Support NeoGAF

[azertydu91]

Exactly this. Luigi's Mansion was not a bad game. I even bought it at launch to try and fill the empty void left by Mario. Despite it not being a bad game, I still felt hollow. It did not help that when Sunshine eventually dropped, it wasn't quite as tight as 64.

Gamecube launch window was saved by Rogue Squadron and Smash. Without those two titles I wouldn't even have bothered getting the system and just march right on playing Starcraft and FPS games on PC. Which is how most of that gen played out for me anyway lol.

Wind Waker also had the downside of filling OOT's big shoes. Despite being a good game, its flaws seem more pronounced against its legendary predecessor. To this day, I don't mind cel shading but I still dislike toon link's design. Chibi Link, coupled with all the boring sailing and many other nitpicks, made me dislike the game not because it was bad, but because I was desperate for OOT-2 and it just wasn't it.

To me Windwaker was first a letdown after seeing their engine demo about Zelda but it was because I didn't expect that artstyle...It ended up being my second favorite Zelda after OOT.

 

[ZehDon]

Cyberpunk 2077 is the epitome of it.

Since it got out I played similar FPS/RPG/immersive sims games such as Outer Worlds, dying light 2, deathloop, deux ex MD, etc... All of them, though much less buggy, feel at least one generation behind (if not more), specially in terms of storytelling, level design and visual density. Yet they were much better received, all due to context and pre release expectations.

Well said.

 

[Kataploom]

DmC for me, I've never played any other DMC game and played that one recently and liked it, I don't know wth is wrong with the game apart from, maybe, nostalgia elements not adapting to previous DMC fans

 

[EruditeHobo]

Just because everybody agrees The Godfather was a better movie than Batman V Superman doesn't make it objectively better.

That's not why it's better. But either way if you think the opinion, on its face, that Batman v Superman is better than The Godfather has any merit, there's nowhere for this to go. And the same exact thing can be said of Halo vs. Fracture -- one is objectively better, by every metric we have of understanding the form that we call "video games".

If you mean something like people work hard on all kinds of games, whether consumers/gamers love them or not... I definitely agree. I've worked long hours on many bad games. Including Fracture! That's not really relevant, necessarily, to the finished product's overall quality though. The intentions of a creator/creative team doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the ultimate value or quality of a piece of art, or a video game.

Here's Fracture btw, since people here probably didn't play it.

 

[bender]

Fracture is better than Halo 2

 

[jigglet]

Fracture is better than Halo 2

And Red Steel and The Conduit are better than both.

 

[Chastten]

So, what's the verdict? Still worth playing through?

I still kinda want to do a full playthrough but I often think that people are mostly being nostalgic about these early 3D games.

Super Mario 64 is one of my all time favorite games, but if you have no nostalgia for it then it's probably just an okay game now. Definitely do not go in expecting to play the best game ever or you'll be severely dissapointed. It's an interesting game for sure though, and a game everyone should at least play as it laid the groundwork for so much other games. Just temper your expectations.

But to be fair, that goes for almost all N64/PSX games. Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy VII, GoldenEye 007, Metal Gear Solid, etc. None of them would be considered great by today's standard.

 

[Man From The FIzz]

RE4. Good game, but destroyed traditional RE.

There had already been 7 tradiotional survival horror RE games up to that point.
Also games like Dino Crisis 1+2 and Parasite Eve 1+2 filled any void you could have had, you had as much of a filling of that type of gameplay as possible.
RE 4 is 4x more exciting and fun because they were able to ditch the fixed cameras, and present new scenarios that would have nearly been impossible before.

 

[Bragr]

There are exactly zero objectively good games. "Good" is an entirely subjective term.

For one they 100% are art, the first definition I found "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination". Movies, TV Shows, video games, they're all art. And no, they wouldn't be incorrect, you're basically displaying the brainwashing I was talking about. There is no "best" video game, there are no possible arguments that can be made to claim a game is "objectively" better or worse than another. To say "this video game is better than this one" is nothing more than saying you like that game more. It's not a statement that can be wrong. If it was objective, there would be a quantifiable metric that could prove something is better or worse. What would that metric be? Considering you're trying to act like there IS a best, you must know what decides an "objectively better game"

No, they do not mean the same thing. Saying something is your favorite, you cannot possibly be wrong. It's purely your opinion. Saying something is "the best" requires an argument, and it most certainly can be wrong.

You guys are looking at it from an either or perspective, but it's both. Art is subjective and objective, that's what makes it art.

How a person experience things is not based on nothing, its based on how the brain functions. The brain adapts to the systems in games and establishes judgements on what is good or not, and the qualities we value is surprisingly universal. The more experience you have, the better you can compare and judge, as with any field.

It's all based on experience, which is what makes it somewhat subjective, but with a baseline experience, you can establish criterias to why a game is good or not.

For a person who never used a phone, it will seem like magic and can captivate them for hours, for people who have experience with phones, you can judge and compare them from one another based on various properties.

 

[JohnSpartanLee]

RE 4 is 4x more exciting and fun

Not to me. After the initial wow of the village I felt it was all very samey non-stop action that dragged on forever.

 

[IFireflyl]

You guys are looking at it from an either or perspective, but it's both. Art is subjective and objective, that's what makes it art.

How a person experience things is not based on nothing, its based on how the brain functions. The brain adapts to the systems in games and establishes judgements on what is good or not, and the qualities we value is surprisingly universal. The more experience you have, the better you can compare and judge, as with any field.

It's all based on experience, which is what makes it somewhat subjective, but with a baseline experience, you can establish criterias to why a game is good or not.

For a person who never used a phone, it will seem like magic and can captivate them for hours, for people who have experience with phones, you can judge and compare them from one another based on various properties.

Your second to last paragraph nullifies your entire claim. Everyone has different experiences, so it say it is "subjective with baseline experiences" would mean that it is subjective. Full stop. As was said by others, objective means there is some quantifiable and irrefutable metric by which something is judged. There is no quantifiable and irrefutable metric for what makes a video game the best. Not only do people have different opinions on the same criteria (e.g. one person may say the storyline for a game is bad, but another person may say the same storyline is good), but people also have different opinions on what criteria should be used to judge a game in the first place (e.g. one person may say graphics are important, but another person may say that graphics are irrelevant). This is 100% subjective. There is zero argument you can make for having any objectivity.

 

[darrylgorn]

I think what you meant to say was objectively functional.

Pong or tetris can be argued to be objectively functional but determining if either one is good is based on the impression on the player.

 

[Zannegan]

The initial reception/hype/reactions to Wind Waker were really hurt by the expectations Nintendo set for with their early GC Zelda tech demo. WW is a great game with (in retrospect) a timeless artstyle, but at the time, what a letdown.

 

[stranno]

eFootball 2022. It is great.. just not in this galaxy.

 

[nkarafo]

OtherM is a fine game with a silly story and cringe cinematics.

But in the context of being a mainline Metroid game, it might as well be the worst game i ever played.

 

[Bragr]

Your second to last paragraph nullifies your entire claim. Everyone has different experiences, so it say it is "subjective with baseline experiences" would mean that it is subjective. Full stop. As was said by others, objective means there is some quantifiable and irrefutable metric by which something is judged. There is no quantifiable and irrefutable metric for what makes a video game the best. Not only do people have different opinions on the same criteria (e.g. one person may say the storyline for a game is bad, but another person may say the same storyline is good), but people also have different opinions on what criteria should be used to judge a game in the first place (e.g. one person may say graphics are important, but another person may say that graphics are irrelevant). This is 100% subjective. There is zero argument you can make for having any objectivity.

That's why I said it was subjective and objective at the same time. It's subjective until the metrics for objectivity can be measured.

With a big enough sample size, it's viable to compare things to other things. Just like we within books or movies. There is a good reason why the best movies and books retain relevancy.

If you only play Bioshock, your view will be biased based on experience, but if you play 100 immersive sims, you can start to measure the quality of controls, audio, presentation etc... with quantifiable and irrefutable metrics because, at that point, your views on criteria will amalgamate.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Bulletstorm. Great graphics and gameplay technical gee wiz game.
Then they handed the game over to some 12 year old boys to write the characters and story.

 

[Bragr]

I think what you meant to say was objectively functional.

Pong or tetris can be argued to be objectively functional but determining if either one is good is based on the impression on the player.

But the impression of the player will be based on things you can measure if you have enough of a sample size, just as you can measure how people enjoy twitter versus facebook and why.

The better games are, the harder it is to claim why it's better than others as the reasons become more minuscule, but compared to worse games, you can easily measure how a game with better controls satisfies the brain better than one with bad controls. You can measure how stuff like how better responsiveness for example makes a game better than something that takes 2 seconds before it moves.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Your second to last paragraph nullifies your entire claim. Everyone has different experiences, so it say it is "subjective with baseline experiences" would mean that it is subjective. Full stop. As was said by others, objective means there is some quantifiable and irrefutable metric by which something is judged. There is no quantifiable and irrefutable metric for what makes a video game the best.

Sure, perhaps not -- just bear in mind the point I'm arguing against is equally absolute, and equally wrong.
The idea that "best" and "favorite" are the same thing and all judgement is 100% subjective is just incorrect.
That's all I personally was trying to say. Any individual case, like anything else will depend on the evidence/argument.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Recently Battlefield 2042 because of the launch, adding to the game probably helps it.

 

[p_xavier]

Twilight Princess. I actually loathed it with the Wii controllers and only spent a couple of hours. It now is my favourite Zelda game, due to replaying it on the Wii U.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

New Super Mario Bros. U is an outstanding Mario game. But most people never knew that because the WiiU launch was botched beyond belief. Nintendo knew they had a great game there, but they grossly overestimated the interest people could have in another NSMB game in late 2012.

 

[Aldynes]

Lost Odyssey.

It's a great game, with great characters and good battle system... However, being released on a non Japanese console kinda killed it, the same can be said to Blue Dragon.

If both were released on the Wii or the Ps3 things would go completely different for them.

You could even argue Lost Odyssey got mixed reviews in part due to how insanely popular and revered Final Fantasy was at the time, FF 13 wasn't out and no one could imagine back then that Lost Odyssey was the last time we got a game of that caliber, so close to what older FF title were, it was perceived as a clone and didn't re-invented the wheel, too rigid and formulaic, in France it got reviewed infamously poorly with a 11/20 by the number 1 video game website.

 

[IFireflyl]

That's why I said it was subjective and objective at the same time. It's subjective until the metrics for objectivity can be measured.

That's just subjective. There can never be quantifiable metrics when it comes to personal taste.

Sure, perhaps not -- just bear in mind the point I'm arguing against is equally absolute, and equally wrong.
The idea that "best" and "favorite" are the same thing and all judgement is 100% subjective is just incorrect.
That's all I personally was trying to say. Any individual case, like anything else will depend on the evidence/argument.

See above. You are objectively wrong. I can say that because what you think is best and is your favorite is opinion, and opinion is completely at odds with objectivity.

 

[Bragr]

That's just subjective. There can never be quantifiable metrics when it comes to personal taste.

Are you saying that something like the responsiveness of movement is not quantifiable?

By your logic, the traditional reasons for why "Stoner" is a good book, is just personal taste, yet you can show how the narrative is structured, and how that said structure affects the reader, how is that not a metric?

 

[IFireflyl]

Are you saying that something like the responsiveness of movement is not quantifiable?

By your logic, the traditional reasons for why "Stoner" is a good book, is just personal taste, yet you can show how the narrative is structured, and how that said structure affects the reader, how is that not a metric?

To the first question, that is irrelevant. The responsiveness of movement has nothing to do with someone's opinion.

To the second point, I am saying the traditional reasons for why "Stoner" is a good book are completely subjective. You're assuming that the structure of the book is positively impacting every reader. Tastes change over time. There may be a time that book is used as an example of poor writing. What makes something "good" is 100% opinion. And as I said, opinion is completely at odds with objectivity.

 

[Sub_Level]

Final Fantasy 8

It's a very good game but I felt immensely disappointed by it after 7. I just had too much expectations of it and wanted it to be just as magical and moving as 7, but it was so different in its execution that I couldn't even bother to finish it. I went back to it years later and finally realized what a fantastic game it was and what a beautiful story Sakaguchi & co tried to tell.

My understanding is Sakaguchi had almost nothing to do with VIII despite being listed as a producer. The project was delegated entirely to Kitase and Nomura.

 

[EruditeHobo]

See above. You are objectively wrong. I can say that because what you think is best and is your favorite is opinion, and opinion is completely at odds with objectivity.

Yeah, it's actually not an opinion. It's by definition -- "best" and "favorite" are not the same thing.

 

[Bragr]

To the first question, that is irrelevant. The responsiveness of movement has nothing to do with someone's opinion.

To the second point, I am saying the traditional reasons for why "Stoner" is a good book are completely subjective. You're assuming that the structure of the book is positively impacting every reader. Tastes change over time. There may be a time that book is used as an example of poor writing. What makes something "good" is 100% opinion. And as I said, opinion is completely at odds with objectivity.

No, it's not, you can measure opinions.

If tastes would nullify the qualities of a book over time, then Stoner would not be around today. The reason why it's still around and recommended is that it features novelty in its writing that is hard to replicate. When a product has features such as that, mass-production doesn't outdate it. People still read Shakespeare, tell me, why do you think they do?

You say that responsiveness has nothing to do with someone's opinion, so how can you explain how a slow and inaccurate response time translates to less enjoyment? for example, if it took 4 seconds before Banjo moved in Banjo-Kazooie when you moved the stick, and 99% of players would not play it becomes of that, how is that measurable?

 

[IFireflyl]

Yeah, it's actually not an opinion. It's by definition -- "best" and "favorite" are not the same thing.

No, it's not, you can measure opinions.

If tastes would nullify the qualities of a book over time, then Stoner would not be around today. The reason why it's still around and recommended is that it features novelty in its writing that is hard to replicate. When a product has features such as that, mass-production doesn't outdate it. People still read Shakespeare, tell me, why do you think they do?

You say that responsiveness has nothing to do with someone's opinion, so how can you explain how a slow and inaccurate response time translates to less enjoyment? for example, if it took 4 seconds before Banjo moved in Banjo-Kazooie when you moved the stick, and 99% of players would not play it becomes of that, how is that measurable?

Objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

So... Go ahead and continue your argument of how opinions can be objective when the word objectively means it can't be influenced by feelings or opinions. I would love to see the mental gymnastics you employ to get out of this one. Again, how someone determines the criteria for "best" or "favorite" is entirely subjective (e.g. it is based on feelings and/or opinions). By definition the criteria for determining best/favorite cannot be objective, which means that there can be no objective best/favorite.

 

[Bragr]

Objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

So... Go ahead and continue your argument of how opinions can be objective when the word objectively means it can't be influenced by feelings or opinions. I would love to see the mental gymnastics you employ to get out of this one. Again, how someone determines the criteria for "best" or "favorite" is entirely subjective (e.g. it is based on feelings and/or opinions). By definition the criteria for determining best/favorite cannot be objective, which means that there can be no objective best/favorite.

lol you are complete butchering what objective means, you are implying that if you measure opinions, it is inherently subjective because it is opinions, which is ridiculous

subjective = i think there is more than 10 people with green pants in that crowd
objective = i counted everyone in the crowd, and there is 8 people with green pants

subjective = this game is fun, i think it has something to do with the response of it
objective = the response time of this game is 0.5 seconds faster than the other game after i compared them

subjective = a lot of people enjoy this game, it's well-liked
objective = 85% of the people who were asked about the game by us enjoyed it

if you ask people for their subjective opinions, and 85% of them liked the game, then it's an objective fact that 85% liked the game based on your query and sample size

 

[IFireflyl]

lol you are complete butchering what objective means, you are implying that if you measure opinions, it is inherently subjective because it is opinions, which is ridiculous

subjective = i think there is more than 10 people with green pants in that crowd
objective = i counted everyone in the crowd, and there is 8 people with green pants

subjective = this game is fun, i think it has something to do with the response of it
objective = the response time of this game is 0.5 seconds faster than the other game after i compared them

subjective = a lot of people enjoy this game, it's well-liked
objective = 85% of the people who were asked about the game by us enjoyed it

if you ask people for their subjective opinions, and 85% of them liked the game, then it's an objective fact that 85% liked the game based on your query and sample size

Objective means that you can't use opinion. It's literally in the definition. I'm not butchering it. Pick up a dictionary and tell me what "objectively" means.

You can't quantify "best" or "favorite" as that is completely subjective. I don't think Shakespeare's writing is good. Someone else does. We are at odds for determining the "best" or "favorite" because of subjective tastes. At most you can say, "The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best." But that isn't saying that thing is objectively the best, only that the majority said that it was the best. So again, it is completely subjective.

And you can say, "Response time for X is 0.5 seconds," as an objective claim. The problem is that you can't objectively define what "best" means. To one person it's storyline. To another it's audio quality. To another it's graphics. When you have different people defining "best" differently then it's a completely subjective definition.

But let's say everyone on the planet agreed on the criteria for what determines the "best" game. The only way that can be objective is if the criteria the best is objective. That means you couldn't use a game's storyline. You couldn't use play styles. You couldn't use art styles. The only thing you could use in this scenario would be things like response time and loading times where you have objective data to present. That's why your argument sucks. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[TheGreatMusashi]

Say what you will about Silicon Knights and Dennis Dyack. From the legal troubles with Epic to his own dumbass posts on this very forum, Too Human was good.

The game is fucking awesome. The combat system is fun as hell and no game since has used it. It’s a Diablo type loot game where you attack with the right stick and fly between enemies at super speeds. It’s super satisfying with some really cool cyberpunk classes and loot.

Sure the camera sucked at times, there’s a lengthy cutscene when you die (but it’s badass, Valkyrie fly down and pick up your corpse to transport it to Valhalla) but man, the co-op is on point.

It had an interesting and original setting and an awesome viral campaign consisting of a pseudo documentary on YouTube following the finding of ancient technology found miles down in a glacier, carbon dating it to centuries ago.


It’s now free on Xbox due to a really questionable legal battle and if you’ve got an Xbox buddy I highly recommend giving it a go.

It was meant to be a trilogy but the world was stacked against it happening, mostly due to Dennis Dyack being a massive cunty turd.

Remove all bullshit, have a great time and end up as I am, wanting a couple sequels built upon the original and fresh ideas.

The biggest tragedy to me was as the legal troubles and delays kept happening, Silicon Knights cut the 4 player co-op mode and a bunch of content that sounded really good.

No matter how stupid or ridiculous everything ended up getting, I’d kill to have Silicon Knights around today still making games.

Legacy of Kain, Eternal Darkess, and Too Human are all franchises I believe we are worse without.

And no Dennis, I will not back your Kickstarters.

(But kinda, I wanted to)

RIP

 

[jigglet]

Say what you will about Silicon Knights and Dennis Dyack. From the legal troubles with Epic to his own dumbass posts on this very forum, Too Human was good.

The game is fucking awesome. The combat system is fun as hell and no game since has used it. It’s a Diablo type loot game where you attack with the right stick and fly between enemies at super speeds. It’s super satisfying with some really cool cyberpunk classes and loot.

Sure the camera sucked at times, there’s a lengthy cutscene when you die (but it’s badass, Valkyrie fly down and pick up your corpse to transport it to Valhalla) but man, the co-op is on point.

It had an interesting and original setting and an awesome viral campaign consisting of a pseudo documentary on YouTube following the finding of ancient technology found miles down in a glacier, carbon dating it to centuries ago.


It’s now free on Xbox due to a really questionable legal battle and if you’ve got an Xbox buddy I highly recommend giving it a go.

It was meant to be a trilogy but the world was stacked against it happening, mostly due to Dennis Dyack being a massive cunty turd.

Remove all bullshit, have a great time and end up as I am, wanting a couple sequels built upon the original and fresh ideas.

The biggest tragedy to me was as the legal troubles and delays kept happening, Silicon Knights cut the 4 player co-op mode and a bunch of content that sounded really good.

No matter how stupid or ridiculous everything ended up getting, I’d kill to have Silicon Knights around today still making games.

Legacy of Kain, Eternal Darkess, and Too Human are all franchises I believe we are worse without.

And no Dennis, I will not back your Kickstarters.

(But kinda, I wanted to)

RIP

Are you For or Against this Objective vs. Subjective debate?

 

[reforen]

RE6 has the best gameplay mechanics for a TPS, enough single player content, replayabilty, but is called Resident Evil

 

[Bragr]

Objective means that you can't use opinion. It's literally in the definition. I'm not butchering it. Pick up a dictionary and tell me what "objectively" means.

You can't quantify "best" or "favorite" as that is completely subjective. I don't think Shakespeare's writing is good. Someone else does. We are at odds for determining the "best" or "favorite" because of subjective tastes. At most you can say, "The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best." But that isn't saying that thing is objectively the best, only that the majority said that it was the best. So again, it is completely subjective.

And you can say, "Response time for X is 0.5 seconds," as an objective claim. The problem is that you can't objectively define what "best" means. To one person it's storyline. To another it's audio quality. To another it's graphics. When you have different people defining "best" differently then it's a completely subjective definition.

But let's say everyone on the planet agreed on the criteria for what determines the "best" game. The only way that can be objective is if the criteria the best is objective. That means you couldn't use a game's storyline. You couldn't use play styles. You couldn't use art styles. The only thing you could use in this scenario would be things like response time and loading times where you have objective data to present. That's why your argument sucks. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making a fool of yourself.

But I'm not using opinion lol, saying that: "20% of these people have this opinion" is not subjective, you aren't basing that on their subjective opinions. You are drawing objective data from the sample size. You are measuring where their opinion's land.

So when you have 100 games, you can compare how their systems work, and then you can see if those systems correlate to player enjoyment. Which it does, which is how we judge things. This is where sayings like "good gameplay make good games" come from. We can actually measure how gameplay systems impact players' impressions and draw hard data from that.

Every paper under the sun does this, in fact, it's required. It's what they do in science for fucks sake.

 

[IFireflyl]

But I'm not using opinion lol, saying that: "20% of these people have this opinion" is not subjective, you aren't basing that on their subjective opinions. You are drawing objective data from the sample size. You are measuring where their opinion's land.

So when you have 100 games, you can compare how their systems work, and then you can see if those systems correlate to player enjoyment. Which it does, which is how we judge things. This is where sayings like "good gameplay make good games" come from. We can actually measure how gameplay systems impact players' impressions and draw hard data from that.

Every paper under the sun does this, in fact, it's required. It's what they do in science for fucks sake.

Did you read my post? I said, "At most you can say, 'The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best.'" I know you can say something to that effect. But if 80% of people say Final Fantasy VII is the best Final Fantasy game that still doesn't make it the objectively best Final Fantasy game. It was subjectively voted the best based on 80% of people's responses, and the people polled can change their opinions at any given time. Meaning that there is no objectivity. It's - wait for it... SUBJECTIVE!

 

[jigglet]

Did you read my post? I said, "At most you can say, 'The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best.'" I know you can say something to that effect. But if 80% of people say Final Fantasy VII is the best Final Fantasy game that still doesn't make it the objectively best Final Fantasy game. It was subjectively voted the best based on the 80% of people's responses, and the people polled can change their opinions at any given time. Meaning that there is no objectivity. It's - wait for it... SUBJECTIVE!

The problem is neither of you are even talking about the same thing anymore but are insisting that you are.

 

[jigglet]

Did you read my post? I said, "At most you can say, 'The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best.'" I know you can say something to that effect. But if 80% of people say Final Fantasy VII is the best Final Fantasy game that still doesn't make it the objectively best Final Fantasy game. It was subjectively voted the best based on 80% of people's responses, and the people polled can change their opinions at any given time. Meaning that there is no objectivity. It's - wait for it... SUBJECTIVE!

I don't mean to sound condescending but are you younger? University sort of age? I used to think in extremely theoretical terms when I was that age. At a certain point you are necessarily going to have to ditch hard text-book definitions and embrace a more pragmatic view of things. Ultimately we need to get down to brass tacks and list things in order. Separate things into categories. Quantify things and place them into defined "objective" buckets. It's just the way the world is. Is it the way the world should be? I left "should be's" at university gate years ago, cause they kind of don't help with actually getting on in the real world.

That doesn't mean that you're wrong by the way. It's absolutely not what I"m saying.

There will be times when you're asked at work: what's the best way to accomplish something? That best way may not be the textbook definition of the best way - it might be riddled with issues and compromises, and you'll take shortcuts that will keep you awake for years on end, but it's what it'll take to avoid you getting fired or whatever. Try busting out the textbook definition of "best" if you want, but see how long that lasts you.

I suspect these differences in perspectives are driven by age and experience.

 

[Perrott]

There are exactly zero objectively good games. "Good" is an entirely subjective term.

Games are a work of (game) design, and there's either good or bad design.

So games can be objectively good - like Tetris or Portal for instance.

 

[Bragr]

Did you read my post? I said, "At most you can say, 'The majority of people polled said blah-blah-blah was the best.'" I know you can say something to that effect. But if 80% of people say Final Fantasy VII is the best Final Fantasy game that still doesn't make it the objectively best Final Fantasy game. It was subjectively voted the best based on the 80% of people's responses, and the people polled can change their opinions at any given time. Meaning that there is no objectivity. It's - wait for it... SUBJECTIVE!

No, because you can break down what exactly made them feel that way. You can go further than just poll their favorite Final Fantasy game. You can continue to study their reasoning to find out why and how they think in such ways.

"Do you like this game?"
"What do you like about it?"
"Why do you like that part of the game?"

Ask a few hundred people such questions, and you will find patterns and similarities that will start to show up that can be attributed to how the game, design mechanics, and systems work. And when you compare those systems to hundreds of games, you will see that those systems are usually featured in good games.

Now, of course, we can't do studies like this with each game, but most people who played a lot of games can rationalize what a good game is based on similar methods like this.

 

[IFireflyl]

I don't mean to sound condescending but are you younger? University sort of age? I used to think in extremely theoretical terms when I was that age. At a certain point you are necessarily going to have to ditch hard text-book definitions and embrace a more pragmatic view of things. Ultimately we need to get down to brass tacks and list things in order. Separate things into categories. Quantify things and place them into defined "objective" buckets. It's just the way the world is. Is it the way the world should be? I left "should be's" at university gate years ago, cause they kind of don't help with actually getting on in the real world.

That doesn't mean that you're wrong by the way. It's absolutely not what I"m saying.

There will be times when you're asked at work: what's the best way to accomplish something? That best way may not be the textbook definition of the best way - it might be riddled with issues and compromises, and you'll take shortcuts that will keep you awake for years on end, but it's what it'll take to avoid you getting fired or whatever. Try busting out the textbook definition of "best" if you want, but see how long that lasts you.

I suspect these differences in perspectives are driven by age and experience.

I have been out of college/university for over a decade. No offense was taken. I enjoy debating, but in this case it is less a debate than it is a failing in the education system for the people arguing against me. I don't have to throw out the dictionary when discussing the meaning of words. Objectively has a meaning. It was used incorrectly. I pointed that out. People argued against a factual statement for reasons I do not comprehend.

Games are a work of (game) design, and there's either good or bad design.

So games can be objectively good - like Tetris or Portal for instance.

Your first sentence is subjectively true, but objectively false. I can think a game design is good and you can think the same game design is bad. Subjectively neither of us is incorrect. There is no objective measurement for what determines a good or a bad game design, so that statement cannot be objectively true.

Your second sentence is completely false. By making the claim that games can be objectively good you're saying that if someone says the game is bad that they are objectively wrong. But that can't be true since there is, like the first sentence, no objective measurement for what determines if a game is good or bad.

No, because you can break down what exactly made them feel that way. You can go further than just poll their favorite Final Fantasy game. You can continue to study their reasoning to find out why and how they think in such ways.

"Do you like this game?"
"What do you like about it?"
"Why do you like that part of the game?"

Ask a few hundred people such questions, and you will find patterns and similarities that will start to show up that can be attributed to how the game, design mechanics, and systems work. And when you compare those systems to hundreds of games, you will see that those systems are usually featured in good games.

Now, of course, we can't do studies like this with each game, but most people who played a lot of games can rationalize what a good game is based on similar methods like this.

You're talking about a hypothetical situation. There is not currently an objective measurement of what makes a game good. Full stop. I'm not going to debate what-ifs. You have to get people to agree to an objective measurement, and that won't happen because people feel differently about different things. You can't please everyone with an objective definition of a good or bad game because while you might say graphics are a huge factor in scoring it, someone else would say it's not that big of a factor, and someone else says it isn't a factor at all. We do not have an objective measurement for this and we never will. Because the measurement itself is subjective.

 

[Bragr]

You can't please everyone with an objective definition of a good or bad game because while you might say graphics are a huge factor in scoring it, someone else would say it's not that big of a factor, and someone else says it isn't a factor at all. We do not have an objective measurement for this and we never will. Because the measurement itself is subjective.

This doesn't make sense though, nothing works like this. We are not talking about pleasing everyone. Even the hardest fact doesn't please everyone, because people are wrong and biased all the time. That doesn't mean that nothing is objective.

If 90% of poor people say it is hard to find a decent job, and 10% have different opinions? would you say it's objective that poor people think it's hard to find a decent job, or subjective?

 

[PuffyCan]

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, a really great game but not what fans expected from a Banjo-Kazooie game

 

[IFireflyl]

This doesn't make sense though, nothing works like this. We are not talking about pleasing everyone. Even the hardest fact doesn't please everyone, because people are wrong and biased all the time. That doesn't mean that nothing is objective.

If 90% of poor people say it is hard to find a decent job, and 10% have different opinions? would you say it's objective that poor people think it's hard to find a decent job, or subjective?

1+1=2

That is objectively true. It is not based on personal feelings or opinion. It is a provable fact. We know what 1 is. We know what 2 is. We know that two 1s makes 2. People who disagree with this are objectively wrong because we have defined all of the terms, and the logical conclusion is that 1+1=2.

The best games are Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy IX, and Final Fantasy X.

That is subjectively true or false. For me, that is a true statement. "Best" is an extremely vague term that is open to interpretation. What is "best" is purely subjective as it is based on personal feelings or opinion.

If there is a poll that was taken and 90% of people said it is difficult to find a decent job then that is objectively true. You have the people polled. You have the question asked. You have their answer. You can do the math and determine that 90% of people polled did in fact say that.

However, the claim itself (that it is difficult to find a decent job) is only subjectively true or false. If it were objectively true that it is difficult to find a decent job then the people who said it isn't difficult to find a decent job are objectively wrong, and it actually was difficult for them to find a decent job. The claim itself doesn't apply to everyone, so it has to be subjective.

 

[EruditeHobo]

So... Go ahead and continue your argument of how opinions can be objective when the word objectively means it can't be influenced by feelings or opinions.

This wouldn't be an issue if you understood and expressed that there is some difference between "best" and "favorite". You're the only one here trying to deal in absolutes, no one else has said they are 100% mutually exclusive in an absolute way. I never said that, I said what you said was very obviously wrong because of how you put it. And it is, it remains wrong.

It's very obvious that there is a difference there, both colloquially and definitively. The examples I've used, which you have specifically avoided directly responding to, illustrate that pretty clearly.

 

[EruditeHobo]

I don't think Shakespeare's writing is good. Someone else does.

Yes, and you are wrong. That doesn't mean you have to like Shakespeare, but you failing to understand why and how Shakespeare is a great writer is your problem. This isn't about objective/subjective, this is about understanding. And that would be illustrated by the arguments in support of those statements, either "Shakespeare is bad" or "Shakespeare is good".

I'm not going to write a whole dissertation on why you are very clearly "objectively" wrong in your statement that he's not a good writer. I mean I could link some papers & projects by comp lit experts... but regardless of whether or not I take the time to do that, the only point that matters is that those two arguments/"opinions" are not equal when it comes to "best" because of the nature of understanding & expertise. "Best" means something. It doesn't mean it's 100% opposite of "favorite", or that it's 100% "objective"... that's not how language works. But it does mean there is a significant difference between those two things, generally speaking. I don't know how that isn't really obvious.

 

[MajinSweet4]

Are you saying that something like the responsiveness of movement is not quantifiable?

By your logic, the traditional reasons for why "Stoner" is a good book, is just personal taste, yet you can show how the narrative is structured, and how that said structure affects the reader, how is that not a metric?

What qualifies as "responsive" controls itself is subjective. I can explain to someone why the controls of classic RE games are perfectly suited to what those games are trying to achieve, but that person can still think they are clunky and awful. It's entirely subjective. You can't "measure" good game feel.

 

[Man From The FIzz]

Not to me. After the initial wow of the village I felt it was all very samey non-stop action that dragged on forever.

Alright then every enjoys their own cup of gaming tea, the progression system and challenge always felt very engaging for me.

Conserving your resources as best as possible while getting all of the treasures and obtaining the ultra upgrades for your weapons and absolutely tearing ass was amazing to me!

The bosses and mini bosses were soooo sick and epic like el gigante and the Salvador twins.
The game had a perfect racing of ramping up the enemies, always providing new variety, incredibly diverse level design moments, BEING CHASED BY A GIANT MARBLE GOLEM, finding the weak spots of regenarators with the infrared scope.

And the inventory was so massive for a RE game, allowing you to hold so many more items and guns then you ever could. And the attachments were so badass! It gave you so much variety in playing the game in whatever way you wanted to that you could never get in classic RE.

To me and many others all the boss fights, replayablitiy, mercenaries mode, music, gameplay, etc. make it the greatest resident evil game ever made just because of how much more fun and replayable it is then classic RE which tended to be much more slower and annoying with the backtracking and fixed camera angles.

 

[JohnSpartanLee]

Alright then every enjoys their own cup of gaming tea, the progression system and challenge always felt very engaging for me.

Conserving your resources as best as possible while getting all of the treasures and obtaining the ultra upgrades for your weapons and absolutely tearing ass was amazing to me!

The bosses and mini bosses were soooo sick and epic like el gigante and the Salvador twins.
The game had a perfect racing of ramping up the enemies, always providing new variety, incredibly diverse level design moments, BEING CHASED BY A GIANT MARBLE GOLEM, finding the weak spots of regenarators with the infrared scope.

And the inventory was so massive for a RE game, allowing you to hold so many more items and guns then you ever could. And the attachments were so badass! It gave you so much variety in playing the game in whatever way you wanted to that you could never get in classic RE.

To me and many others all the boss fights, replayablitiy, mercenaries mode, music, gameplay, etc. make it the greatest resident evil game ever made just because of how much more fun and replayable it is then classic RE which tended to be much more slower and annoying with the backtracking and fixed camera angles.

Definitely a well crafted game and it's great that it's so special to you and many others.
It's just a matter of taste then. Most of the things that excited you I found too over the top and off-putting.
I don't even count it as a Resident Evil game. I wish they had just created a new franchise for this type of game.