I just said that at the start to summarise it and I clarified it later
I said later that I don't consider factual and objective to be the same. To me factual means that it's the truth and that's that. Whereas objective means it's not to do with personal opinion, even if people might have opinions and there is no simple truth which can't be disagreed with.
The criteria I consider are: was the game intended to be something that could likely become very popular and regarded by many as a very good game? Is it something that would appeal to a wide audience or a narrow one? Is it executed in such a way that this goal is likely to be satisfied? Does it have the properties that would make it entertaining to many people? Can I recommend the game?
What I consider an objectively good game in general would correlate to the popularity of the game but not necessarily, since as I say, fans might for instance expect something they shouldn't have.
If I read a negative review on MKW it would depend on why they said it was bad. If they just said it wasn't their taste (indeed it wasn't my taste either) then that's simply the way it is, if they don't like it they don't like it. But if they actually criticise say the controls of the game, then I say actually they seem to be refined, they have a selection between motion (which seems to attract a lot of the casual audience so I regard as good even though I hate using it myself) and a joystick which is more refined so is another positive point. So I say it's not really a flaw with the game per se but just personal preference, and inevitably there's going to be some people who hate the controls
I admit it won't ever be perfectly objective, because I am human, but I still don't see any harm trying just lessening the emphasis on my personal liking. That's all I really mean when I say it's objective. I don't consider it objective in the same way that the population of london or the melting point of steel is, where they're just numbers that can't be objected to and aren't affected by factors that can differ person to person. I'm DEFINITELY not trying to invalidate other peoples' views or say that everything I think is right and everyone else is wrong.
I said later that I don't consider factual and objective to be the same. To me factual means that it's the truth and that's that. Whereas objective means it's not to do with personal opinion, even if people might have opinions and there is no simple truth which can't be disagreed with.
The criteria I consider are: was the game intended to be something that could likely become very popular and regarded by many as a very good game? Is it something that would appeal to a wide audience or a narrow one? Is it executed in such a way that this goal is likely to be satisfied? Does it have the properties that would make it entertaining to many people? Can I recommend the game?
What I consider an objectively good game in general would correlate to the popularity of the game but not necessarily, since as I say, fans might for instance expect something they shouldn't have.
If I read a negative review on MKW it would depend on why they said it was bad. If they just said it wasn't their taste (indeed it wasn't my taste either) then that's simply the way it is, if they don't like it they don't like it. But if they actually criticise say the controls of the game, then I say actually they seem to be refined, they have a selection between motion (which seems to attract a lot of the casual audience so I regard as good even though I hate using it myself) and a joystick which is more refined so is another positive point. So I say it's not really a flaw with the game per se but just personal preference, and inevitably there's going to be some people who hate the controls
I admit it won't ever be perfectly objective, because I am human, but I still don't see any harm trying just lessening the emphasis on my personal liking. That's all I really mean when I say it's objective. I don't consider it objective in the same way that the population of london or the melting point of steel is, where they're just numbers that can't be objected to and aren't affected by factors that can differ person to person. I'm DEFINITELY not trying to invalidate other peoples' views or say that everything I think is right and everyone else is wrong.
"Objective judgement - how good or bad you think the game is regardless of personal liking"
I'll break down of this definition. The word "objective" is factual. It means, it talks about data surrounding the game: think of a MarioWiki article. Its job is to report information. "Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective adjectives describing a perceived quality of the game, and "you think" is also another subjective phrase and thus entirely contradicts your statement. If you replace your phrase "objective judgement" with "subjective judgment" the definition actually fits better. What exactly IS the criteria to hold this opinion for your review to be "objective"? Why would you think the game is good or bad despite personal liking? Is this judgement based of peer opinion of the game? Because it sounds like it is. Especially when you take in "what the developers considered"? And additionally, what if you read a review that still heavily dislikes Mario Kart Wii, all things considered? The racing genre isn't for everyone, there are simply people who dislike Mario Kart Wii.
It is a good thing to litter your review with context and whatnot, that increases the quality of your subjective review, yes, but it doesn't make it more objective. I've told you before that you need to change the mindset of reviews being objective if you want to get better at writing reviews, because none of them will be objective, they're almost always opinion based: after all, the primary point of a review is to provide readers with the author's opinion of the game.
You cannot have an objective review. Those qualities you mention as "objective", they're also subjective as well. The phrase "objective opinion" is an oxymoron, because "objective" is fact-based. Really, any time anyone uses the adjective "objective" to describe subjectivity and this is especially true when you put it behind the noun "opinion", all it does is highlight their insecurities to me because I know that you can dislike a game for any reason, and you invalidate other peoples' views on the game as well because their view doesn't fit your mold of a review.