And I still dont understand which points of the above are truly objective facts. For me objective facts are more like: How is the game running? Is it playable or riddled with bugs. Maybe then some few points about correct story pacing, but everything else you mentioned is imo not objective.
I'm sorry, but by that reasoning then as long as I write on a neat piece of paper and in proper English then my work will always be as good as a classic literature's masterpiece. And every other judgment about it will be subjective.
"The game running properly" should be the bare minimum, not the only standard. There's nuance to combat, storytelling and so on: how creative is your idea, how it is properly conveyed and so on.
Just like you can take anything I wrote, then anything, say, of the masters of Russian literature wrote and realize that while mine can still respect basic writing standards and proper form and still be fun and enjoyable like some people tell me it is it's clearly not going to measure up with the peerless milestones created by them.
It's not about LIKING one more than the other, it's about recognizing that there's quality involved in other fields other than the bare technicalities.
Naturally it isn't even my aim to produce a literary masterpiece, but I'm a scrub typing away in my own room. KH III is on the main scene parading as one of the lead titles of 2019, so having more expectations than just the game running as intended feels justified.
Speedrunners might not like it this way but do speedrunners possess the objective truth about it? Do their opinion mean more than others?
No, I wouldn't go that far, not to mention when you break it down to it each runner has their own opinions which may differ greatly from a colleague.
I mostly take speedrunners into account because what they do have is... I wouldn't say objective truth, but experience and knowledge due to having played the games way more than an average person would and sometimes breaking down the mechanics as much as possible to get a better grasp on them.
Sure enough, they're humans thus flawed, and can fail to provide the "truth". I decide to trust them just as I trust an experienced critic, perhaps even more since many reviews of mainstream media are tied to profit and interests, whereas when a speedrunner makes a point usually there shouldn't be any ulterior motive rather than his wish to provide insight on the game.
And to return to the main point, I heard what they said about multiple enemies and how it dumbs down combat, relate that to my own experience with the game, and I agree.
And about why I think it's "bad", or rather less good than it should've been, I say why on the answer below.
So what if it was meant for the more casual players (which the difficulty seems to hint at) and maybe just for the fun? How could it then be objectively bad?
I spoke none of objectively bad, but objectively less polished. KH II has layers in which you can go from mashing X and win to creating "complex" strategies utilizing nearly every tool at your disposal in creative ways. KH III has way less of that and resorts to similar strats for many instances.
Again: Fun? I have no verdict on fun. Fun is subjective. Instead, I chooes to believe that when a game offers many variables versus a game that offers almost always the same approach, one of the two is "better" in terms of appealing to a broader audience.
Also I am not sure if you can compare it with something like DMC. Its like saying: it has no mechanics like game x thus its objectively bad. No its simply just dont have this type of combat and thus if you dont like it, then you dont like it but that does not make it a fact. (Again for me only things like technical issues counts in that because they go against what was intented)
I did not compare the whole game to DMC nor to strictly the mechanic of Devil Breaker, but rather to the animations and effects used for the sheer time manipulation, which appears in both series. DMC created a fun time concept exploitable in real time combat in addition to many other features, like projectiles that keep hammering on a target or zip-lines that draw enemies to you.
Meanwhile KH III, which should have access to similar technology, had the same old projectiles and AoE from the first game on ps2, with only Aero as something I would really praise as innovative.
Look, if you really think only strictly technical issues make objectivity I feel like we can conclude right there that we have different viewpoints and I won't think any less of you for it, but what I'm getting at is that being lazy or cheap, or even just uncreative to certain degrees is a thing and can put a toll on the quality of the final product.
Sure, in the realm of opinions who can even say what is quality, but this is why we have texbook examples, guidelines even on how to write certain character archetypes and whatever our peers and rivals produce which constitutes an effective ground to draw a line about what can or can't be done. Not everything is merely an experiment led by yourself, for yourself.
Just like bugs: you know that a game without bugs and glitches is "good" because there is knowledge that games CAN be made without them, so that's an objective quality line right there. And it's only there because we acknowledged those glitches were imperfections we could do less of, and proceeded from there.
Just like that, I feel like addressing shoddy writing and wasted gameplay opportunities as something that could be avoided, thusly creating a new quality standard and refusing to settle just because the game's running properly. Back in the day games with tons of glitches were still "running properly" for the old standards. Then standards changed. Likewise, I only bring other ps4 titles in the debate because I think they set the bar higher than it was a couple generations ago, and KH III struggles to meet that.
Okay, admitedly this became a little bit too Karl Marx-y towards the end so I'll keep it simple: I'll never question another person's fun, and I don't want to force anyone to think like I do. It would be hypocritical, given how much I'm pushing towards the importance of critique and second-guessing one's idea.
But I was always against thinking everything's subjective in the end because I think that many great achievements we got in every field happened when someone dared question ye olde scale of values by saying that we could always aim for better and not become complacent with our works, because "it could've always been worse that what it is." Videogames are always tricky to define because they are a form of art with a huge stress put on the user part, and just like Kingdom Hearts that's an unprecedented crossover, but in the end I do believe they're still part of the equation.
So no offence, but I just can't agree on the all subjective part. It's my view and I hope it doesn't come off as too confrontational. It's hard to mantain a "this is how I feel" stance when you're advocating that objectiveness exists.