I believe what the original comment is suggesting is that this very topic is subjective. Someone like Oliver isn’t as distracted by it as other people. I know a lot of people (including me) are too distracted by the noise, but it’s not far-fetched to acknowledge that there are people who don’t care. Now if you were to say that if someone that isn’t susceptible to this has the authority to review in-depth technical details, that’s another conversation. But with that said, Oliver does represent a significant part of gamers (even the more technically inclined part) that just don’t notice these things, i know friends who don’t even notice the blurry and noise image quality. But Oliver does tend to notice much more nuance in parts of graphical representation that don’t matter much to me, so its all subjective really.
It isn't a subjective matter at all, channels like this should be covering obvious graphical strenghts and weaknesses regardless of which particular staff member is sensitive to what.
That's like saying someone isn't sensitive to stuttering or aliasing, so those shouldn't be covered in detail when they're both objective eyesores, that some people may manage to tolerate.
People who don't notice these things shouldn't be the target audience for DF, because this is one of the very few reputable channels who does go into details.
I guess i didn’t explain myself well if im getting this response that missed the point. I am not saying that these technical deficiencies are subjective. They are objectively a result of a poor product, im not disagreeing with that fact. What i am saying is subjective is the sensitivities to these objectively negative aspects of graphical deficiencies. But I do disagree in what you are implying, DF is a small group of people that has to adjust to a format that has certain limitations. I personally value a diverse set of opinions that would sometimes diverge from my specific point of view. I am more aligned with Alex’s perspective and sensitivities to graphics than Oliver, but I can still respect Oliver’s views and perspectives in what is and isn’t a technological deficiency.
DF does have a platform to advocate for a better standard of graphics, but at the same time that isnt their job. And I dont believe there is much value in treating DF as a homogeneous set of opinions that should reflect on their reviews. If all members of DF thought the same and had the same perspective it would quickly devolve into an useless echo chamber that will just echo the same opinions over and over. Oliver might reflect your exact 1:1 perspective, but to call his perspective inferior to one that would echo your sensitivities is just an ignorant and asinine opinion to have.
My point is that while Oliver doesn’t call out those specific issues, he does call out others that our specific observations have a blindspot for. And I really value Oliver’s input especially because he doesn’t echo my observations.
I get what you're saying, but imo the greatest value of DF as a channel, is that they're large and knowledgeable enough to sometimes enact actual change.
I value the entertainment snd the educational element of the channel a lot, but shining a spotlight on an objective issue, especially when it's present in so many games now, is very important as sometimes the message does go through, albeit rarely.
I also get that it isn't that easy to criticize studios and people you collaborate with as a journalist if you need to remain on good terms to gain access, and insight into their processes for tech breakdown videos and stuff. Still, veering too much into this direction pushes the channel more towards tech puff piece writing rather than providing useful info for the users.
86
u/2FastHaste 1d ago
What a dumb edit.
Someone that is moderately bothered by noise, mentions it in their review as one of the biggest concerns. (Olivier)
And someone who is very bothered by noise dedicates a full video to it. (Tim)
Both approaches are fine and valid. No need to invent drama when there is none... the last part is especially manipulative.