• 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?

S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Claiming that there is no objectivity in art or the artworld is in itself an objective claim, and also obvious bullocks. No one is saying right or wrong, this is about good or bad. Try shitting on a piece of paper and go tell your teacher that you have mastered impressionism - if she agrees then you should move school. You are basically claiming that craftmanship and technique is not a part of the world of arts.

The feeling of joy is subjective, yes, but the components that produce said joy is not, and those components, including the joyous responses or lack thereof, can be understood objectively through countless means.
It's always the same with "there is objectivity in art" crowd. You correlate it to super extreme measures like shitting on a piece of paper. With this kind of ignorant hyperbole you won't move far, just saying.
I'm not claiming that craftsmanship and technique aren't part of art, and even with technique and craftsmanship in mind, there are tons of artists that weren't invested in having the best technique or the best craft at hand (some would say amateurish), and they still created art that reached people.

If someone makes a song, it doesn't matter what kick, or what synth got used. Neither does it matter if that person used a regular progression and regular song structure. All of this is subjective. Even if a thousand producers would've done it differently it would be still subjective.

Or if a painter does abstract paintings or paintings of humans or paintings of trees, doesn't matter, it remains subjective.
The same goes for painters that use obscure/unusual measures to draw paintings. Still subjective.

Again, art isn't based on verifiable evidence. All art is subjective because it relies upon the opinions of its viewers. Whether you think something is good art or bad art (or right and wrong, essentially the same thing) is entirely based on your very own feelings.
The way each person perceives art depends on themselves. Even art competitions are usually based on predefined criteria.
Critics back in the time of impressionism were fierce. One critic at the time complained that their paintings were half-finished sketches. That was mainly due to those paintings being something new and unheard of at the time. People already made up their mind (essentially wanted everything to stay the same, because that's what they knew). As standards and ideas changed, so did the consensus of those paintings. Nowadays you won't find many people that would compare impressionistic paintings with half finished sketches. And even if the point of those critics is certainly valid, they were subjective. Critics aren't authorities over what is supposed to be good or bad art, even if the criticism is based on the elements and principle of design, even if the criticism considers technique and craftsmanship.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MHubert

Member
Storyline. Game play. Control schemes. Frame rate. Resolution. Voice acting. Sound track. Audio quality. Graphics. Load times. Non-game breaking bugs. Camera controls. Art style. Game length. Game size.

That's just off the top of my head. See how I gave a very specific list? Nobody has provided me a similar list of things that can be objectively measured and scored. Not one person. Including you.
Ok so not exactly disproving unicorns then.

Would you agree that all those objectively measurable things you listed conveys the subjective experience?
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
Ok so not exactly disproving unicorns then.

Would you agree that all those objectively measurable things you listed conveys the subjective experience?

Those and other aspects, yes. Which is why video games can't be judged objectively. Because the experience is subjective, and even with the objective criteria (frame rate, resolution, load times, et cetera) there is no objective "good" or objective "bad". For example, some people won't touch a game running at 15 fps because that makes the game terrible. Final Fantasy VII runs at 15 fps, and that is one of my favorite games. Frame rate is a quantifiable aspect of video games with subjective interpretation of good and bad.
 
Last edited:

MHubert

Member
It's always the same with "there is objectivity in art" crowd. You correlate it to super extreme measures like shitting on a piece of paper. With this kind of ignorant hyperbole you won't move far, just saying.
I'm not claiming that craftsmanship and technique aren't part of art, and even with technique and craftsmanship in mind, there are tons of artists that weren't invested in having the best technique or the best craft at hand (some would say amateurish), and they still created art that reached people.
If someone makes a song, it doesn't matter what kick, or what synth got used. Neither does it matter if that person used a regular progression and regular song structure. All of this is subjective. Even if a thousand producers would've done it differently it would be still subjective.

Or if a painter does abstract paintings or paintings of humans or paintings of trees, doesn't matter, it remains subjective.
The same goes for painters that use obscure/unusual measures to draw paintings. Still subjective.

Again, art isn't based on verifiable evidence. All art is subjective because it relies upon the opinions of its viewers. Whether you think something is good art or bad art (or right and wrong, essentially the same thing) is entirely based on your very own feelings.
The way each person perceives art depends on themselves. Even art competitions are usually based on predefined criteria.
Critics back in the time of impressionism were fierce. One critic at the time complained that their paintings were half-finished sketches. That was mainly due to those paintings being something new and unheard of at the time. People already made up their mind (essentially wanted everything to stay the same, because that's what they knew). As standards and ideas changed, so did the consensus of those paintings. Nowadays you won't find many people that would compare impressionistic paintings with half finished sketches. And even if the point of those critics is certainly valid, they were subjective. Critics aren't authorities over what is supposed to be good or bad art, even if the criticism is based on the elements and principle of design, even if the criticism considers technique and craftsmanship.
I am only claiming that everything that can be experienced subjectively, can be understood objectively. It seems you have no problem having an objective relationship to what art is, and how art is made, and the history on how certain techniques came to be established and popularized despite the usual criticism from critics in its period - so color me a bit confused as to why you insist that there is no objectivity in art. I'm not claiming that the critics are always right or that anyone should be able to like it.

You take on music is just weird, tho. Do you create music yourself?
 

MHubert

Member
Those and other aspects, yes. Which is why video games can't be judged objectively. Because the experience is subjective, and even with the objective criteria (frame rate, resolution, load times, et cetera) there is no objective "good" or objective "bad". For example, some people won't touch a game running at 15 fps because that makes the game terrible. Final Fantasy VII runs at 15 fps, and that is one of my favorite games. Frame rate is a quantifiable aspect of video games with subjective interpretation of good and bad.
This is where we misunderstand each other, then. I'm talking about what works and what doesn't from a technical perspective (like, say, how you build a house that can withstand rain) as in how the craft is performed, not whether you like it or not.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
An item can be objectively good or bad.

Your perception and opinion/attachment to an item or the standards with which the objective goodness or badness of an item is subjective.

Example:

I enter an art contest. It's specifically mentioned in the rules of the competition that entries are to be made on canvas with charcoal. I submit a water color painting I have spent the better part of ten years perfecting and I get rejected from participation, despite all other works being completed in a month's time.

Going by the rules of participation, I failed. I had an objectively bad entry. In my opinion, the work I put into it completely trumps the competition, but based upon the standard of what qualifies, I done goofed.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
My original post in this topic said nothing about objectively bad games. I said there are no objectively good games. Good, in this context, is subjective. I think that Skyrim is a good game despite its numerous bugs. Someone else thinks it is a bad game because of its numerous bugs. That's subjectivity.
I don't like how good is being used here. I take it to mean objective quality that is measurable outside of subjectivity, whereas you and others appear to view it as a personal preference.

If we're not going to come to an agreement that there are no objectively good games, could you agree that there are objectively better games than others?
Call video games an art form if you want, but that doesn't change anything. I will ask you the same thing I have asked others. For there the be objectivity that means there are quantifiable metrics, and those metrics have to be graded/evaluated without subjectivity. If art can be objectively measured, what are the objective metrics by which art is judged?
That again, varies on a case by case basis.

You do realize that these things are put to academia, even what you would consider wholly subjective? The Mona Lisa is studied all the time, it has been for years. Why is it (and does it remain) one of the most highly regarded paintings ever created, that if we're to go by your guys' reasoning, should be residing equally in the pool of subjective discretion amongst other works people are privy to? What is it that brings it to note above the rest? Is it simply the determinations of the few qualified experts telling the rest of us what to think? Is it just a common cord Da Vinci hit that's maturing into its time?

What distinguishes the truly subjective in your view, yet that is disproportionate in the attention it receives over other works that are also equally subjective as well?
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
You take on music is just weird, tho. Do you create music yourself?
actually, yes. I play piano, guitar, and produce music myself.
It seems you have no problem having an objective relationship to what art is, and how art is made, and the history on how certain techniques came to be established and popularized despite the usual criticism from critics in its period
new techniques and new ways of participating in an art form can only occur via. repetition, experimentation and challenging the known ways of doing things. I really dislike it when people are gate keeping art. Not only does it keep away a lot of talented people, but it also reduces the freedom I correlate with art. By gate keeping art you essentially telling artists "this is how it should be, this is good art, don't try to think outside of the box"
... and as I said, there are artists that reached people in spite of lacking in craftsmanship and technique.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
This is where we misunderstand each other, then. I'm talking about what works and what doesn't from a technical perspective (like, say, how you build a house that can withstand rain) as in how the craft is performed, not whether you like it or not.

This is why my initial post says "good" is entirely subjective. What you consider good and what I consider good are two completely different things. To me a video game has non-quantifiable attributes that determine if it is good or bad. Things that I mentioned before like the storyline for example. If someone makes a bug-free game that runs perfectly at 144 fps on ultra settings with 4k but is just a character in a square room banging his head against a wall... I don't consider that to be a good game. But if we just look at the technical aspects of the game someone can say it's a good game. I'm just using the head-banging game as an example of what someone said previously, lol.
 
Last edited:

MHubert

Member
This is why my initial post says "good" is entirely subjective. What you consider good and what I consider good are two completely different things. To me a video game has non-quantifiable attributes that determine if it is good or bad. Things that I mentioned before like the storyline for example. If someone makes a bug-free game that runs perfectly at 144 fps on ultra settings with 4k but is just a character in a square room banging his head against a wall... I don't consider that to be a good game. But if we just look at the technical aspects of the game someone can say it's a good game. I'm just using the head-banging game as an example of what someone said previously, lol.
No, you misunderstand. You are entirely talking about liking or disliking, which has nothing to do with judging good or bad quality. The things you say aren't quantifiable, are being quantified, and applied, every day.

Why would you consider "a bug-free game that runs perfectly at 144 fps on ultra settings with 4k but is just a character in a square room banging his head against a wall" a game in the first place? What is the game exactly? And how are you able to say that you wouldn't like it?
 
Last edited:

MHubert

Member
new techniques and new ways of participating in an art form can only occur via. repetition, experimentation and challenging the known ways of doing things.
This is a perfect example of using an objective approach when dealing with your craft. Repetition, experimentation and challenging the known way of doing things all require you to have a certain level of objective relationship to what you are doing. Again, both of you are applying the term objective in a flawed manner. The way you understand 'objectivity' leads you to conflate like/dislike with good/bad.

actually, yes. I play piano, guitar, and produce music myself.
Great, I have worked professionally with music myself for close to 15 years now. I'm sure you are aware that music is basically math, an artful composition of sounds within a system - a process that can be understood objectively, and where every decision matters to how the final product will shape up.

What I don't get is that you believe art to 100% devoid of objectivity, yet you are studying it at a school. Is everything you learn at class 100% subjective? If so, how come you use what you have learned to form an argument?
 
Last edited:
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Example:

I enter an art contest. It's specifically mentioned in the rules of the competition that entries are to be made on canvas with charcoal. I submit a water color painting I have spent the better part of ten years perfecting and I get rejected from participation, despite all other works being completed in a month's time.

Going by the rules of participation, I failed. I had an objectively bad entry. In my opinion, the work I put into it completely trumps the competition, but based upon the standard of what qualifies, I done goofed.
I like this example. You had an objectively bad entry, but not because your painting was objectively bad, rather because you ignored the set rules of the competition.
I'm sure you are aware that music is basically math, an artful composition of sounds within a system - a process that can be understood objectively.
There are basic math skills required to read and understand music, but honestly, how many musicians do you know who would describe music as math?
I know people that made the correlation, but very few that compose using math (at least intentionally).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Umbasaborne

Member
I love mass effect 2 now, and in many ways see why its superior to the first game, but i played so much of the first game before 2 came out, that the reduced scope seemed like a massive downgrade. Now i realize that ME2 is just a tighter, more well paced experience over all
 

MHubert

Member
I like this example.

There are basic math skills required to read and understand music, but honestly, how many musicians do you know who would describe music as math?
I know people that made the correlation, but very few that compose using math (at least intentionally).
Well music is music, but all would agree that it is sound arranged in a mathematical structure. I think what you mean is that while being creative, you don't approach it as math, but as a feeling, which a fair point. How you use these mathematical structures when composing is the foundation for how the music will sound like, and how it feels. Creativity is not based on math, but what you creatively produce will always have a mathematical structure, which is the objective part of music.

I have met zero people that compose (arrange) music without using math, myself included - but that is easy to forget if you use a program that does all the work for you ;)
 

assurdum

Member
I don't know if it's exactly the context but I hate with all myself the setting of Dying Light 2. I preferred a lot more Harran (or Hassan I don't remind the precise city name). I'm really tired of post apocalyptic cities with growed vegetation.
 
Last edited:
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
but that is easy to forget if you use a program that does all the work for you ;)
I guess that is true. I compose by ear during a creative process. I think that applies to a lot of musicians (even before DAW's were a thing) because not every musician is an academic, many didn't even go to school at all, and only composed according to their ear and what sounded good to them. If I hear something is off I will fix it, but honestly I never thought about the math behind it when doing music.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
No, you misunderstand. You are entirely talking about liking or disliking, which has nothing to do with judging good or bad quality. The things you say aren't quantifiable, are being quantified, and applied, every day.

Why would you consider "a bug-free game that runs perfectly at 144 fps on ultra settings with 4k but is just a character in a square room banging his head against a wall" a game in the first place? What is the game exactly? And how are you able to say that you wouldn't like it?

I'm not misunderstanding... you still haven't given objective criteria that determines if a game is good. What is the objective criteria? I gave reasons it can't be objectively determined to be good. What are the quantifiable objective criteria that you're insisting exists?
 

PanzerAzel

Member
That again, varies on a case by case basis.

You do realize that these things are put to academia, even what you would consider wholly subjective? The Mona Lisa is studied all the time, it has been for years. Why is it (and does it remain) one of the most highly regarded paintings ever created, that if we're to go by your guys' reasoning, should be residing equally in the pool of subjective discretion amongst other works people are privy to? What is it that brings it to note above the rest? Is it simply the determinations of the few qualified experts telling the rest of us what to think? Is it just a common cord Da Vinci hit that's maturing into its time?

What distinguishes the truly subjective in your view, yet that is disproportionate in the attention it receives over other works that are also equally subjective as well?

Can you address this or not?
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
That again, varies on a case by case basis.

You do realize that these things are put to academia, even what you would consider wholly subjective? The Mona Lisa is studied all the time, it has been for years. Why is it (and does it remain) one of the most highly regarded paintings ever created, that if we're to go by your guys' reasoning, should be residing equally in the pool of subjective discretion amongst other works people are privy to? What is it that brings it to note above the rest? Is it simply the determinations of the few qualified experts telling the rest of us what to think? Is it just a common cord Da Vinci hit that's maturing into its time?

What distinguishes the truly subjective in your view, yet that is disproportionate in the attention it receives over other works that are also equally subjective as well?

Can you address this or not?

The specific case is a video game. What is the objective criteria for determining if a game is good or bad? You can't say it varies by game. If each game has different criteria then there is no objective criteria.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
The specific case is a video game. What is the objective criteria for determining if a game is good or bad? You can't say it varies by game. If each game has different criteria then there is no objective criteria.
You've not answered my question, which gets down to the core of the issue.

If the Mona Lisa is a purely subjective artistic expression (which it is) and has no determinative objective criteria to be viewed as "good" or "bad" (as your position argues), then by what metric is it being held in such higher esteem above the millions of other paintings in existence, as it is? This question is directly analogous to any creative work or subset of it, including gaming. It gets down to the point of whether something can be objectively good or not. And until you can answer me as to why this painting is so revered amongst all other creative works, you've yet to substantiate your claim that something cannot be "objectively good" in a subjective framework.

In simplest terms: what makes the Mona Lisa so revered when it's supposedly held at the mercy of subjective discretion that should place it in equal esteem among all other paintings in existence?
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
You've not answered my question, which gets down to the core of the issue.

If the Mona Lisa is a purely subjective artistic expression (which it is) and has no determinative objective criteria to be viewed as "good" or "bad" (as your position argues), then by what metric is it being held in such higher esteem above the millions of other paintings in existence, as it is? This question is directly analogous to any creative work or subset of it, including gaming. It gets down to the point of whether something can be objectively good or not. And until you can answer me as to why this painting is so revered amongst all other creative works, you've yet to substantiate your claim that something cannot be "objectively good" in a subjective framework.

In simplest terms: what makes the Mona Lisa so revered when it's supposedly held at the mercy of subjective discretion that should place it in equal esteem among all other paintings in existence?

Not that it's relevant at all to THIS discussion, but there is controversy regarding why the Mona Lisa is so revered.


Although many theories have attempted to pinpoint one reason for the art piece’s celebrity, the most compelling arguments insist that there is no one explanation. The Mona Lisa’s fame is the result of many chance circumstances combined with the painting’s inherent appeal.

Many scholars, however, point out that the excellent quality of the Mona Lisa was not enough by itself to make the painting a celebrity. There are, after all, many good paintings.

Basically, until the Mona Lisa was stolen (from a place that said it couldn't be stolen from) and went missing for two years it wasn't the sensation that it is today. Its theft increased its popularity, not the painting itself.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
He's talking about specific video games, that's what "specific case" means.

But then we're back to not having an objective standard by which we can judge video games. If you have different criteria to judge Final Fantasy X than you have to judge Dragon Quest XI then you don't have an objective standard.
 
Last edited:
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.

This illustrates the problem in your thinking -- "art" is not a quality judgement, it is categorical. A bad movie is art, just as much as a great classic film. It may be a bad movie, it may not be worthy of remembering, maybe it's terrible. But it's still definitively a piece of art.

If the Taj Mahal is art, all buildings are art. They have to be. There is no "some X are art", they either all are or they all aren't. The worst video game you've ever played (according to you) by definition has to be art if your claim is that video games are an art form.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
Not that it's relevant at all to THIS discussion, but there is controversy regarding why the Mona Lisa is so revered.






Basically, until the Mona Lisa was stolen (from a place that said it couldn't be stolen from) and went missing for two years it wasn't the sensation that it is today. Its theft increased its popularity, not the painting itself.
Alright, but a one-off theft would not explain the overall point. Many artists are held in higher regard for their works than others who reside in the same subjective pool that shouldn’t grant them any more note above another.

I bring this up not just as a rebuttal to your initial claim, but because I’m genuinely curious myself. I’ve never really understood how one piece of art can tilt the scales to a majority of admiration, or a degree of noteworthiness, if it’s embracement is held to nothing but the whims of the subjective which should tend it no favor. Yet some seem to, and the only thing I can attribute it to is some intrinsic objectivism.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
This illustrates the problem in your thinking -- "art" is not a quality judgement, it is categorical. A bad movie is art, just as much as a great classic film. It may be a bad movie, it may not be worthy of remembering, maybe it's terrible. But it's still definitively a piece of art.

If the Taj Mahal is art, all buildings are art. They have to be. There is no "some X are art", they either all are or they all aren't. The worst video game you've ever played (according to you) by definition has to be art if your claim is that video games are an art form.

This isn't a problem with my thinking. Art is not objective. Period. You can have objective criteria when making art (such as needing to use certain types of paints or colors in a competition), but there isn't something that you can point to and say, "This is objectively good."

Van Gogh only sold one painting while he was alive. Most people considered him an amateur. Fast forward to today and he is one of the most well known artists in the world, and every single one of his paintings are valued at over $60 million. I'm sure your argument is that his art is objectively good, but objectivity doesn't change, and he wasn't considered objectively good while he was alive.

Alright, but a one-off theft would not explain the overall point. Many artists are held in higher regard for their works than others who reside in the same subjective pool that shouldn’t grant them any more note above another.

I bring this up not just as a rebuttal to your initial claim, but because I’m genuinely curious myself. I’ve never really understood how one piece of art can tilt the scales to a majority of admiration, or a degree of noteworthiness, if it’s embracement is held to nothing but the whims of the subjective which should tend it no favor. Yet some seem to, and the only thing I can attribute it to is some intrinsic objectivism.

See my above example. Van Gogh's work was treated with contempt until the late 20th century, well after his death. His own Fine Arts college (Antwerp Academy) didn't like his work. Where is the objectivity?
 
You not engaging with people who are trying to put your thinking to the test is weird...

"Art" and especially "art forms" are categorical. It's not a statement on the quality of something. So if the Taj Mahal is "art", so are Brooklyn projects & tract housing all over the American suburbs. If Seven Samurai is art, so is Transformers 5. And if FF7 or Shadow of the Colossus belong to the art form of video games, so too do ET & Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600. That's baked into what you are saying, even though you contradicted it in a previous post. That's an issue here.

I very much CAN point to The Godfather and say "by our understanding of how movies are put together and what we understand about semiotics & film theory/criticism, it is a good movie". But again and again you keep reflecting this attitude that words only mean one thing, which is just wrong -- just because there are lots of people out there who don't like or enjoy the experience of watching The Godfather doesn't mean that any analysis of it being "good" is completely subjective.
 

MomsNewBoyfriend

Neo Member
You not engaging with people who are trying to put your thinking to the test is weird...

"Art" and especially "art forms" are categorical. It's not a statement on the quality of something. So if the Taj Mahal is "art", so are Brooklyn projects & tract housing all over the American suburbs. If Seven Samurai is art, so is Transformers 5. And if FF7 or Shadow of the Colossus belong to the art form of video games, so too do ET & Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600. That's baked into what you are saying, even though you contradicted it in a previous post. That's an issue here.

I very much CAN point to The Godfather and say "by our understanding of how movies are put together and what we understand about semiotics & film theory/criticism, it is a good movie". But again and again you keep reflecting this attitude that words only mean one thing, which is just wrong -- just because there are lots of people out there who don't like or enjoy the experience of watching The Godfather doesn't mean that any analysis of it being "good" is completely subjective.
It insists upon itself
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
You not engaging with people who are trying to put your thinking to the test is weird...

"Art" and especially "art forms" are categorical. It's not a statement on the quality of something. So if the Taj Mahal is "art", so are Brooklyn projects & tract housing all over the American suburbs. If Seven Samurai is art, so is Transformers 5. And if FF7 or Shadow of the Colossus belong to the art form of video games, so too do ET & Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600. That's baked into what you are saying, even though you contradicted it in a previous post. That's an issue here.

I very much CAN point to The Godfather and say "by our understanding of how movies are put together and what we understand about semiotics & film theory/criticism, it is a good movie". But again and again you keep reflecting this attitude that words only mean one thing, which is just wrong -- just because there are lots of people out there who don't like or enjoy the experience of watching The Godfather doesn't mean that any analysis of it being "good" is completely subjective.

Objectively only means one thing. Trying to give it a different meaning to win an argument is ridiculous. Video games cannot be objectively good because you can't quantify the games into objective criteria that can be measured against an absolute standard. If I'm wrong then give me the criteria. But stop trying to make objectively mean something other than what it actually means.
 
Objectively only means one thing.

This isn't how language works... say this 100 more times, for all the good it will do you. That's not how humans use language.

I've said this 3-4 times now -- no one here, literally no one, is saying there is an absolute objective measure to compare art against each other. This is a more nuanced conversation than that.

Trying to give it a different meaning to win an argument is ridiculous.

Well, it is simply a fact that language is not used by humans this way, but regardless of that... I'm honestly not trying to win an argument against you! I'm trying to clarify what is actually being discussed when people use words like objective and subjective and apply them to analyzing, appreciating, and criticizing art.

You don't even have an argument that is under discussion here, because you aren't addressing what some of these people are actually saying to you. "You can quantify games in a completely objective way according to X-Y-Z" is not a position anyone here is in support of, or even attempting to hold. You seem to be taking that to mean you are "winning", but the reality is you aren't engaging with the nuance of the subjet.

And repeating "objective only means 1 thing" and "tell me how you use completely objective values to compare video games and sort them into 'good' and 'bad' categories then?" is missing the point of what's actually being discussed by some of the people to whom you're responding.
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
This isn't how language works... say this 100 more times, for all the good it will do you. That's not how humans use language.

I've said this 3-4 times now -- no one here, literally no one, is saying there is an absolute objective measure to compare art against each other. This is a more nuanced conversation than that.



Well, it is simply a fact that language is not used by humans this way, but regardless of that... I'm honestly not trying to win an argument against you! I'm trying to clarify what is actually being discussed when people use words like objective and subjective and apply them to analyzing, appreciating, and criticizing art.

You don't even have an argument that is under discussion here, because you aren't addressing what some of these people are actually saying to you. "You can quantify games in a completely objective way according to X-Y-Z" is not a position anyone here is in support of, or even attempting to hold. You seem to be taking that to mean you are "winning", but the reality is you aren't engaging with the nuance of the subjet.

And repeating "objective only means 1 thing" and "tell me how you use completely objective values to compare video games and sort them into 'good' and 'bad' categories then?" is missing the point of what's actually being discussed by some of the people to whom you're responding.

Then enlighten me. What does objectively mean? And where are you finding this other definition that no dictionary uses?
 
You're entitled to your opinion. This one just happens to be wrong.
X D. The older Resident Evil games are still fun, I find RE4-6 and Revelation 1-2 more exciting because of how much faster the gameplay is and the fully 3D camera control you have.
And coop obviously.
They are much more replayable, to me, because it's all based on reaction time and skill, not memorizing where 100 different items are.
Puzzle pieces also don't waste space in your inventory in RE4-6 like they do in RE1-3!
 

PanzerAzel

Member
Van Gogh only sold one painting while he was alive. Most people considered him an amateur. Fast forward to today and he is one of the most well known artists in the world, and every single one of his paintings are valued at over $60 million. I'm sure your argument is that his art is objectively good, but objectivity doesn't change, and he wasn't considered objectively good while he was alive.



See my above example. Van Gogh's work was treated with contempt until the late 20th century, well after his death. His own Fine Arts college (Antwerp Academy) didn't like his work. Where is the objectivity?
So you contend that artists that are currently held in higher regard are simply due to the changing tides of public opinion and cultural shifts throughout the years? That in 200 years, my niece’s kindergarten finger paintings may possibly be as revered as Da Vinci’s best work? That techniques such as Sfumato he utilized aren’t objectively superior in accomplishing what many other painters failed to?

Sorry, I don’t buy that in the slightest, and you can continue to grasp at specificities in seeking to discount notoriety, but the fact remains, works that your argument would classify as purely subjective stand tall above others. How? I’m willing to bet, that in the decades and centuries to come, their works are going to remain, and become even more appreciated. Precisely because there’s aspects of objective quality in them.
 

IFireflyl

Gold Member
So you contend that artists that are currently held in higher regard are simply due to the changing tides of public opinion and cultural shifts throughout the years? That in 200 years, my niece’s kindergarten finger paintings may possibly be as revered as Da Vinci’s best work? That techniques such as Sfumato he utilized aren’t objectively superior in accomplishing what many other painters failed to?

Sorry, I don’t buy that in the slightest, and you can continue to grasp at specificities in seeking to discount notoriety, but the fact remains, works that your argument would classify as purely subjective stand tall above others. How? I’m willing to bet, that in the decades and centuries to come, their works are going to remain, and become even more appreciated. Precisely because there’s aspects of objective quality in them.

You have failed to explain what the objective qualities are. You have also failed to explain why Van Gogh was considered an amateur for his entire life by all of his peers and art critics of the time. If there was objective quality then every art critic of Van Gogh's generation were idiots. That's essentially what your argument is.
 
You have failed to explain what the objective qualities are. You have also failed to explain why Van Gogh was considered an amateur for his entire life by all of his peers and art critics of the time. If there was objective quality then every art critic of Van Gogh's generation were idiots. That's essentially what your argument is.
I'm just going to butt in on this conversation again with a question.

Is there an objective reality? Do you find anything objective?

Or does a parachute with holes in it compare subjectively with a working one? Do only feelings and emotions matter?
 
Last edited:

IFireflyl

Gold Member
I'm just going to butt in on this conversation again with a question.

Is there an objective reality? Do you find anything objective?

Or does a parachute with holes in it compare subjectively with a working one? Do only feelings and emotions matter?

Yes. Water is wet. 1+1 is 2. If objectivity didn't exist then we wouldn't have the word.
 

MHubert

Member
I'm not misunderstanding... you still haven't given objective criteria that determines if a game is good. What is the objective criteria? I gave reasons it can't be objectively determined to be good. What are the quantifiable objective criteria that you're insisting exists?
You listed a handful of possible criteria yourself - there obviously isn't a set of universal criteria for 'a game' (or anything else, for that matter) as it depends on what the game is, tries to achieve and how it does it - just like some cars can be objectively better than others in certain scenarios/contexts, which is a fact anyone can acknowledge without needing to establish a criteria that covers 'car' as an absolute concept.
You haven't really argued how it can't be objectively determined other than pointing out that the user is having a subjective experience while playing the game, and that the personal experience cannot be objectively judged:
(...) Because the experience is subjective, and even with the objective criteria (frame rate, resolution, load times, et cetera) there is no objective "good" or objective "bad"
We are not talking about the experience - we are talking about the game.
 

MHubert

Member
Yes. Water is wet. 1+1 is 2. If objectivity didn't exist then we wouldn't have the word.
Just because I'm in a good mood and feel a tad bullish:

Water is wet is a tautology, so a redundant statement (you could just as well have said water is water and called it a defining proof of objectivity).
1+1=2 is a true statement, and I would agree it is objectively true - but it is a metaphysical assumption nonetheless. Are you able to prove that it is objectively true?
 
Last edited:

Alphagear

Member
RE4. Good game, but destroyed traditional RE.
THIS.

Great game but not a great Resident Evil. Loved playing but kept saying to myself this isn't Resident Evil.

Responsible for the mess RE is today. Games are hit and miss because Capcom aren't sure what RE should be.

Not sure why Capcom don't use the RE2 remake formula for future RE games. Action horror or First Person isn't the way to go for me.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
You have failed to explain what the objective qualities are. You have also failed to explain why Van Gogh was considered an amateur for his entire life by all of his peers and art critics of the time. If there was objective quality then every art critic of Van Gogh's generation were idiots. That's essentially what your argument is.
The objective qualities of DaVinci's work? I don't know, I'm not educated in fine art. But I'd imagine they'd be things like how well he portrayed light, how he painted its absorptions/reflections off of various surfaces, texturing, the transition from one object to the next (foreground to background) shadows, subtlety, nuance. As for Van Gogh, who knows, and no, I'm not arguing his critics were idiots. You have to remember that the dude was a nigh psychotic crackpot who cut off his own ear in his time, perhaps his works suffered the stigma of his personal demons by those critiquing them? It could be any number of reasons why so many rejected his works which are now embraced.

I've argued from the outset that I don't believe there's objectively good art, but that objective quality can exist within the subjective framework that art exists in. That means that it's not incompatible to claim that art is wholly subjective, yet also held to certain criteria that are quantifiable in determining objective merit within it.
 

64bitmodels

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.
you got oot 2, it's called majora's mask and it transcends the zelda series
 

64bitmodels

Member
Not sure why Capcom don't use the RE2 remake formula for future RE games. Action horror or First Person isn't the way to go for me.
to be honest, the RE originals were only really better at creating horror than the future entries, and even then silent hill was far better in that aspect
i perfer post RE4 RE, even if RE5 and 6 weren't good, they were far more expirimental. I do agree the RE2 remake formula is the way to go- it's a natural evolution of what 4 started with the horror focus of the first few games. I like RE7, but gameplay wise it's.... it's kind of a mess. whether village is better, i don't know
 
Top Bottom