My understanding is that Digital Foundry type of performance review is fine, but comments on how the control feels laggy or the game is a lower-tier copycat of Overwatch are not okay.
In the context of a game, let’s say a clearly outdated graphics engine that everyone can agree on looks very dated. Or game-stopping bugs. Constant crashes. Etc.
What constitutes good graphics is entirely subjective. There are plenty of people who would rather play games explicitly because they look outdated than any photorealistic experience. How buggy a game can be before it is detrimental to the experience is also kinda subjective.
Care to clarify what is objectively bad? Like, an example
My understanding is that Digital Foundry type of performance review is fine, but comments on how the control feels laggy or the game is a lower-tier copycat of Overwatch are not okay.
In the context of a game, let’s say a clearly outdated graphics engine that everyone can agree on looks very dated. Or game-stopping bugs. Constant crashes. Etc.
What constitutes good graphics is entirely subjective. There are plenty of people who would rather play games explicitly because they look outdated than any photorealistic experience. How buggy a game can be before it is detrimental to the experience is also kinda subjective.
Graphics aren’t the same as aesthetics.
The graphics can be objectively bad in so far as the technology used may be out dated, less sophisticated, or slower than other implementations.
Aesthetics (how everything looks) are subjective.
Game kills all life on earth when starting