• 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?

Sosokrates

Gold Member
The principles of artistic composition and craftsmanship? I'll bite. What are the principles. We'll keep following this rabbit hole until we get to the end.



I asked for all of the criteria that determines if a game is "objectively" good or bad. You gave me a single criteria. If there is more to it then please list the rest of the criteria.



You're the one asserting that objectivity exists. It's up to you to prove this. I'm not going to give you examples to further your argument. You didn't give me the clear and objective criteria regarding how it is determined if a game is good or bad. Don't dance around this. Just give me the answer if you have it.



Someone could. How we perceive the world is subjective.

The very nature of this post is subjective, maybe your not even real, its all subjective right 😆
 
I asked for all of the criteria that determines if a game is "objectively" good or bad. You gave me a single criteria. If there is more to it then please list the rest of the criteria.
Poor controls, faulty gameplay mechanics, poor performance, uneven difficulty, bad net code, too woke (just kidding about that one).

Of course there are subjective aspects as well. Those are typically relegated to the artistic aspects of the game such as graphics and sound. Also, fun factor... Completely subjective.

But games aren't just art. Do you think there are objectively bad cars? Or bad TVs? Or objectively bad construction?

I just feel you are confusing subjective with objective a bit. Do you think anything exists that is objectively bad or good? Or is life just all subjective?
 

jigglet

Gold Member
Do you think anything exists that is objectively bad or good? Or is life just all subjective?

I think he's saying once anything is considered art it cannot be ranked, put into buckets of good vs bad, quantified with a number. None of that is possible once it's designated "art".


Although I've kind of lost track of it.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
I think he's saying once anything is considered art it cannot be ranked, put into buckets of good vs bad, quantified with a number. None of that is possible once it's designated "art".
which is true. sites like Metacritic give you compiled reviews with an approx. score for users and reviewers. the method here is objective, but the media at hand isn't. and it really is just an approx. based on opinions (reviews aren't anything other than opinions that a professionally written) that are available in the media.
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Weird to expect all that from a spin off that doesn't even carry the Mario name. I could see Sunshine being disappointing in that way (thankfully Galaxy redeemed them the next gen) but not LM.
 
Last edited:

jigglet

Gold Member
which is true. sites like Metacritic give you compiled reviews with an approx. score for users and reviewers. the method here is objective, but the media at hand isn't. and it really is just an approx. based on opinions (reviews aren't anything other than opinions that a professionally written) that are available in the media.

So games can’t be bad in any way? That’s a rhetorical question by the way. I’m not interested in getting involved in this debate.
 

jigglet

Gold Member
Weird to expect all that from a spin off that doesn't even carry the Mario name. I could see Sunshine being disappointing in that way (thankfully Galaxy redeemed them the next gen) but not LM.

No I didn’t expect all that from LM. I expected all that from the launch Mario game, which never existed.
 

Mabdia

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 really loved the world, the story, and man... the gameplay makes me think that this game could be called Final Fantasy VIII-2. But the character design sucks so hard!!! Recently I've started to play it. It's a game really hard to stop to play, but once I've stopped it's had to go beck to knowing that an really amount of ugly characters is waiting for me.

About Blue Dragon... Man... The dub is really bad. I can't stand dubbed games, but there is some that is so terrible. And to me BD is one of that. This part Lost Odyssey did a perfect job.
______________________

Insominiac's Spider man to me is a really bad game in terms of history. I just hate every female character in the game. There is just one likeable, and that is Aunt May. Man, even Peter sucks. He looks like a homeless dog that get kicked every time by it's owner and yet come back every time it's called by that owner, when interacting with M.J...

I have over hundred games on PS4, and that is the only one that I really regret of buying in a sale. But the gameplay is really good.

Here goes other controversial opinion.

God of War 2018. Not that I think that it's a bad game... But it's really inferior to Ascension... at least to it is.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Poor controls, faulty gameplay mechanics, poor performance, uneven difficulty, bad net code, too woke (just kidding about that one).

Of course there are subjective aspects as well. Those are typically relegated to the artistic aspects of the game such as graphics and sound. Also, fun factor... Completely subjective.

But games aren't just art. Do you think there are objectively bad cars? Or bad TVs? Or objectively bad construction?

I just feel you are confusing subjective with objective a bit. Do you think anything exists that is objectively bad or good? Or is life just all subjective?
gamers are art, but they're sandwiched in between a consumer product for entertainment purposes. some games try to be more product, some try to be more art. and that's fine.
objective aspects of a game can almost entirely be boiled down to technical aspects like performance, texture quality, net code, is the game running as intended etc. etc.

controls aren't really objective... example? Tons of people struggle with the controls of Resident Evil and Silent Hill. I don't.
The same argument can be made about faulty gameplay mechanics. Not everyone perceives those mechanics as faulty and perhaps even likes them? Faulty gameplay mechanics should be really faulty, like barely working to be considered objectively bad. Not something janky or unusual.

What now? You could do it like Metacritic and compile all reviews to an approx. and see how many people agree with the controls being bad and gameplay mechanics being faulty... but that wouldn't make it objective.. you just looked up some subjective reviews on a website that compiles those reviews to an aggregate score and you only figured out that objectively the game was favorable or unfavorable among critics and (Metacritic-)users. that won't make the game objectively bad or good though
it only needs one person that disagrees to turn this upside down.

now reviewers are usually more neutral when rating a game (at least that's what they supposed to be) and their experiences are based on the fact that they play tons and tons of games every week, so they can make elaborate comparisons. neutrality won't make you objective though.

objectivity is used primarily in absolutes and for empirical sciences and art is neither.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
Poor controls, faulty gameplay mechanics, poor performance, uneven difficulty, bad net code, too woke (just kidding about that one).

Of course there are subjective aspects as well. Those are typically relegated to the artistic aspects of the game such as graphics and sound. Also, fun factor... Completely subjective.

But games aren't just art. Do you think there are objectively bad cars? Or bad TVs? Or objectively bad construction?

I just feel you are confusing subjective with objective a bit. Do you think anything exists that is objectively bad or good? Or is life just all subjective?

I think he's saying once anything is considered art it cannot be ranked, put into buckets of good vs bad, quantified with a number. None of that is possible once it's designated "art".


Although I've kind of lost track of it.

It's this. Every game, every piece of fictional literature, every song, every painting... every one of these is subjectively liked or disliked. You can't quantify what makes these good or bad objectively.

So games can’t be bad in any way? That’s a rhetorical question by the way. I’m not interested in getting involved in this debate.

I mean, if a game doesn't run then it's objectively bad because you can't even play it. And there are objectively bad issues for games (such as game breaking bugs). But as to whether that makes the game objectively bad is up to the end user. Some people think Skyrim is a bad game because of the sheer amount of bugs it has. I think it's a great game, but I also agree that it's super buggy.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
So games can’t be bad in any way? That’s a rhetorical question by the way. I’m not interested in getting involved in this debate.
well, they can be bad on a technical level. unfinished, unpolished. barely functional. that would be bad and you could definitely say that objectively without any problem, because in this scenario the games would be bad as a product. you can also make elaborate takes like lets say this game has segments that are underdeveloped and are poorly balanced (unfair difficulty), which isn't an absolute (meaning someone else could see it differently, enjoy the difficulty and don't perceive it as unfairly designed), but at the very least empirical (because you most likely played a lot of games to compare or maybe even developed a game yourself). but once you rate the games as a piece of art, it will be subjective from there on. that's the thing and I personally don't see the problem in that. people should embrace their subjectivity far more often, especially reviewers. it will help them sound more passionate and less homogenized.
 

jigglet

Gold Member
well, they can be bad on a technical level. unfinished, unpolished. barely functional. that would be bad and you could definitely say that objectively without any problem, because in this scenario the games would be bad as a product.

Maybe that's how many people are looking at it. I think you're all making this more complicated than it is. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the notion that games are filled with many subjective elements.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Maybe that's how many people are looking at it. I think you're all making this more complicated than it is. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the notion that games are filled with many subjective elements.
I would go even so far and say it consists of mostly subjective elements as the enjoyment of a game in itself is highly subjective. even a game with objectively bad tech, bad textures, bugs and glitches, low frame rate, etc. etc. can be still enjoyable and passionate (and I don't mean that in a so bad its good kinda way, although that also exists (city interactive wink wink)) in spite of it. when rating a game the final answer will always be "did I enjoy this game?" and that's a subjective assessment.

that's how I see it:
objective absolutes in games are the technical aspects.
empirical are things like lets say trial and error or other controversial (often janky)gameplay elements. you could absolutely make a profound take that trial & error is bad and provide examples of why that is. but you can't say that your take is absolutely and indefinitely something that can be applied to every video game ever released or this element can't be used in a good way.
everything else is subjective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's this. Every game, every piece of fictional literature, every song, every painting... every one of these is subjectively liked or disliked. You can't quantify what makes these good or bad objectively.



I mean, if a game doesn't run then it's objectively bad because you can't even play it. And there are objectively bad issues for games (such as game breaking bugs). But as to whether that makes the game objectively bad is up to the end user. Some people think Skyrim is a bad game because of the sheer amount of bugs it has. I think it's a great game, but I also agree that it's super buggy.
Basically this has boiled down to you think games are art. I don't. I believe they have artistic qualities and incorporate art. But, like a beautiful skyscraper, they can be artistic but must function. You can't construct a building merely out of artistic quality, it has to follow codes that are based on physics and guidelines so it doesn't collapse. A game must also function. Functionality is not art. Thus, they can be objectively good or bad in my opinion.
 
Order 1886
i believe if they were to release it today it would have been praised way more i think it came out 3-5 years before the cinematic games craze really shine
 
Last edited:
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Functionality is not art.
I don't think he ever argued that functionality is art. If a game doesn't properly work than its objectively a bad game. If a game has sub 20 frame rate then it does have objectively bad frame rate. but if one person says this game controls great and the other person says it controls like crap neither of them is objective. both experienced the game, but came to different conclusions. there is no right or wrong here. both are valid.

Personally I don't consider each and every game as art. I'd have a hard time considering something like Fifa or NBA 2k as art. They're probably good games, but unless you consider sport itself as art I don't see it. but then again, that's also subjective. if someone has good reasons to consider Fifa and the likes as art so be it. Like what am I gonna do? Say "its not art" until that person believes it? lol wtf? of course not.
in a general sense though, yes, games are absolutely art and I'm not only talking about screen writers, animators and designers here.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
Basically this has boiled down to you think games are art. I don't. I believe they have artistic qualities and incorporate art. But, like a beautiful skyscraper, they can be artistic but must function. You can't construct a building merely out of artistic quality, it has to follow codes that are based on physics and guidelines so it doesn't collapse. A game must also function. Functionality is not art. Thus, they can be objectively good or bad in my opinion.

They are a form of art. Games require the same artistic talent that is needed to create movies, books, plays, or music.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
They are a form of art. Games require the same artistic talent that is needed to create movies, books, plays, or music.
thing is, games incorporate all of these things. writing, animation, scenery, gameplay, music, sound. how is that not art?
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Are buildings or cars art? What isn't art?
there are definitely people out there with an artistic and passionate view of cars and buildings. generally buildings/housing are a requirement for a human's QOL and in most cases they are made for practical uses. the same, although in a less important manner, goes for cars or other types of locomotion.

this isn't really comparable to movies, games and even music.


its still a good question. what isn't art?

Lexico Oxford has several definitions for art, but they all basically come to the same main conclusion:

(Art is) the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there are definitely people out there with an artistic and passionate view of cars and buildings. generally buildings/housing are a requirement for a human's QOL and in most cases they are made for practical uses. the same, although in a less important manner, goes for cars or other types of locomotion.

this isn't really comparable to movies, games and even music.
It's comparable to games because games have to be functional and interactive.... Like buildings.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
It's comparable to games because games have to be functional and interactive.... Like buildings.
yes, and water has to be wet. who argues that games shouldn't be functional and interactive? especially interactive!? that's like saying music should be sonically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
It's comparable to games because games have to be functional and interactive.... Like buildings.

That's like saying it's comparable because they're two things that are found on Earth. But to answer your question, some buildings are art. Maybe you have heard of something called the Taj Mahal. It is one of the 7 man made wonders of the world, and it is art. It was a labor of love from an emperor to his deceased wife.
 
That's like saying it's comparable because they're two things that are found on Earth. But to answer your question, some buildings are art. Maybe you have heard of something called the Taj Mahal. It is one of the 7 man made wonders of the world, and it is art. It was a labor of love from an emperor to his deceased wife.
The Taj Majal was still built to standards and would be deemed unusable if it wasn't structurally sound. Same with the Great Wall.

Two things that are found on Earth? I'm not comparing video games to turtles here. You're not making much sense to me there.

You believe video games are art and that's fine. I disagree with you. That is probably the backbone to this argument. I think video games contain art but they are a functional product. They're are product of not just art but of engineering. So if you think engineering is art, I can see that there is a beauty to it, but it needs to be functional.
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
The Taj Majal was still built to standards and would be deemed unusable if it wasn't structurally sound. Same with the Great Wall.

Two things that are found on Earth? I'm not comparing video games to turtles here. You're not making much sense to me there.

You believe video games are art and that's fine. I disagree with you. That is probably the backbone to this argument. I think video games contain art but they are a functional product. There are product of not just art but of engineering. So if you think engineering is art I can see that there is a beauty to it, but it needs to be functional.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. The Taj Mahal isn't a building that was meant to be lived in. It was built to house the sarcophagus of the emperor's dead wife. It was a tomb. But that doesn't make it not a building. It went far beyond being merely a functional building. It was a work of art.

Video games are art. Video game consoles are a product of engineering, not video games themselves. Engineers don't work on video games. Well, that is to say no engineering is used to make a video game since I suppose an engineer could also develop a video game. Maybe you meant programming. There are no video games that can exist without both programming and art. Without art there is nothing to program. Without programming the game is only an idea. The two go hand-in-hand. But I already said that the non-artistic side (the programming side) can be measured, so I don't know what your argument is supposed to be here.

Are you saying that when people are judging video games they are only measuring the programming side (how the program works) and not the artistic side? Because my entire point has been that the artistic side cannot be objectively measured. Only the programming side can be measured, but since a video game cannot exist without both programming and art you can never have an objectively "good" video game as 50% of the game (the art half) can't be quantified.
 
Your first paragraph makes no sense. The Taj Mahal isn't a building that was meant to be lived in. It was built to house the sarcophagus of the emperor's dead wife. It was a tomb. But that doesn't make it not a building. It went far beyond being merely a functional building. It was a work of art.

Video games are art. Video game consoles are a product of engineering, not video games themselves. Engineers don't work on video games. Well, that is to say no engineering is used to make a video game since I suppose an engineer could also develop a video game. Maybe you meant programming. There are no video games that can exist without both programming and art. Without art there is nothing to program. Without programming the game is only an idea. The two go hand-in-hand. But I already said that the non-artistic side (the programming side) can be measured, so I don't know what your argument is supposed to be here.

Are you saying that when people are judging video games they are only measuring the programming side (how the program works) and not the artistic side? Because my entire point has been that the artistic side cannot be objectively measured. Only the programming side can be measured, but since a video game cannot exist without both programming and art you can never have an objectively "good" video game as 50% of the game (the art half) can't be quantified.
I already said that video games contain art but as a product they have to be functional. You say I didn't make any sense but I don't even see where you're coming from there. It's a building. It's a tomb. Okay. It was still built based on functionality even though they put a lot of money in to make it look beautiful as a piece of art That's fine. You're looking at one aspect and I'm telling you that the product has to be functional and thus it can be objectively good or bad. I don't even know if you think anything is objective based on what you've been saying. I've asked you if you think anything can incorporate art and be something that is objectionally good or bad and you just keep going back to art. Can't be anything but subjective. But art isn't just relegated to being art. It is also a part of the functional things in our lives. And a lot of those things have to be functional and thus have an objective quality to them.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
They're are product of not just art but of engineering. So if you think engineering is art, I can see that there is a beauty to it, but it needs to be functional.
(Art is) the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form

games fall under that definition.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
I already said that video games contain art but as a product they have to be functional. You say I didn't make any sense but I don't even see where you're coming from there. It's a building. It's a tomb. Okay. It was still built based on functionality even though they put a lot of money in to make it look beautiful as a piece of art That's fine. You're looking at one aspect and I'm telling you that the product has to be functional and thus it can be objectively good or bad. I don't even know if you think anything is objective based on what you've been saying. I've asked you if you think anything can incorporate art and be something that is objectionally good or bad and you just keep going back to art. Can't be anything but subjective. But art isn't just relegated to being art. It is also a part of the functional things in our lives. And a lot of those things have to be functional and thus have an objective quality to them.

If you're not going to read the post where I addressed the art and the programming part then don't bother quoting me and responding.

The Taj Mahal is a work of art. There is no functionality needed for that building aside from being able to house a sarcophagus. If functionality is how we determine if a building is objectively good or bad then every structurally sound building is good.

But people don't judge based on pure functionality. They also judge based on subjective criteria such as looks, sounds, writing style, et cetera. I have said to you REPEATEDLY that there are quantifiable attributes that can be measured. But those quantifiable attributes don't make up the entirety of the video game or building. The rest of the video game or building is made up of subjective attributes, and therefore it cannot be judged objectively.

Please note: I have already said that certain quantifiable attributes (such as load times) can be objectively measured. I said this before you even jumped into this conversation. So please stop acting like I'm the one hand-waving away your argument. I acknowledged it before you did.
 
If you're not going to read the post where I addressed the art and the programming part then don't bother quoting me and responding.

The Taj Mahal is a work of art. There is no functionality needed for that building aside from being able to house a sarcophagus. If functionality is how we determine if a building is objectively good or bad then every structurally sound building is good.

But people don't judge based on pure functionality. They also judge based on subjective criteria such as looks, sounds, writing style, et cetera. I have said to you REPEATEDLY that there are quantifiable attributes that can be measured. But those quantifiable attributes don't make up the entirety of the video game or building. The rest of the video game or building is made up of subjective attributes, and therefore it cannot be judged objectively.

Please note: I have already said that certain quantifiable attributes (such as load times) can be objectively measured. I said this before you even jumped into this conversation. So please stop acting like I'm the one hand-waving away your argument. I acknowledged it before you did.
You're still confusing subjectivity with objectivity. There are always going to be subjective and objective qualities to almost anything. But the overall product, particularly if it's functional, will have objective qualities that will make it objectively good or bad as a product. A bad video game can have amazing graphics. You can think that it is the best video game ever, even if it's objectively bad.

I agree to disagree at this point.

Edit: I have thoroughly read your posts. Your accusation is objectively false. Lol
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
You're still confusing subjectivity with objectivity. There are always going to be subjective and objective qualities to almost anything. But the overall product, particularly if it's functional, will have objective qualities that will make it objectively good or bad as a product. A bad video game can have amazing graphics. You can think that it is the best video game ever, even if it's objectively bad.

I agree to disagree at this point.

The overall product is composed of art and programming. Art cannot be objectively measured, so the overall product cannot be objectively measured. Certain attributes (namely the programming - such as my load times examples) can be objectively measured. I have said this a thousand times now. I don't know why you're agreeing to disagree when you're saying the exact same thing I have said over and over and over again.

Yes, there are certain attributes that are quantifiable. No, those attributes do not make up the entire product. The overall product cannot be objectively judged as good or bad. Only the quantifiable attributes can be judged as good or bad. This is 100% in agreement with your statement that video games are comprised of art and programming, but only some objective qualities can be measured.

You're literally repeating what I'm saying and acting like you're proving me wrong.
 
The overall product is composed of art and programming. Art cannot be objectively measured, so the overall product cannot be objectively measured. Certain attributes (namely the programming - such as my load times examples) can be objectively measured. I have said this a thousand times now. I don't know why you're agreeing to disagree when you're saying the exact same thing I have said over and over and over again.

Yes, there are certain attributes that are quantifiable. No, those attributes do not make up the entire product. The overall product cannot be objectively judged as good or bad. Only the quantifiable attributes can be judged as good or bad. This is 100% in agreement with your statement that video games are comprised of art and programming, but only some objective qualities can be measured.

You're literally repeating what I'm saying and acting like you're proving me wrong.
I'm not repeating what you're saying. I'm responding to what you're saying. I think you have a lot to say and I think what you say has merit. But in my opinion, if something has functionality like a video game and is composed of subjective and objective components, then yes, the product sum is an objective product and can be good or bad. It seems that you overstate the artistic aspect of the product. Whether it functions well is not the outcome of how you perceive it.

Would the Taj Majal have been a good sarcophagus if it collapsed two days after building it?

Art is totally subjective and I think we can agree on that. But I think if something actually needs to function then it has an objective quality to it that can't be denied. Games have to be functional.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
But they have to have gameplay.
there are games that use gameplay in a way that goes beyond pure entertainment. in a game, several things have to work in a tantrum. the gameplay also needs to make sense and be meaningful to the situation the game tries to portray. for example, in Silent Hill your main protagonist is pretty underpowered. you can die relatively easy, fighting isn't always the best solution, if you shoot with a gun you won't always hit. They purposefully made you weak in order to make sense of the plot and scenery. It's an example of gameplay going hand in hand with artistic direction. they could've also made you super strong and the fighting being super fast faced, they could've made you John Rambo essentially.
others will tell you the game controls poorly. Gameplay isn't necessarily objective. if anything its empirical.

and also I wouldn't say gameplay is not art, because there are definitely examples of gameplay enhancing the artistic direction immensely. You really need to look at the whole picture. Sure, if you isolate the gameplay from everything else, then its arguably not art. but again, with games several things work in a tantrum and when looking at the whole game, the gameplay itself absolutely can be considered art.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
I'm not repeating what you're saying. I'm responding to what you're saying. I think you have a lot to say and I think what you say has merit. But in my opinion, if something has functionality like a video game and is composed of subjective and objective components, then yes, the product sum is an objective product and can be good or bad. It seems that you overstate the artistic aspect of the product. Whether it functions well is not the outcome of how you perceive it.

Would the Taj Majal have been a good sarcophagus if it collapsed two days after building it?

Art is totally subjective and I think we can agree on that. But I think if something actually needs to function then it has an objective quality to it that can't be denied. Games have to be functional.

But you can't say something that is composed of subjective and objective components can be treated objectively. It isn't possible since part of the determination of whether it is good or bad is based on the subjective components that you're including.

Also, the Taj Mahal isn't a sarcophagus. It's a building housing a sarcophagus. If it collapsed two days after building it then it would still be housing the sarcophagus.

Games should be functional, but even then you get into subjective definitions of functional. How many bugs is too many for a product to be considered good? If it has one bug that isn't game breaking is it a good product? How about 10 bugs that aren't game breaking? 100? 1,000? At what point is the game considered a bad game? And what about load times? Is 10 seconds too long? 30? 60? 300? What about fps? Is a minimum of 15 fps fine? 30? 60? 120? 144? And what about input lag? What measurement is considered good?

All of those criteria can be objectively measured, but even with objective measurements there is still subjective interpretation of what makes it good or bad.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
It seems that you overstate the artistic aspect of the product.
that's funny. to me it seems more like you see anything in a strictly objective manner, even when there really is no objectivity at hand.
like you could have the Mona Lisa in front of you, the original of course, and you would still pull out your ruler or gauge or whatever and start calculating whether this line should be there or there, then analyze and measure every angle just to make sure everything is 100% exact in line and like it allegedly should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there are games that use gameplay in a way that goes beyond pure entertainment. in a game, several things have to work in a tantrum. the gameplay also needs to make sense and be meaningful to the situation the game tries to portray. for example, in Silent Hill you main protagonist is pretty underpowered. you can die relatively easy, fighting isn't always the best solution, if you shot with a gun you won't always hit. They purposefully made you weak in order to make sense of the plot and scenery. It's an example of gameplay going hand in hand with artistic direction. they could've also made you super strong and the fighting being super fast faced, they could've made you John Rambo essentially.
other will tell you the game controls poorly. gameplay isn't necessarily objective. if anything its empirical.
You're explaining gameplay and functionality.
that's funny. to me it seems more like you see anything in a strictly objective manner, even when there really is no objectivity at hand.
like you could have the Mona Lisa in front of you, the original of course, and you would still pull out your ruler or gauge or whatever and start calculating whether this line should be there or there, then analyze measure every angle just to make sure everything is 100% exact and like it allegedly should be.
What functionality does the Mona Lisa have besides visual and mental stimuli? You're not playing it. You're not relying on it to protect you from the elements. It has no function except to exist and be beautiful. Maybe you haven't read some of my posts correctly, but the reality is I'm talking about that games are more like cars and buildings than they are like the Mona Lisa.

I'm not going to make my point any clearer and it's getting late. I'll agree just to disagree.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
You're explaining gameplay and functionality.
No. I'm explaining why gameplay isn't an objective absolute and in some cases could be considered art.
What functionality does the Mona Lisa have besides visual and mental stimuli?
what functionality do videos games have other than interaction, visuals, audio and mental stimuli?

it's not a product of necessity like buildings/housings. they don't have as much practical use as a car.
the textbook definition says this about art:
producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
most people don't get cars or buildings because they want to appreciate it for their beauty or emotional powers. looks will certainly play a role to a few, but it's rarely the number 1 reason to get a car or buy a house/building. Video games on the other hand get bought because of visual pleasure or emotional power. Is the interactive part where you draw the line here? Like you have people that work on the story, the sceneries, the characters, the presentation, the cinematography, they have song writers too, and obviously guys that make the gameplay, guys that make everything blend together, the programming. I think it's really weird to say video games aren't art because of interaction!? Seems like an arbitrary boundary between art and non-art. Video games are definitely not more like cars and buildings. They are primarily made either entertainment or appreciation.

I'll agree just to disagree.
okay, fine. Good night.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bragr

Member
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.
So if 100 out of 120 people think the controls are fine, why is that not a measurement of how people feel the controls are?
 

Bragr

Member
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.
Virtually every claim is subjective if you go deep enough though, a baby won't see the world as a sphere.

That FFX is the best FF is subjective, but that 80% of people view it as such is not.

Initially, I said that art is both subjective and objective, and I think that applies here, the opinions of what makes a game great are subjective, but there is enough data we can compare to, to come to conclusions. We do this to remove the individually subjective points of view and form a consensus.

I get your point, that inherently it comes from a subjective source, but if most of the sources have a belief, we can still judge that as a fact that most of them have that said belief. If 80% of Arkansas believes in christ, you can say it's wrong because it's subjective.
 

PanzerAzel

Member

You're the one asserting that objectivity exists. It's up to you to prove this. I'm not going to give you examples to further your argument. You didn't give me the clear and objective criteria regarding how it is determined if a game is good or bad. Don't dance around this. Just give me the answer if you have it.
I have already provided you your answer, which I’ll C & P since you ignored it only to ask it again.

“The answers you seek are there, but you can’t ask them in broad generalities as if they apply to all equally……they don’t, they lie in the nuances and intricacies of the specific, and they’re beholdened to them. Give me the exact criteria of a specific design goal. What precisely does the designer want to achieve for that game?”

Your question is as absurd as asking, “tell me what is the criteria for an objectively good tire?”

Ok….for what? Daily driving on asphalt? Off-roading? F-1 racing? Driving in soft sand? For bearing heavy loads? Don’t you see how asinine it is to ask for blanket objective metric for “good” as if it applies to all equally, especially across such a broad creative spectrum as gaming? Do you agree that a camera that gets consistently stuck in walls and obscures the players’ view is objectively inferior to one which doesn’t when the game requires it not to? Do you agree that AI that runs in circles is objectively inferior to one that utilizes cover, flanking, and tactics effectively which is what the game requires of it (and no, these are not as easily quantifiable as loading times or resolutions). I would love to hear your reasoning if you answer yes to those questions, because on what basis are you able to call them “bad“ or “inferior” when you can simply excuse them as “good“ under the umbrella of subjectivity and shit taste, which appears to be the entire premise of your argument?

ET is shit. Superman 64 is shit. Objectively. They are garbage, and just because some people enjoy garbage does not mean garbage does not exist.
 
What do you mean by "Objectively good games"?

Objectivity has to measurable, so do you mean high production value? Or do you mean technical achievement? Sum of content?

If you are talking about the term "Fun", what could be consider fun for one person, might be consider completely garbage by another, its subjective in nature.

And better metacritic score does not mean objectivity either, that's the common misconception, a platform that objectively aggravate score from subjective reviews from different media outlet is still SUBJECTIVE. And the opinion of 100 critics does not represent even the slightest of the opinion of the masses, the opinion from these 100 individual is no way more superior than any rest of us, and they are not as professional as they claim to be, some of them give rating without even complete the game, some give rating based on their own bias. While some player score on the other hand had dedicated more than 1000 hours before giving reviews. Critics are often professional at writing not gaming.
 
Last edited:

tassletine

Member
No, you didn't. What is the objective criteria that determines if a game is good or bad? List every criteria needed, and once it has been listed we can progress with this conversation.
I listed SOME criteria (address those perhaps!) but since I'm not your PA I'm certainly not going to waste my time doing your bidding.

In the spirit of your dumb point though -- The universe is infinite and on that level nothing anyone does has any significance.

Unless you give it some by engaging with it.

But hey, you'd rather get your kicks by acting aloof to try and sound clever -- But Since this a gaming board not a philosophy one your comments just seem self centered, as you clearly don't understand context.

I'm out, but carry on, we all need a laugh.
 
So if 100 out of 120 people think the controls are fine, why is that not a measurement of how people feel the controls are?
It IS a measurement of how MAJORITY of people felt the controls are, but that does not mean the controller is objectively good, it just meant that majority of people likes the controller. In this case there is no problem claiming: "Objectively most people out of the 120 pool likes the control". But its does not mean "the control is objectively good", its still open to debate. Most people = Objectively is a very dangerous concept that could lead to mob mentality.
 
Last edited:
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
So if 100 out of 120 people think the controls are fine, why is that not a measurement of how people feel the controls are?
It is a measurement. It's just not an objective absolute. Tests have shown that most people enjoy control type A over B. Thats empirical. It's not an absolute, as it could change any week as far we are concerned.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
ET is shit. Superman 64 is shit. Objectively. They are garbage, and just because some people enjoy garbage does not mean garbage does not exist.
even with extreme examples like this, this doesn't apply. Sure, you could say that based on the general consensus those are most likely bad games, and neutrally compare it to other games to prove this, but in the end it just needs one guy with good points to counter this (and its the internet, you will find good retorts to pretty much anything). if person x likes the game, who are we to say he is wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bragr

Member
It IS a measurement of how MAJORITY of people felt the controls are, but that does not mean the controller is objectively good, it just meant that majority of people likes the controller. In this case there is no problem claiming: "Objectively most people out of the 120 pool likes the control". But its does not mean "the control is objectively good", its still open to debate. Most people = Objectively is a very dangerous concept that could lead to mob mentality.
Yes, but what we are looking for is how the majority of people get affected by the interactive elements of a game, not that a certain system is objectively good, that's impossible. The point is that you can establish a way to judge games.

You measure people's opinions (which is measurable, objective, and provable), and then compare that to other games, then you can remove a lot of the subjectivity and establish criteria on what makes a good game.
 

Bragr

Member
It is a measurement. It's just not an objective absolute. Tests have shown that most people enjoy control type A over B. Thats empirical. It's not an absolute, as it could change any week as far we are concerned.
This is philosophy though, nothing is really objectively absolute, everything can change.

I'm talking just about the general view of objectivity here, where you have a property that isn't formed from a subjective point of view.
 
Top Bottom