-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Can a game be objectively good or bad?
- Thread starter mazpratim
- Start date
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I think they can be. But that doesn't mean someone cant still dislike a good one or love a bad one.
For example, I don't really like Uncharted 3, but am happy to admit its an objectively "good" game. If that makes sense. It looks good, its not broken, its a fairly polished product, it plays competently, serviceable story, good voice acting, competent gunplay. It is, by all rights, a good game.
I just don't like it.
For example, I don't really like Uncharted 3, but am happy to admit its an objectively "good" game. If that makes sense. It looks good, its not broken, its a fairly polished product, it plays competently, serviceable story, good voice acting, competent gunplay. It is, by all rights, a good game.
I just don't like it.
Technically? Sure and in lots of ways, some obvious ones being:
stable frame rate (or not)
screen tearing (or not)
resolution
latency
...
I'd also argue that mechanics can be objective too, for example accurate, responsive aiming and movement vs sluggish aiming and movement in an FPS or accurate and responsive movement in a platformer or accurate and responsive steering in a racing game.
So yes they can. In particular the more a game is based on pure gameplay the more objectively it can be compared. So for example if I play a pure 2D platform game outside subjective views on art style or music or character design most of the experience feels very objective and I quickly know if the game I'm playing is better or worse than other similar titles.
Conversely the more it includes narrative, setting, themes, music cues the harder it becomes to be objective.and the more subjective response takes over. Mass Effect (first game) is a good example of this, objectively it's actually pretty poor in many areas, from awful TPS aiming/combat to poor performance, long load times and janky movement not to mention awful inventory design and many weak side quests. But, the overall experience for many outweighs all of that.
Many people of course purely evaluate subjectively "did I like this, was it fun enough, etc" vs really objectively noting "this platformer was objectively less responsive with stages that were less well designed than the previous platformer I played". Not that there's any reason for people just playing for entertainment to be objective anyway.
I think that level of objective deconstruction is more the province of those who wish to appreciate the medium in a different way alongside pure enjoyment, much the same way a film fan can enjoy a film but also deconstruct it at the same time it terms of direction, acting, cinematography and so on.
stable frame rate (or not)
screen tearing (or not)
resolution
latency
...
I'd also argue that mechanics can be objective too, for example accurate, responsive aiming and movement vs sluggish aiming and movement in an FPS or accurate and responsive movement in a platformer or accurate and responsive steering in a racing game.
So yes they can. In particular the more a game is based on pure gameplay the more objectively it can be compared. So for example if I play a pure 2D platform game outside subjective views on art style or music or character design most of the experience feels very objective and I quickly know if the game I'm playing is better or worse than other similar titles.
Conversely the more it includes narrative, setting, themes, music cues the harder it becomes to be objective.and the more subjective response takes over. Mass Effect (first game) is a good example of this, objectively it's actually pretty poor in many areas, from awful TPS aiming/combat to poor performance, long load times and janky movement not to mention awful inventory design and many weak side quests. But, the overall experience for many outweighs all of that.
Many people of course purely evaluate subjectively "did I like this, was it fun enough, etc" vs really objectively noting "this platformer was objectively less responsive with stages that were less well designed than the previous platformer I played". Not that there's any reason for people just playing for entertainment to be objective anyway.
I think that level of objective deconstruction is more the province of those who wish to appreciate the medium in a different way alongside pure enjoyment, much the same way a film fan can enjoy a film but also deconstruct it at the same time it terms of direction, acting, cinematography and so on.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Pleasing many people has no bearing on quality.
Graphically nice is an opinion
Solid gameplay is an opinion.
Story keeping people engaged is an opinion. Hell, I had problems with the pacing of it, personally. I'm sure very many people didn't.
These are all opinions.
See, this mentality I don't get. I'm sure you have reasons for disliking the game? What makes your opinions and experiences less valid than anyone else's? Because it's a minority opinion?
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Because its about (I believe) your ability to actually BE objective enough yourself to admit it. I'm fairly sure the term "guilty pleasure" exists for that very reason.
My wife and I used to love watching Make it or Break it. We knew the show was terrible but we still liked it. Its an objectively terrible TV show.
Video games do have value. Subjective value.
"Good" and "bad" are subjective because they are social / human values.
Coffee Dog
Banned
But you can't be solely objective. if you label anything as "good" or "bad" it's a subjective designation.
And a guilty pleasure is something that you think is highly flawed but enjoy anyway. It has nothing to do with objectivity.
Moral Panic
Member
As long as you have a shared frame of reference as to what "good" and "bad" are.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I would say no but you can compare it to other games in that genre. Let's take a look at a more popular "debate": Diablo 3 vs Path of Exile. In comparison Diablo 3 is just low-tier game making.
Coffee Dog
Banned
How many fans does a game have to satisfy in order to be considered good?
Coffee Dog
Banned
I'm sure that at some point someone masturbated to Custers revenge and had a positive experience with the title.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
I disagree
Coffee Dog
Banned
I laughed at the awful cutscenes to wand of gamelon. That means that the game has higher highs than, say, tomb raider 2013, where I felt near nothing throughout the experience.
PeskyToaster
Member
easily. you can say a game is bad just like you can easily assign a number to its quality.
Liabe Brave
Member
No, a game can't be objectively "good" or "bad", because the full meaning of those words is ambiguous. Even the attempt by a lot of folks in this thread to restrict their usage to technical aspects is impossible. For example, you may want to call low resolution "bad", but there are players who subjectively don't notice it. Even things you'd think everyone would agree on, like that higher framerate is "good", aren't truly universal. Go into any EDF thread on GAF, and you'll see people praising low framerate. They're only partly joking.
All that said, there are some meanings of "good" and "bad" which *can* be objectively assessed. Craftsmanship can be discerned with a critical eye, apart from whatever feelings the assessor brings. Is the writing adroit? Is the gameplay novel? Is the theme consistent? Is the artwork effective? These and many other questions can indeed be answered objectively. They just don't form the foundation of most talk about games.
All that said, there are some meanings of "good" and "bad" which *can* be objectively assessed. Craftsmanship can be discerned with a critical eye, apart from whatever feelings the assessor brings. Is the writing adroit? Is the gameplay novel? Is the theme consistent? Is the artwork effective? These and many other questions can indeed be answered objectively. They just don't form the foundation of most talk about games.
The cutscenes are the funniest thing I've seen in gaming, checkmate
I like this post. It's the same with games as with books or paintings for me. I've read enough fanfiction written by people lacking a basic grasp of their own language to strongly believe that writing can be objectively bad, and I've seen enough of DeviantArt MS Paint-created monstrosities to believe the same about painting.
Whether or not someone can enjoy the content for some reason is irrelevant to its objective quality, IMO.
IdreamofHIME
Member
But even then, it doesn't work with the big websites who are chasing clicks and readers.
Take IGN admitting Bubble Bobble DS was broken and couldn't be completed due to a glitch that locks out 70% of the levels...and then proceed to give the game a higher score than the infamous score God Hand received from the same site.
Now removing the subjectivity of how much you like a game and how a reviewer just didn't gel with GH and that it was also different reviewers.... how can a game that only lets you have access to 30% of the content get any kind of score above a zero?
R_thanatos
Member
I think bubsy 3D game is a gmae thatis objectively bad for the player health.
So , yes i guess ?
For me , any game that is physicaly harmfull is bad.
The reverse is true , a game that has relaxing capapbilities is objectively good , regardless of taste.
"Flower" come to mind.
So , yes i guess ?
For me , any game that is physicaly harmfull is bad.
The reverse is true , a game that has relaxing capapbilities is objectively good , regardless of taste.
"Flower" come to mind.
Not Spaceghost
Spaceghost
On a technical level definitely, you can have objectively good performance.
Definitely not on an enjoyment level, but on merits I think it's entirely possible.
Shadow of the Colossus is one of the few games I consider to be objectively good, but it's a disaster on a technical level. It's objectively good for reasons that are a bit beyond description though.
Definitely not on an enjoyment level, but on merits I think it's entirely possible.
Shadow of the Colossus is one of the few games I consider to be objectively good, but it's a disaster on a technical level. It's objectively good for reasons that are a bit beyond description though.
That doesn't make the game not awful. It's still an awful game, but one with hilarious cutscenes.
And the cutscenes are only funny on YouTube. When you're going through the torturous experience of actually playing the games, they're not funny anymore. They weren't funny when I played the games as a kid, never found any humor in them until YT Poop came about and they turned into memes.
That1BlackGuy
Member
Fam, the voice acting for Rogue Warrior is fantastic, it gave me one of my favorite video game songs ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVoyGUcXepc
autoduelist
Member
It's shocking how many people don't understand the meaning of objective vs. subjective.
A game could be objectively good or bad, for example a game could run well/bad, could have a big/small amount of content/replay, gameplay could work/not work and be balanced/broken, could be innovative/traditional etc, those are all objective things, different people could have different opinions on subjective things like the artstyle, the fun etc but those are opinions that don't have big weight, because some people could like what others don't, should we give more importance to one opinion instead of another? If so who decides and on what basis?
Imo people(and reviewers) should separate objective aspects from subjective ones and evaluate them with different parameters taking into account that other people could think differently on subjective aspects, relative comments like "if you like the genre/gameplay/style/story/whatever buy it if not try it before buying it" should be more frequent than absolute ones like "it's an all time masterpiece!" and "it's a total sh*t".
Imo people(and reviewers) should separate objective aspects from subjective ones and evaluate them with different parameters taking into account that other people could think differently on subjective aspects, relative comments like "if you like the genre/gameplay/style/story/whatever buy it if not try it before buying it" should be more frequent than absolute ones like "it's an all time masterpiece!" and "it's a total sh*t".
Give War A Chance
Member
Yep; if it doesn't work at all, it's a bad game. Everything else is up in the air, for me.
dragonfart28
Banned
No.
People can still profess to claim they enjoy something most others would say is a fault, even if it is a game mechanism or design choice.
Please see 'loading screens are good because you can mull over mistakes' logic from Bloodborne fans.
People can still profess to claim they enjoy something most others would say is a fault, even if it is a game mechanism or design choice.
Please see 'loading screens are good because you can mull over mistakes' logic from Bloodborne fans.
no nothing can be objectively good or bad
you can measure amount of bugs, framerate, response to player input, etc. but these do not make something good or bad
it is scary how many people cant see this, something objective is something that can be measured. theres no disagreement in objectivity because there cant be. all media is subjectively good or bad, bar none. anyone arguing otherwise doesnt understand what objective and subjective mean
you can measure amount of bugs, framerate, response to player input, etc. but these do not make something good or bad
it is scary how many people cant see this, something objective is something that can be measured. theres no disagreement in objectivity because there cant be. all media is subjectively good or bad, bar none. anyone arguing otherwise doesnt understand what objective and subjective mean
gigantor21
Member
Only from a technical standpoint--i.e. loading times, number of bugs and glitches, hit detection, etc.
In terms of the quality of stuff like gameplay and story, though? No. That's purely subjective.
In terms of the quality of stuff like gameplay and story, though? No. That's purely subjective.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I think good needs to be replaced with 'of positive quality', and bad with 'of negative quality'.
Otherwise we are going to go round in circles because of using the terms good and bad, which are subjective. But these are being used in these cases as a measure of quality, and quality can be measured objectively.
This isn't true.
I give you 2 footballs. One is made from nylon with loose stitching. The other is made from leather with perfect stitching. One of these is factually of better quality than the other, it is objectively better, because of it's quality being easily determined as higher. One is more suitable for it's intended use than the other. This bypasses all opinion, because science tells you one in stronger, and therefore better to be kicked around as is it's use.
Otherwise we are going to go round in circles because of using the terms good and bad, which are subjective. But these are being used in these cases as a measure of quality, and quality can be measured objectively.
This isn't true.
I give you 2 footballs. One is made from nylon with loose stitching. The other is made from leather with perfect stitching. One of these is factually of better quality than the other, it is objectively better, because of it's quality being easily determined as higher. One is more suitable for it's intended use than the other. This bypasses all opinion, because science tells you one in stronger, and therefore better to be kicked around as is it's use.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Strictly speaking to the definition of the word "objective," no. The moment you can rate a thing or compare its quality to something else's, it's subjective.
The Earth rotates around the sun. That's objective fact (I have no interest in arguing whatever philosophical crap anyone wants to toss about the subjectivity of reality. That isn't the point of this thread or post). A game is good or bad. That's subjective.
Even if you were to say "a game that doesn't work in the console it's designed for is an objectively bad game," you'd be incorrect. I may view that game as bad because it doesn't work, but my wife would view it as a fantastic game because it doesn't work (she hates my gaming hobby). Therefore, its quality is a subjective matter.
The Earth rotates around the sun. That's objective fact (I have no interest in arguing whatever philosophical crap anyone wants to toss about the subjectivity of reality. That isn't the point of this thread or post). A game is good or bad. That's subjective.
Even if you were to say "a game that doesn't work in the console it's designed for is an objectively bad game," you'd be incorrect. I may view that game as bad because it doesn't work, but my wife would view it as a fantastic game because it doesn't work (she hates my gaming hobby). Therefore, its quality is a subjective matter.
This.
unless someone preferes kicking the lower quality ball. maybe they can can kick it further, or it bounces higher. quality materials doesnt always mean a prefered product.
No. You can say that a game had a largely negative reception, that it has technical shortcomings like bugs or a low framerate, or that it goes against generally agreed upon principles of what constitutes good game design, but calling the game as a whole "good" or "bad" is a value judgment that can't really be made without introducing some element of subjectivity.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Yes, but preference doesn't come into quality. One is factually of a higher quality, and therefore is objectively the better quality ball. A person may prefer to kick the poorer quality ball, but that is then a subjective preference. The factual qualities of each ball remains regardless, and on these qualities the balls can be judged without preference.
The problem comes when people apply this kind of thinking to parts of games that can't be measured objectively. I can objectively say that a game has a particular level of input lag, that it features certain reproducible bugs, that its framerate drops in some circumstances, etc. but assessments like "good gunplay" "great story" or "bad characters" aren't quantifiable in the same way.
That's also subjective. If a "lower quality" material gives a result that you prefer then for your purposes it's of a "higher quality". Past the hardest of hard sciences objectivity gets increasingly difficult to even attempt to achieve. By the time your at any form of artistic or entertainment product it's a useless word. They are by their very nature entirely subjective experiences.
bennywhatever
Member
ET was an objectively bad game. That's the only one I can really think of.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I completely agree, but I think a game generally has enough components that have a standard of quality that it could be judged without preference as either 'of quality' or 'not'. I use these terms instead of good and bad because of the connotations that come with the latter as being preferential in nature, rather than a form of measurement.
Much of the debate here is muddied by the use of such terms in the thread title. But the post itself asks if one game can be objectively better than another, and in terms of quality, I think the answer is yes.
No. Science and physics tell us that one of those balls is more fit for purpose than the other, it is factually of a better quality as a result, because it performs its created for task to a higher standard. You are bringing preference into it once again, but that's irrelevant to either balls qualities, only the qualities a person kicking it may prefer.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Ask a philosopher. I'm a noob at the what do you really mean when you say something topics. I throw up my hands and keep it moving. Too lazy.