s modern art criticisms and hinging on objectivity too much.
I've been loving your videos recently, and the way you being takes and topics to the table that should be discussed more in this community!!
As for about this video, I personally think something in the lines of what you said. Every review is that player's opinion on the level they're reviewing. Of course, there will be similar reviews to levels that are generally praised or hated, because of a general consensus amongst players, but it's never the only opinion.
Personal experiences is a thing that I've also never considered for playing a GD level but now that you mentioned makes sense!
OH BOY THIS SCRATCHES MY BRAIN IN THE RIGHT SPOT. this needed to be said. I love this video so much, thank you for making this. POGPILLED.
Oh Man, I've been waiting for someone to address this for a while now
following the idea of objective art analysis has prevented me from enjoying my own works, and once i stopped being afraid of creative biases i never looked back
Literally the video I wanted to do myself. I thank you for this very much! [objectively] the best GD video ever! :D
"objective opinion" mfs when i throw a heavy object at them
another great video mr wherwin!
you summed up much of my thoughts about this subject, which ive been thinking about quite a lot since im making a video on my favorite levels of 2.1, but i have a few small things to add.
i think that overall, the GD art criticism/analysis scene carries over and amplifies much of the most close-minded real life art criticism. it feels like so many people reviewing levels have the same kind of mindset as people who hate abstract, post-modern, surreal, etc. types of art because it "looks ugly" or "doesnt make sense". also, i think when it comes to geometry dash, the fact that its a video game, and a relatively simple one at that, really hampers many people's ability to appreciate it as art. its kinda similar to the people who will tell anyone who cares about events within the gd community to stop caring because its a "2 dollar square game", just ported over to the art analysis world. i also feel like video games in general are still a lot tougher for people to see as art than more traditional forms of media, though over time i think people are coming to appreciate the artistic merit of games more and more.
youve always been one of my favorite GD level reviewers not only due to this lack of attempting to make "objective" criticism, but also because unlike many other level analysts, you dont make me fall asleep with the 10 thousandth video on why limbo or change of scene were made with the intervention of god to be gifted upon humanity lol.
I've seen this debate in many art forms, notably in music (beatbox competition). Art, whatever the type of art it is, can not be objective, and it's not because you use criteria that it becomes objective. The perception of art differs from one individual to another, depending on his or her culture, experience and sensibility. That's why we need to respect everyone's opinions, and discuss them rather than denigrate others for their opinions.
Really good video. You made it clear to me why subjectivity is more interesting than objectivity and I think that's great
I have been waiting for a LONG time for somebody to call out level critics like that, and you have for sure delivered. I always see levels as experiences and analizing every bit of a level always appeared soulless to me. GD levels aren't some product that you can buy like a game or a movie ticket, it's something artsy that was made by somebody with different views, and so when i go and watch a review, i don't except somebody to tell me if a level is good or not, i always want to hear their opinion and see said level in different light. Great video as always, hope to see more from you.
I always like to enjoy art, wheter it is music, painting or anything else. I have come to piece these kind of conclusions by myself bu i never managed to word them out like you did! I truly enjoyed the way you explained your opinion about the criticism and hypocresy the GD community and view several parts of the argument. Personally, I believe this is kind of rare to see for some reason, so it feels refreshing seeing someone who views a level as what they mean besides being a 2D space on a grid. You gained a sub! :D
(sorry for bad english)
this video is objectively correct
Interesting video for a while
I love how you explain the theory of relativity in geometry dash design scene
I was actually thinking about this topic recently regarding the subjectivity of music where the technicality and complexity and other factors have minimal effect on how much I enjoy a song and how it's all about the emotional connection I feel to a piece of music. If you critique gd levels the same way you would critique a song it makes more sense as liking a level is usually about how "fun" it is, how interesting it is, how much you like the decoration, which are based on an emotional response to it.
honestly this video kinda opened my eyes a bit. I've always used my own opinion when rating levels but seeing someone fully endorse this and go against the grain was actually so satisfying to watch. especially as someone who likes "bad" levels a lot, seeing someone who isn't negative about everything felt so freeing, especially the segment on melody, I used to love that level when I was younger and I love jank 2.0 levels still
I hate when people basically say opinions are objective not just in GD but any form of media
I never understood why people usually striked for "objectivity" in art criticism, because in reality, there's no specific objective opinion, except maybe stuff like "this level works/doesn't work", that's it lol. Objectivity has always been the wrong word to describe what people often try to express in their reviews - it's standards. Standards are what we as people have accepted to be things we find the most valuable or pleasant in art, or stuff that makes it accessible or enjoyable for the majority of the audience, but those aren't rules, just guidelines. Many artists and level creators often try to subvert people's exceptations through unconventional ways of creating, and that's what makes art so interesting.
Truly, there is no need for level criticism anyway. All levels are unique and beautiful in their own way.
Thank you for this video changing my whole perspective!!! ❤
bro "you are fuck map" made me laugh way harder than it should have
I had someone comment on a video of one of my levels talking about the parts where it was lacking. After exchanging replies back and forth of me asking what i should change and them telling me what, i never ended up changing a thing. I make levels because i enjoy it. I dont make levels so that every single person who plays them thinks they are masterpieces. I am very happy that, for the most part, people do seem to genuinely enjoy them though. I think the creator of the level MOTHMELONS, Valentine, was on to something when they wrote "if im adhering to the standards of others, is it really my own level?" at the end of the level. Ever since i read that, i have followed it.
I don’t do any kind of reviews for GD, but I do try to carefully review pieces media from what I think is a fair perspective. Your commentary has helped me realize the best way to analyze and give honest feedback on media without sounding like a soulless figure. This video perfectly captures the kind of thought process that goes into a good review, and I’m honestly glad this video exists as not a lot of people actually consider this kind of stuff.
also love the background footage of A Fishing Trip what a level indeed
I feel like at the root of the entire problem is just the fact that a lot of people see art just as "things that are pretty to hear/look at", and if it does not look good or is pleasent to hear, it's not good art. It's a really shallow view and leads to shallow videos.
Personally I view objectivity and subjectivity as more of a spectrum than a pair of mutually exclusive opposites. For example, being a cat or dog person is way closer to the subjective end of the spectrum, and thinking silent club's gameplay is bad is much closer to the objective end. Hence, I still value objectivity in reviews of art at least a little bit (like when considering an artist's skill at executing perspective in a drawing, as that's much closer to the objective end than the subjective one). Still found this to be a great video though. Really opened my mind.
so what you're saying is, people think too much, and feel too little?
Hey, Wherwin... Would you agree with the phrase: "Science is discovered, art is created"? It just came to my mind...
I knew when I watched that nothingisscary video when it came out something felt off. great video!
This finally clicked for me a few years back. More ppl need to watch this
This title makes no sense at first, but when you watch the video, it goes hard
There is definetly a place for art analysis in a way of judging technical merit, but i think sticking to that threshold certainly undermines the bigger picture.
Like in the awesome painting you showed! yeah the perspective was a a little off but the point is not to see it from thst close up. Zooming out still gives the illusion of a castle.
Idk what i'm trying to say i just think people get too lost in whether or not something is hard to build versus how efficiently it makes you feel.
bottom line this video is a good take
Banger title, objectively correct as always.
In all seriousness, while watching the first half of the video I was reminded of Stormfly's stupid "objective criticism" video from a year ago, which I even commented on at the time to (objectively 😎) debunk it. And lo and behold, the second half of this is all about that video! I'm glad to see it (objectively 😎) debunked in video format with more elaborate arguments for a much larger group of people to see.
Thank you for making this video! "Objective" is also a trigger word for me when used in subjective contexts unironically lol. The "objective criticism" crowd seriously needs to stop.
unnamed 0 is a beautiful and perfect work of art better than a xendergame level, and you cant say otherwise
3:55 Bro really went out of his way to find the « and » symbols for a silly gd tweet
this “objective” mindset in the community has seriously hindered the growth of styles such as minimalism. hopefully this video will be a wake up call for people to be open-minded when approaching experimental works
THANK YOU. I hate when people say that a level is "objectively bad." You're literally making an oxymoron when saying that xD. I don't get how people still think there is objectivity when evaluating the beauty of an art piece
This video needs millions more views. I hate that this has only been seen by 17k people (at this point in time)
I fully agree. This video gave me an entirely new perspective of appreciating the different views humans have. This even applies to art criticism outside of GD and could therefore serve a good purpose for people outside of GD who review art.
i love this video so much thank you
My brain is crying and the corner, can you please give a brief summary of this video?
I think something people forget is that reviews of art are an art form in themself. There is 0 objectivity in an art piece.
YEAH MAN SWEETDUDE ROCKS
You can't judge art fully objectively, but it isn't fully subjective either, there are still some things that we all collectively see as good or bad, although it's hard to define what these things are.
finally a not braindead video about art criticism in gd
who would have thought that cherry team, famously known for making the most uninteresting levels, wouldn't understand how..... art works
i wasn't interesting enough to get a mention rip dreams
oh wait it's numptaloid how did we miss him.
8:12 is wild 😭
Did Hitler made that drawing
@@tex5821yes
@@tex5821 I believe so yes
The 1940s were wild too
the stanley parable
thank you for saying this .. i had always been very upset by how people on gd twitter and discord criticized levels, and when stormfly came out with his video about level criticism i got excited that someone felt the way i did. except, after watching it i felt very dissatisfied ... i felt like he got some things right but got so much more wrong in terms of how people should criticize levels. at the time the people i was following on twitter would often bash levels they were playing because they didn't have fun playing it. but they were carrying that energy too far and were being very rude and hateful towards creators because of the way they create levels ... not to mention many of these players would act all high and mighty as if their opinion mattered so much, and if you had a different perspective (as in being a creator appreciating the visuals rather than a player appreciating the gameplay) that you should just be quiet and listen to them because you didn't know enough to form your own opinion. basically, i was upset that people would hate a level so much as to attack people who liked the level. but stormfly's video didn't really make me feel seen at all, it made me even more confused !!!! i appreciate this vid for the reason that it feels like you just corrected everything that bugged me about his video .. anyway bye !!!
I just wait for the day when we have a npesta for video reviews or in depth analysis on levels (that aren’t like dev commentaries like what Mindcap and Icedcave have done). Mainly for having a good channel to watch stuff for and hear interesting opinions but also inspire hundreds of others to try it maybe. I’ve always wondered why it hasn’t happened yet
i think people want to think of their opinions as objective so that they can be the “most correct” but it’s just more fun to rate stuff based on vibes
The word 'objective' is weird because if you break down your beliefs enough then nothing is objective really. All we have is our subjective experience after all. I do however believe that there is value in trying to analyze art through a more objective lens since it allows us to have greater appreciation for the art
Congrats on 10K WHErwin
This!! Everyone says there are objective criteria for judging levels but there’s no reason that what humans happen to like in a geometry dash level should be considered an objective truth. Standards can be helpful in criticism especially if you’re trying to achieve technical skill but there is no one thing that makes a level better. Also I see you mentioned Patricia Taxxon and she has a really good video on this exact topic called “A Closer Look at Art Criticism.”
Wrong, my option is objectivly correct
thank you for giving your objectively correct opinions on this topic, theyre refreshing in the sea of incorrect opinions that we call home :)
Simply AMAZING video. Extremely underrated
thanks for being right about everything as always
I cant with this title lmfao
Insane title aside, this is a great video 👍
Interesting video by the way. I think the Rating System is definitely a part as to why a lot of players review levels "objectively", and I think the excessive importance of rates in this community comes from the existance of Creator Points and the competitiveness of it, which also leads to more generic/bland levels which also lead to generic reviews and WOW
0:05 “aren’t you a little young to go to a bar?”
So are we supposed to accept that a level getting rated by RobTop, a human with his own views on art, is straight up pure luck? If you think about it, RobTop, and to some extent, the moderators have the final say no matter if the creator thinks the level is good or not.
The rating system itself is one of the main issues with this whole thing. there isn't a lot of room to do something different or unique which is where i notice a lot of the "objective" stuff comes from. Kinda funny
ngl I've been thinking of making level reviews for a while, but everytime I think about making one I just know they won't be as good as yours 🙏
Loser mentality lol DO THEM ANYWAY and see your work MAGICALLY improve with time with the help of a little-known concept some people call "LEARNING WITH YOUR MISTAKES"
I'd definitely subscribe if you started that series :)
@@TelPhi_ I was joking I'll definitely get to making those lmao
@@KaziaGD lol glad to know, it's just that a bunch of people unironically think like that, so I thought it was genuine :p
Art is everything, the arrangment of the objects, the cleanist of the room, the emotions it been put in, and the message or the meaning of it of the person who made it.
-source: me
I would add to this by pointing out how categorical this way of thinking is. There’s very little in the way of abstract concepts that actually can be discretely categorized. Opinions and personalities are continua. Trying to be “objective” seems to be trying to make a complex subject way way simpler than it should be. That seems to be going in the opposite direction.
There are some objective criteria you could judge a level by, but none of them are about the quality of the art itself. Optimization is objective and can be objectively well done or completely fumbled. Everything else about a level (that I can think of right now) is subjective, and no matter how bad someone might think a certain style of gameplay or decoration is, there will always be someone else on the edge of the bell curve with the exact right taste to enjoy it. You have to strike a balance between recognizing the impacts of your taste on a level and identifying flaws in levels that would affect the majority of the playerbase's enjoyment (the funny ship in the Janus Miracle)
I think the only "objectively bad" levels in GD are the ones containing things that can actually cause physical harm, like rapid flashing lights.
still not objective, not everyone has epilepsy, therefore some people would still enjoy it despite the harm it may cause to others. eg; a lot of people dislike "level" by hemzy because it has a standoffish design that clashes with the regular way art is portrayed in GD, it also has excessive amounts of flashing lights, however it is one of my favourite levels. morally it could be considered bad, but morals are a human concept and some people have different morals, so yet again, its a subjective opinion.
not really that, even, cause things like that can def add atmosphere to a level, although an unenjoyable one LOL . as long as theres a warning for that stuff its not objectively bad (imo)
Removed submission objectively should be been rated years ago (this is my subject opinion)
that sure is a bold move for a title