It's also base-level reductionism.

2 hours ago, Duskwalker said:

As what we perceive as "reality" is ultimately always defined by the information given to us, true objectivity is not humanly possible. For example: The statement "lab results are objective" is based on the rather subjective assumption that the lab is real, the results are real and this is not all just a dream your having because you hit your head last year and have been in a coma since (then again that would mean 2.0 is also not real so yeah for your I suppose?).

Therefor "a decision based not on emotions, but on rational thought under consideration of all available information" is the closest humans can ever get to true objectivity.

That still doesn't change the fact that "better" or "worse" are not (even in theory) qualities of 2.0 itself, but are highly dependent on who is calling them such.

"The Earth's atmosphere contains more nitrogen than oxygen"

and

"1.0 is better than 2.0"

are fundamentally different claims. One is about how things are, the other is about how things should be . The word "better" implies a decision about which properties of an object are desirable and which are not. In terms of games, one person might put the highest priority on balance, while another one might put it on fun. That's a judgement call and that's what makes it a question about how games should be.

There is no objective truth about how things should be. However, there absolutely is objective truth about how things are.

4 hours ago, Duskwalker said:

Seriously, this is base-level philosophy.

And just like religion and politics, it is a system of belief for understanding the world.

Subject to bias, inaccuracies, and alternate systems of belief.

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

That still doesn't change the fact that "better" or "worse" are not (even in theory) qualities of 2.0 itself, but are highly dependent on who is calling them such. 

Which is why I presented it the opinions of individuals, so what are we even arguing about?

6 minutes ago, Duskwalker said:

Which is why I presented it the opinions of individuals, so what are we even arguing about?

"Most people agree, it it is objectively a better game." is an incorrect usage of the term objectively.
"It's objectively true, that most people like the game more." would be a correct usage.

"It is a better game." - Subjective (opinion, not quantifiable outside of individual perception)
"More people prefer this version." - Objective (quantifiable, not opinion).

Now I will argue that if the agreed upon definition of a "better game" has set parameters, then something *could* be objectively better. However, we haven't established that objective baseline for what is "better". To me, it would be better balance between ships/upgrades, elimination of excessive power creep, and an improvement to those elements that were left behind in the game's progressive evolution. To someone else, better might be "the game I don't have to spend more money on just to continue to use what I own". But unless *everyone* agrees on what the parameter is, then those are all subjective.

Not really arguing in favor or against anything. Sometimes I just like to talk.

11 minutes ago, Naerytar said:

"Most people agree, it it is objectively a better game." is an incorrect usage of the term objectively.
"It's objectively true, that most people like the game more." would be a correct usage.

Doesn‘t popularity influence how ‚good‘ a game is, though?

And accordingly the more popular game is potentially objectively better as popularity is a qualifier of how good a game is? For 1.0 vs 2.0, the similarities are so large that reducing the question of which one is better to popularity might even be legitimate.

14 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Doesn‘t popularity influence how ‚good‘ a game is, though?

And accordingly the more popular game is potentially objectively better as popularity is a qualifier of how good a game is? For 1.0 vs 2.0, the similarities are so large that reducing the question of which one is better to popularity might even be legitimate.

I don't know that I accept this definition. The Twilight movies were rather popular, but I don't think that makes them objectively good, unless "good" is defined solely by popularity. If that's what you mean by "good", then personally I couldn't care less whether either game is "good".

Personally, I generally define a "good" game as one which I can understand the rules and which is fun to play. However, many people find different aspects fun, so this definition makes "good" highly subjective.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Doesn‘t popularity influence how ‚good‘ a game is, though?

And accordingly the more popular game is potentially objectively better as popularity is a qualifier of how good a game is? For 1.0 vs 2.0, the similarities are so large that reducing the question of which one is better to popularity might even be legitimate.

I don't think so. If popularity implied quality, Justin Bieber would be a fantastic musician. Michael Bay would make world class movies. McDonald's would be gourmet food. Buzzfeed would be a great news site.

On a more fundamental level, I don't think you can ever prove objective facts about how things should be with subjective preferences.
For example: If every single human on earth said, chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream, would that make an objectively true fact about the nature of the universe? So if there weren't any humans in the universe, chocolate ice cream would still be the best? I don't think, that's a reasonable conclusion.

Just to be clear, we can still talk about single aspects of 2.0 being better or worse than 1.0. So, you could say "the balance of 2.0 is better than 1.0" and that could be true or false, based on tournament data. Or "the variety of ships being played is higher".

But a general judgement of "edition x is better than edition y"? I think, that will always be subjective.

9 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I  don't  know that I accept this definiti  on. The Twilight movies wer  e rather popular, but I don't think that makes them objectivel  y good, unless "good" is defined solely  by popularity.   If  that's what you mean   by "good", then per  sonally I couldn't  care less whether either game is "good".   

8 minutes ago, Naerytar said:

I  don't   think so. If popularity implied quality, Justin Bieber w  ould be a fantastic musician. Michael Bay would make world class movies. McDonald's would be gourmet food.  Buzzfeed would be a great news site. 

That‘s where this part comes into play:

34 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

For  1.0 vs 2.0, the similarities are so large that re  ducing the question of which one is better to popularity might even be legitimate. 

11 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

stuff

If popularity is your defining metric for good, then it is objective. With 2.0 not even available in the market yet, I'm uncomfortable calling it "better" than 1.0 as a better game, because there aren't actual numbers available for copies sold, events run, etc. I'm with others though about
popular =/= good". I, for example, hated the book "Ready Player One". I thought the writing was ****, the premise was flimsy, and the execution of the storyline was trite. But still, neckbeards seem to love it.

On 8/1/2018 at 10:14 AM, Darth Meanie said:

B: FTFY. And given that no one save the devs has actually played 2.0, its VERY subjective.

SO MANY people have already played 2.0.

11 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

SO MANY people have already played 2.0.

Exactly. You’ve got play testers to begin with, and also people who have been proxying what they can. With the release of the points PDF and places like TTS having a 2.0 mod, lots of people have at least had the chance to play 2.0. Even got a couple games in myself.

I'm uncomfortable even calling the 2nd ed a different game

It's THE SAME DANG GAME (Xwing miniatures) just with tweeks and additions to the base rules plus a MASSIVE balance patch overhaul

Overall, it promises to be a cleaner experience with the developers hopefully having learned from the previous edition's balance and presentation issues (upgrade card bloat). But at the end of the day, it's still xwing

You could easily take a 2nd ed release, slash the point cost in half and round it, and then watch it get obliterated by 1st ed balance issues

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Doesn‘t popularity influence how ‚good‘ a game is, though? 

No, see: "Flappy Bird"

For other related examples of popularity != "good", you can look at the Oscar's vs. the common person and movie popularity, or Michael's Bay's Transformers.

On 8/1/2018 at 6:18 AM, HolySorcerer said:

You're nuts.

I would have preferred:
"You're mad. Mad, I tell you!"