• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Objectively good games that were disappointing due to context?

jigglet

Gold Member
Mine is Luigi's Mansion. After the revolutionary Mario 64 I had hyped myself up for the second coming. The mother of all games that would drop me to my knees. Something that would again set a new benchmark for 3D platformers, introduce an unfathomable co-op mode (how the fuck would that even work in 3D? Who cares, in Miyamoto I trust), and new innovations that would set my mind on fire every 20 seconds like Mario 64 did on release.

After years of Miyamoto teasing Mario 64-2, a disappointing N64 generation, and all the hype around Gamecube, my fucking god we got a shitty little fucking whatever the hell that was called Luigi's Mansion.

In hindsight it wasn't bad, maybe it was even good or great. But after Mario 64 and the pressure of being a launch game, fuck Luigi's Mansion. Fuck it to hell. I can never look at the LM franchise objectively now, it's shit on my shoe. It's probably brilliant, no, I'm sure it's brilliant. But context, man, context...if only it wasn't a launch game with all the baggage that came with it :(
 
Last edited:

BlackTron

Member
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.
 

Mr Hyde

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Flabagast

Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Aion002

Member
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.
 

brian0057

Member
There are exactly zero objectively good games. "Good" is an entirely subjective term.
Resident Evil 4 is objectively good and it's objectively better than 5 and 6.
You can subjectively like them, though.

This "Good is subjective" pablum is the cancer that is infecting entertainment and giving us detritus like the Disney Anti-Trilogy and whatever the fuck Ubisoft calls their games these days.
 

skit_data

Member
For me, it's Dark Souls II.
+1
I think the only problem with Dark Souls 2 was that it was called Dark Souls 2. If they named it anything else most people would realize its one of the best games in From Softwares portfolio. If they just called it Kings’s Crowns or Aldias Little Shop of Horrors everyone saying ”Dark Souls 2 sucks” would say it was easily in the top 3 of Souls-like games.
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
Resident Evil 4 is objectively good and it's objectively better than 5 and 6.
You can subjectively like them, though.

This "Good is subjective" pablum is the cancer that is infecting entertainment and giving us detritus like the Disney Anti-Trilogy and whatever the fuck Ubisoft calls their games these days.

Tell me, what is the criteria for a "good" game? List all of the criteria, and then tell me how we come to the conclusion that a game is rated in each criteria. And then be prepared to explain how your criteria is what we should use over someone else's criteria. Come on, man. You had to know this was wrong the entire time you typed it. Seriously. Because if you didn't then your education system failed you.
 

Fredrik

Gold Member
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.
Yup. Name one other RPG where the cinematic story telling, combat, traversal, exploration freedom, graphics is on the same level. Nothing comes close, it stumbles on many things but the sum of all things still put it ahead of everything. Unfortunately broken last gen console ports plus too high expectations absolutely destroyed the talk and now people just love to trash talk it even though they’ve barely touched it.
 

Chastten

Member
To me that would be Final Fantasy VII.

I played a bit of the SNES games via emulators before, but my first real introduction with the series was VIII and I frigging loved that game, despite its flaws. Then around 2000 or so, the internet became a thing for a lot of people including me, and everyone on there was raving about how 7 was so much better than 8 in every conceivable way. So obviously I bought a copy and started playing it with very high expectations.

What I got was a bunch of ugly pixels barely resembling anything recognizable in some neo-scifi setting whatever. Played for a few hours and quit. That was when I learned you should always go into a game as blind as you can. Hype will only lead to dissapointment, 100% of the times.

Now, years later I played it again and while it is still my least favorite of the PSX trio I can say it's a good game. Especially if you played it as a 13 year old in 1997. I mean, even the commercials alone were awesome. But when playing it after more recent games in the series it just didnt hold up. It would be as if you played the original Super Mario Bros. after SMB3.
 

Deerock71

Member
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.
I just bought both of those on the back compat sale and LOVE them!
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Knack

Great game on its own.. but put into the context of ya know, any/all other games existing, well..

I have to agree with this. Its a legit good kids game. I had a lot of fun playing with my baby brother when I came to visit during weekends/holidays in college.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
I remember Motorstorm Apocalypse had worst luck, when it came out PSN got hacked so people couldn't play the game online and I dont remember what country that got hit by natural disaster and the game got delayed.

Back luck on top of bad luck just killed momentum for Apocalypse, which is shame because it was my favourite arcade racing game.
 
Last edited:
Resident Evil 4 is objectively good and it's objectively better than 5 and 6.
You can subjectively like them, though.

This "Good is subjective" pablum is the cancer that is infecting entertainment and giving us detritus like the Disney Anti-Trilogy and whatever the fuck Ubisoft calls their games these days.

The actual "cancer" is people that have managed to convinced themselves that somebody's opinion (be it their own or some critic/reviewer/aggregate) is objective fact and that people are wrong for thinking a certain game is bad or good. When is comes to art (which, spoiler alert, video games are an artform) there is no objective "best" or "worst" art. In order for there to be objectiveness in video game quality there would have to be some quantifiable metric(s) that work for all games equally that people could all universally agree is integral to a game being objectively good. But that doesn't exist, and there are plenty of features or game mechanics or genres that are beloved by some people and hated by others.

How would one go about "objectively" comparing an FPS with an indie sidescroller, what about a massive open world RPG with a racing game? Or a 3rd person action adventure game with a fighting game. Or a Telltale type game with a city building simulator. And even within certain genres there are massive preference differences, open world is not objectively better or worse than linear, same with cell shaded vs photorealism, 2 hour game vs 200 hour game, first person vs 3rd person, and those are just the immediate ones that come to my head, there are millions more things that could be viewed as a great thing or a terrible thing depending on the gamer.

People often try to use things like Metacritic score, GOTY awards, twitch viewers, steam reviews, player count, sales, etc. etc. etc. as proof of 1 game being better than the other but it's always nothing more than trying to validate their own opinion by using whatever metric supports their claim. Here's the thing, when it comes to art, there is NO DIFFERENCE between "Favorite" and "Best", they mean the same thing and it's just people have been brainwashed by things like award shows to believe that there is a difference
 
When is comes to art (which, spoiler alert, video games are an artform)

No they aren't -- at best, some games are a subset or off-shoot of another, more clearly categorical "art form".

The kinds of video games overwhelmingly talked about on boards like this are not part of an art form, they merely have many many artistic disciplines which contribute to them in an overall way and make them "artistic"... but things can be artistic without being their own unique "art form".

No art form has the win/loss component that video games have... games are games, they are not defined by their form but by the rules required to engage with them. There is no inability to "win" or "progress" inherent in a piece of art that is actually part of a defined "art form". Art forms do not have an inherent practicality the way games do.

Now, sometimes games are very artistic! In fact most modern games have a lot of "art" in them, and that art can be judged/appreciated, and furthermore we can even colloquially say that there is an "art" to making video games. But they are not a unique "art form", because "art form" is categorical and video games are overwhelmingly categorically set apart from ALL other unique "art forms".

Here's the thing, when it comes to art, there is NO DIFFERENCE between "Favorite" and "Best", they mean the same thing and it's just people have been brainwashed by things like award shows to believe that there is a difference

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.

The lines may be fine, as they will be with just about any kind of analysis, but towards the extremes this becomes very clear: Batman v Superman is not in any way, shape, or form a "better" film than The Godfather. Someone who claims such a thing would be expressing an objectively incorrect statement. However, it is not incorrect for that same person to say Batman v Superman is their "favorite" movie of all time. They are perhaps clueless with horrible taste... but they are not wrong.

The difference between "favorite" & "best" is very clear -- one is solely about personal preference and the other is about analysis of the form, which requires an argument. And anyone who knows anything about the form relevant to this example (cinema) knows that there is no sufficient argument for how BvS is "better" than the Godfather. That said, I'm open to that argument if anyone wants to take a stab at it.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
I don't really know but I'm loving having another opinion sharing thread...

Hmm.

Maybe Ico? It was great and much loved but if it had come in the heels of Shadow of the Colossus it might have been bigger?

No they aren't


I'm not saying i think you're daft or whatever but being so declarative about what is and isn't art was pretty much nuked as a critical reaction by this guy ^^^^^
 
Last edited:
No they aren't -- at best, some games are a subset or off-shoot of another, more clearly categorical "art form".

The kinds of video games overwhelmingly talked about on boards like this are not part of an art form, they merely have many many artistic disciplines which contribute to them in an overall way and make them "artistic"... but things can be artistic without being their own unique "art form".

No art form has the win/loss component that video games have... games are games, they are not defined by their form but by the rules required to engage with them. There is no inability to "win" or "progress" inherent in a piece of art that is actually part of a defined "art form". Art forms do not have an inherent practicality the way games do.

Now, sometimes games are very artistic! In fact most modern games have a lot of "art" in them, and that art can be judged/appreciated, and furthermore we can even colloquially say that there is an "art" to making video games. But they are not a unique "art form", because "art form" is categorical and video games are overwhelmingly categorically set apart from ALL other unique "art forms".



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.

The lines may be fine, as they will be with just about any kind of analysis, but towards the extremes this becomes very clear: Batman v Superman is not in any way, shape, or form a "better" film than The Godfather. Someone who claims such a thing would be expressing an objectively incorrect statement. However, it is not incorrect for that same person to say Batman v Superman is their "favorite" movie of all time. They are perhaps clueless with horrible taste... but they are not wrong.

The difference between "favorite" & "best" is very clear -- one is solely about personal preference and the other is about analysis of the form, which requires an argument. And anyone who knows anything about the form relevant to this example (cinema) knows that there is no sufficient argument for how BvS is "better" than the Godfather. That said, I'm open to that argument if anyone wants to take a stab at it.

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"
 

jigglet

Gold Member
Knack

Great game on its own.. but put into the context of ya know, any/all other games existing, well..

Yup launch games get very harshly judged, whether that's right or not is irrelevant. But publishers should carefully consider what comes out at launch. Knack could very well have been seen in a different light if it was post launch. Now it's just a meme, even if it's a great game.
 

kyliethicc

Member
Yup launch games get very harshly judged, whether that's right or not is irrelevant. But publishers should carefully consider what comes out at launch. Knack could very well have been seen in a different light if it was post launch. Now it's just a meme, even if it's a great game.
Knack fucking sucks dick

Knack 2 on the other hand... is a mastapeece
 
For one they 100% are art, the first definition I found "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination".

You looked up "art" -- I'm talking about "art forms". But regardless of that, you need to engage with these concepts in ways other than just looking up definitions from a dictionary. I'm not making a value judgement, if you don't understand how games are categorically unique from other obvious "art forms" -- sculpture, music, cinema, painting, dance, etc -- then this isn't going to go anywhere.

Movies, TV Shows, video games, they're all art.

Movies and TV shows are commercial versions of a specific, unique art form -- cinema.
Nothing that is clearly part of a unique art form has a win/lose component like games do.
Thus, by definition, video games are unique in that they contain an inextricable element which other art forms do not have.
Thus, they are not their own unique art form. They in fact contains something which categorically disqualifies them.
That's the problem you need to resolve if you're going to claim games are a unique art form.

I never said games weren't artistic. In fact I said the opposite. The issue is not all things which are artistic or contain art can be accurate defined/categorized as part of a unique, individual "art form".

I'm not saying i think you're daft or whatever but being so declarative about what is and isn't art was pretty much nuked as a critical reaction by this guy ^^^^^

You're not engaging with the difference between "art form" and "art object" -- urinals aren't now their own unique art form because someone used a urinal in their art object to make some post-postmodern point about art. That's not how that works.
 
Last edited:

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Devil May Cry: DmC
Was a pretty good action game. Not up to the standards of regular DMC, but I think without the expectations and baggage of a reboot, it would have gotten a much warmer reception as a campy action-horror game.

Final Fantasy XIII
I stand by the fact that this game was solid. Music, sound design, graphics, and the battle system were amazing. It was saddled by the fact that it didn't behave like previous FF games and the burden of being a flagship title released on next gen (at the time) hardware. They likely should have played it safe with game design for the window it was released in.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
This game was bright, beautiful, varied, had awesome music (the main theme was brilliant, being Zelda's Lullaby reversed) and amazing dungeons. I feel it was brought down by the E3 performance. People were skeptical about the motion controls, and then Miyamoto provided live evidence that those fears weren't unfounded. It was clumsy in spots, but behaved better than it did at the demonstration, for sure. It marred a lot of people's opinions.

Resident Evil/Biohazard 6
This game is the shit. Four campaigns, co op, four way boss battles, Mercenaries, No Hope mode. It has the BEST controls of the action RE era, and the music and art direction is awesome. The black and purple motif of the game is also pretty suave, and the blow job giraffe is an icon of the series. But it came at a point when people were getting tired of the action formula and it was right as the "this shit doesn't even RESEMBLE RE," opinions became widespread. I think if 6 had been 5 it would have been received better.
 
You looked up "art" -- I'm talking about "art forms". But regardless of that, you need to engage with these concepts in ways other than just looking up definitions from a dictionary. I'm not making a value judgement, if you don't understand how games are categorically unique from other obvious "art forms" -- sculpture, music, cinema, painting, dance, etc -- then this isn't going to go anywhere.



Movies and TV shows are commercial versions of a specific, unique art form -- cinema.
Nothing that is clearly part of a unique art form has a win/lose component like games do.
Thus, by definition, video games are unique in that they contain an inextricable element which other art forms do not have.
Thus, they are not their own unique art form. They in fact contains something which categorically disqualifies them.
That's the problem you need to resolve if you're going to claim games are a unique art form.

I never said games weren't artistic. In fact I said the opposite. The issue is not all things which are artistic or contain art can be accurate defined/categorized as part of a unique, individual "art form".



You're not engaging with the difference between "art form" and "art object" -- urinals aren't now their own unique art form because someone used a urinal in their art object to make some post-postmodern point about art. That's not how that works.


You still haven't answered in any capacity how one would objectively compare video games to determine a "Best" or "worst" video game. Until you can do that it's 100% a purely subjective medium, regardless or whatever you think about it's art validity
 

jigglet

Gold Member
You still haven't answered in any capacity how one would objectively compare video games to determine a "Best" or "worst" video game. Until you can do that it's 100% a purely subjective medium, regardless or whatever you think about it's art validity

Coming up with a basis of objective measure is hard, I agree.

But what you're saying is - it's too hard, so just give up.

Are you saying there is no plausible way to distinguish what would be broadly accepted as a bad game vs. what is broadly accepted as a good game?

I get that there are outliers that would see things differently, but in broad strokes; you're saying good vs bad comparisons are just - impossible?

Are you seriously saying you pick up a cut and paste hack job on App Store and look at something like say, Zelda BoTW and struggle to see the difference? Or that someone that does see the difference is fundamentally wrong on some level?

Again don't tell me that there would be some people out there that would prefer the hack job game over BOTW, there's always going to be fans of anything out there. There are always outliers. But that's not what I'm referring to.
 
Last edited:
Coming up with a basis of objective measure is hard, I agree.

But what you're saying is - it's too hard, so just give up.

Are you saying there is no plausible way to distinguish what would be broadly accepted as a bad game vs. what is broadly accepted as a good game?

I get that there are outliers that would see things differently, but in broad strokes; you're saying good vs bad comparisons are just - impossible?

Are you seriously saying you pick up a cut and paste hack job on App Store and look at something like say, Zelda BoTW and struggle to see the difference? Or that someone that does see the difference is fundamentally wrong on some level?

Again don't tell me that there would be some people out there that would prefer the hack job game over BOTW, there's always going to be fans of anything out there. There are always outliers. But that's not what I'm referring to.


That doesn't make it "objectively" better, that just means more people think it's better. Even if literally everybody thinks something's better it doesn't make it "objectively" better.


And no I fundamentally disagree with their premise that video games aren't art, I was just asking them to give any form of counterargument, since they seem so intent that there are objectively better video games, so I wondered if they actually had any argument
 

Hoddi

Member
I think SM64 itself kinda counts nowadays. I never played it back in the day but I've spent 20+ years hearing about how amazing it was. I've played a lot of Mario games since then (and before) which made me fairly disappointed when I started it last year.

I'd also never played Luigi's Mansion until last year and I thought it was pretty damn great. I think the only real difference is that my expectations were so different.

Edit:

Also, everyone knew what OP meant when he said 'objectively'. There's no reason to turn this thread into a beginner's course in philosophy.
 
Last edited:

jigglet

Gold Member
That doesn't make it "objectively" better, that just means more people think it's better. Even if literally everybody thinks something's better it doesn't make it "objectively" better.

Are you of the opinion that some things can be objectively better, while others are purely subjective?

For instance I play a lot of first person competitive games. Frame rates are critical to me. That to me is an objective marker - 120 frames is just better than 30.

Or you think it's all subjective and there are zero objective attributes anywhere for anything?
 

bender

What time is it?
I think SM64 itself kinda counts nowadays. I never played it back in the day but I've spent 20+ years hearing about how amazing it was. I've played a lot of Mario games since then (and before) which made me fairly disappointed when I started it last year.

It's got a tough ramp up because the camera system feels dated and some of the visuals are oddly proportioned. I'd briefly dabbled with it over the years but never did a playthrough until the Switch release.
 
Are you of the opinion that some things can be objectively better, while others are purely subjective?

For instance I play a lot of first person competitive games. Frame rates are critical to me. That to me is an objective marker - 120 frames is just better than 30.

Or you think it's all subjective and there are zero objective attributes anywhere for anything?
I mean yeah better framerate, better resolution, more content, having raytracing or not, etc. etc. There are definitely objectively elements to video games, but very few people will consider games to be better exclusively due to things like that. The game itself also has to be good, which is the subjective part
 

Archaic101

Neo Member
Call of Duty Infinite Warfare - One of the top 3 campaigns in the series, in my opinion...But the reaction to MP killed its reputation

Every Skylanders game after Giants - I know people were turned off by the cost of the figures, but by the time the later sequels came out, you could easily buy a few older figures for $5 and have a blast. The coop and variety, as well as the accessibility, made them excellent games to play with your kids.

Disney Infinity 3.0 - Crippled by an early cancellation, this game had enough tools and characters in it to make some great adventures, including racing, puzzle, adventure, story-based, etc. Some of the things people have done on Youtube are incredible.
 
You still haven't answered in any capacity how one would objectively compare video games to determine a "Best" or "worst" video game. Until you can do that it's 100% a purely subjective medium

No, this is objectively wrong, a logical fallacy due to you proposing a false choice.

My point is simple, and I already engaged with your question via my example of extremes; even if games were part of their own art form, we can understand you are wrong when you say "favorite" & "best" are the same thing. They aren't the same thing. There are reasons that Batman v Superman is objectively a worse movie than The Godfather. They are some of the same reasons that Halo is an objectively better game than an 3PS I personally worked on called Fracture.

I didn't say that I had all the answers as to how people should judge games and compare them, in fact I said those kinds of determinations will, for many reasons, have very fine lines and will probably only become really obvious at the extremes. However, this has literally nothing to do with my response to your incorrect statements that judging games is "100% subjective", or that "favorite and best are the same thing"... those statements are pretty obviously wrong.
 
Last edited:

Hoddi

Member
It's got a tough ramp up because the camera system feels dated and some of the visuals are oddly proportioned. I'd briefly dabbled with it over the years but never did a playthrough until the Switch release.
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.
 

bender

What time is it?
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.

I finished it (not all stars) and while it can feel dated, I had a good time. Galaxy is always going to be my favorite but I even enjoyed Sunshine which I really didn't like when it first released.
 

jigglet

Gold Member
but I often think that people are mostly being nostalgic about these early 3D games.

Whether it's worth playing through and still holds up is a completely separate issue to the question above.

The reason it's held in such high regard has absolutely nothing to do with nostalgia. Mario 64 broke so much new ground that it basically set the standard for how 3D games should play, and that "template" actually hasn't changed much since then (from a purely 3D movement / mechanical / gameplay perspective).

Before Mario 64 some of the best examples of 3D were Tomb Raider, which had a lot of design issues. Mario in one fell swoop figured out how to solve almost all of them - movement animations, controls, 90% of how cameras should work in a 3D space. It figured out z-axis movement (the butt stomp), how swimming and flying should animate and control in 3D. The only major 3D mechanic it didn't have a solution for was how to deal with combat, which Zelda addressed shortly after with z-targeting.

It's a seminal game and definitely one of those "you had to be there" to get it sort of deals.

A great thing to do in Mario 64 is sprint, then quickly whip the stick back in the opposite direction and observe the way he animates. The fluidity and precision is still mind blowing for Nintendo's first 3D platformer. Hell, it's still spot on even to this day. It's a small detail but it goes to show the level of polish and thought that went into this game. I could wax poetic about it for hours.
 
Last edited:
No, this is objectively wrong, a logical fallacy due to you proposing a false choice.

My point is simple, and I already engaged with your question via my example of extremes; even if games were part of their own art form, we can understand you are wrong when you say "favorite" & "best" are the same thing. They aren't the same thing. There are reasons that Batman v Superman is objectively a worse movie than The Godfather. They are some of the same reasons that Halo is an objectively better game than an 3PS I personally worked on called Fracture.

I didn't say that I had all the answers as to how people should judge games and compare them, in fact I said those kinds of determinations will, for many reasons, have very fine lines and will probably only become really obvious at the extremes. However, this has literally nothing to do with my response to your incorrect statements that judging games is "100% subjective", or that "favorite and best are the same thing"... those statements are pretty obviously wrong.

No matter how well it's made, all games are an expression or creative thought, with millions of different creative decisions. To act like there is any possible way to objectively quantify a better game is rather arrogant to either your opinion or the opinion of some critic or ranking/consensus. Just because everybody agrees The Godfather was a better movie than Batman V Superman doesn't make it objectively better. You seem to confuse "objectively better" with "more popular" or "higher rated". The notion of differing between favorite and best is hilarious too, you're basically saying "this game is better, but I like it less", which makes 0 sense, because if you thought it was a better game you would like it better and it would be your favorite. Favorite and best aren't always the same thing, but with regards to creative mediums (since you refuse to acknowledge it as art), they 100% are one and the same. Especially once you start factoring different genres into the mix, it's all preference, you can't say Halo is objectively better than Marvel's Avengers when they're completely different games. You can argue technical aspects like framerate, or objective aspects like "number of levels" or perspective, or performance aspects like sales or active players, but you can't argue what games are "better" without it being 100% pure opinion, because it's a completely subjective medium
 
Top Bottom