Using Objective Scores for Works of Art

[Jarmel]

So after watching Sessler comment on the feedback on the Uncharted 3 reviews, he raised some very valid points that we see brought up every now and then afterwhich it is quickly forgotten. However why do we let it? Why do people want some sort of score about any game? Scores do absolutely nothing about the judging of a game but rather the review itself which details a game's flaws. No game is perfect and can be improved upon in some way shape or form and so this need for a 10 for a customer to justify his purchase is insane. Shouldn't they read the review, see what the game's faults are and then judge the quality of the game for themselves. Why do reviewers and by extension fans of any franchise, support this behaviour? Unless there is something objectively better such as ping or more detailed textures, how do you judge something as better? How do you say that a particular game has a better artstyle or gameplay when that is intrinsically linked to the player themselves and their own personal tastes. We don't rate the Mona Lisa on a 1-10 scale.

Instead all this system supports is a bunch of elitissts who can hold a number over fans of other franchises stating that their game is better because of some arbitrary number that a reviewer made up. Is this what the industry has devolved to? A bunch of fanboys of different franchises all vying over some magical number to say that their franchise and by extension, themselves, are better than everybody else and so they have superior tastes? Why do we allow this?

Here is a link to Sessler's video:http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/?quality=hd

 

[Yagharek]

Games aren't art.

But I believe a large part of the uproar also comes from the metacritic angle. Big hype games are considered to be capable of 'beating' all others, including the historical record of ocarina. Anything that derails that possibility can gave devastating results in those people of a fragile mental state.

 

[Peru]

They're not objective and any sensible reviewer wouldn't pretend that they're objective - it's an opinion and a certain perspective and so what's the problem with adding a number?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Adam Sessler, the one lone liberal commentator to G4's Fox News.

 

[VALIS]

So after watching Sessler comment on the feedback on the Uncharted 3 reviews, he raised some very valid points that we see brought up every now and then afterwhich it is quickly forgotten. However why do we let it? Why do people want some sort of score about any game? Scores do absolutely nothing about the judging of a game but rather the review itself which details a game's flaws. No game is perfect and can be improved upon in some way shape or form and so this need for a 10 for a customer to justify his purchase is insane. Shouldn't they read the review, see what the game's faults are and then judge the quality of the game for themselves. Why do reviewers and by extension fans of any franchise, support this behaviour? Unless there is something objectively better such as ping or more detailed textures, how do you judge something as better? How do you say that a particular game has a better artstyle or gameplay when that is intrinsically linked to the player themselves and their own personal tastes. We don't rate the Mona Lisa on a 1-10 scale.

Instead all this system supports is a bunch of elitissts who can hold a number over fans of other franchises stating that their game is better because of some arbitrary number that a reviewer made up. Is this what the industry has devolved to? A bunch of fanboys of different franchises all vying over some magical number to say that their franchise and by extension, themselves, are better than everybody else and so they have superior tastes? Why do we allow this?

Here is a link to Sessler's video:http://www.g4tv.com/videos/55954/sesslers-soapbox-i-hate-numbers/?quality=hd

7.5/10

But seriously, whether or not grading scales are fitting for works of art/entertainment is a old and classic debate. I personally think scores should be looked at as little more than aids to help clarify the critic's opinion of the material in question, not to be taken as the ultimate end-all purpose of the review, but more as a helpful, "here's roughly how I'd place this on an X point scale compared to similar works."

Now, why so many spastic, insecure gamers take this shit so seriously is another matter entirely. Especially Sony fans. So touchy!

 

[Jarmel]

They're not objective and any sensible reviewer wouldn't pretend that they're objective - it's an opinion and a certain perspective and so what's the problem with adding a number?

What's the point? What does it add to the conversation that words alone can't address? Why can't you state in the review that the game is the best of its kind?

 

[UnluckyKate]

We still give scores to movies, yet there are art ?

 

[Keio]

It's a great point. I think the origins of the scores come from treating games as technical products you can test (like cars (which also have these qualitative features such as "feel of the road" or "fun of driving") or hifi equipment) versus works of art (like books, where you can't really quantify anything).

Now I think "bad games" in terms of being a technical mess are getting more and more rare, so we should be moving away from the test approach into a more critical view.

 

[V_Arnold]

I was expecting a Your Excellency thread. Huh.

The only reason we are "rating" is the same why the movie and the music industry rates. Do not compare gaming to art that is nested in a world where people actually read.

The majority of people does not read reviews. They glance at the score, they read into the text here and there, or MAYBE read it if there is nothing else to do (traveling, on the bus, or on the toilet, whatever) - that is the sad state of affairs right now.

I think the best solution is moving to an 1-3 or an 1-5 scale (1-5 I kinda prefer for more diversity, but at the end of the day, good games stay good games years later, while the "rent/skip" games only get worse in perspective, rarely better).

In my reviews, I always try to be consistent, coherent, and make it so reading the point itself is not really neccessary and not a "summarize" of my text, only an expansion/extension of it.

 

[SmokyDave]

We don't rate the Mona Lisa on a 1-10 scale.

Speak for yourself. She gets a 7. So basically, Mona Lisa (7) = Venus De Milo (7) < Lady with an Ermine (8.5).

 

[thomasmahler]

I think it highly depends on the product. It'd probably also be easy rating pure entertainment products like Transformers against each other, yet you usually don't do that with movies cause it doesn't make any sense for the lot.

Same thing applies to games. You can definitely analyze and dissect certain games and say that A is better than B. Gears 3 is better than Gears 1, because it has better graphics, more modes, more features, more weapons, more everything and it's all connected together in a much nicer way.

Then you could do the same thing with Gears vs. Uncharted. Or all the FPS games out there for that matter. Or back in the day all the platformers out there, etc.

And yet you wouldn't want to give a rating to something like Majesty of Colors:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/GregoryWeir/the-majesty-of-colors

I also felt weird about magazines rating flower - it's more of an experience instead of a mainly mechanics-based game. Is flower really a 9? The experience is absolutely worth having, but if you'd rate it using the same criteria as you do with other games, it probably shouldn't be. The controls, the visuals, the amount of content, etc. - nothing stacks up to other comparable games, yet most people still loved playing it.

 

[kevinski]

I don't really consider all games to be art. However, if any given game is to be considered art, then it should still be subjected to the same level of criticism as any other game from a technical standpoint. As an example, The Path could very well be considered a work of art, in my opinion, but it's complete trash from a technical perspective. (I like the game, however.)

I do feel that review scores are somewhat flawed in general, but I don't believe that the solution is to completely remove them in any form. Rather, they need to be simplified. Furthermore, it needs to be clear that a game that gets a "perfect" score isn't necessarily a perfect game, as there's really no such thing.

 

[Jarmel]

I was expecting a Your Excellency thread. Huh.

The only reason we are "rating" is the same why the movie and the music industry rates. Do not compare gaming to art that is nested in a world where people actually read.

The majority of people does not read reviews. They glance at the score, they read into the text here and there, or MAYBE read it if there is nothing else to do (traveling, on the bus, or on the toilet, whatever) - that is the sad state of affairs right now.

I think the best solution is moving to an 1-3 or an 1-5 scale (1-5 I kinda prefer for more diversity, but at the end of the day, good games stay good games years later, while the "rent/skip" games only get worse in perspective, rarely better).

In my reviews, I always try to be consistent, coherent, and make it so reading the point itself is not really neccessary and not a "summarize" of my text, only an expansion/extension of it.

Yes I'm aware of the origins but why does the entertainment industry as a whole allow it and why do reviewers pu up with their opinions being numbers. It degrades both the reader and reviewer. Attaching a number only supports the behavior of not reading.

 

[jooey]

Yes I'm aware of the origins but why does the entertainment industry as a whole allow it and why do reviewers pu up with their opinions being numbers. It degrades both the reader and reviewer. Attaching a number only supports the behavior of not reading.

"not reading" has happened for centuries and resulted in much worse shit. It's not going to change with writing about fucking video games. sorry to get macro on this, but seriously, it's not worth it.

 

[Jarmel]

"not reading" has happened for centuries and resulted in much worse shit. It's not going to change with writing about fucking video games. sorry to get macro on this, but seriously, it's not worth it.

For casual fans of videogames (or other entertainment mediums) in general I'm sure it's not worth it. However for moderate fans of any franchise it hurts discussion about the quality of the games in the same franchise as well as comparisons to other franchises. Reviewers are supporting this behavior and I would argue most are atleast fans of whichever industry they are reviewing in.

 

[Mael]

In topics like that I usually have a good reply of advice to anyone doing a review so that it may be good instead of the garbage we usually have (like the laughable trash places like IGN call reviews).

I'm no critic or anything but I do know that if you want to learn something might as well be from the best :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Updike#Literary_criticism_and_art_criticism

Updike was also a critic of literature and art, one frequently cited as one of the best American critics of his generation. In the introduction to Picked-Up Pieces, his 1975 collection of prose, he listed his personal rules for literary criticism:
Updike delivering the 2008 Jefferson Lecture.

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

2. Give enough direct quotation — at least one extended passage — of the book's prose so the review's reader can form his own impression, can get his own taste.

3. Confirm your description of the book with quotation from the book, if only phrase-long, rather than proceeding by fuzzy précis.

4. Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending.

5. If the book is judged deficient, cite a successful example along the same lines, from the author's œuvre or elsewhere. Try to understand the failure. Sure it's his and not yours?

To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never ... try to put the author "in his place," making of him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys of reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.

I even bold some important parts.

 

[Yagharek]

In topics like that I usually have a good reply of advice to anyone doing a review so that it may be good instead of the garbage we usually have (like the laughable trash places like IGN call reviews).

I'm no critic or anything but I do know that if you want to learn something might as well be from the best :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Updike#Literary_criticism_and_art_criticism


I even bold some important parts.

Incidentally, rule 1 discredits every Wii review ever written where the reviewer complains that its not in HD.

 

[Mael]

nvm, misread you.

 

[cutmeamango]

Grading is all about performance in a given task.
A product review has to inform the consumers about the value of the product.
Since a game is an entertainment piece, the writer should review it by the whole (how entertaining it is) or/and by what composes it (mechanics, visual, audio, appeal, durability).

That's where grades come in, to determine (representative) how it performs in those tasks.
Of course, parameters for the grading should be estabilished and justified in the text.

But gaming editorials don't control that.
They have lots of writers that sway (even in the same text!) between review and critique.
And the grades mostly don't have parameters estabilished other than 8 is very good!, so actually knowing how it performs is lost and the grade lose its value.

 

[Yagharek]

nvm, misread you.

Touche.

At the end of the day, reviews are a buyers guide and nothing more. No point getting worked up over them. Just find reviewers who don't review according to press junkets and whatnot. This week on gaf has shown me that too many people are focused on the trivia and not the games themselves.

 

[Fredescu]

Reviews are useful and interesting when you know and understand the reviewers tastes. I don't mind scores in that case, but I can just as easily do without them.

The scores granted by giant review farms like IGN, and worse score aggregates, are next to worthless. They're only useful for determining if the game was a true dud at a glance when in the shop looking at a cheap game you've never heard of.

I'd like to think that as gamers grow up, they will care less about what "IGN gave" game X and more what certain personalities think. Sites like Giant Bomb and RPS that comprise of just a handful of people make this a lot easier.

 

[Mael]

Touche.

At the end of the day, reviews are a buyers guide and nothing more. No point getting worked up over them. Just find reviewers who don't review according to press junkets and whatnot. This week on gaf has shown me that too many people are focused on the trivia and not the games themselves.

Well to be fair the whole environment is silly to begin with.
I mean no one cares what a critic think of a movie or a book, in the end you buy because you find something interesting.
The critic only color or give you a better advice on how it can be viewed.
A critic or a review on a game is absolutely worthless when the hype period is over, it serves no reason to even exist appart from day 1 buyers.
I'm not even kidding, you have stuffs like reviews praising the campaign of some game that is absolute shit because the ad company paid for it.
Most of the time it tells nothing of the game anyway.
Yeah my choices became way easier when I decided to totally disregard any reviews but views of actual purchasers.
Heck my local retailer has a bigger influence on what I play and buy than any review read on the web.
that's how bad they are now!

 

[Yagharek]

Complete agreement from me, mael. Although I do admit to enjoying reading reviews from edge, games tm and retro gamer because of the written style and in RGs case, their enthusiasm.

The only thing that matters is to be willing to try new stuff from time to time. Ignore the hype.

 

[vareon]

The "do not blame him for achieving what he did not attempt" part is really great.

I also prefer recommendations to scores. A 9 score on Battlefield, for example, does nothing to me since I don't like FPS. But when one said "If you like Zelda, then you may like Darksiders" I end up checking Darksiders.

 

[Corto]

If one is making a critique of a videogame there should be no score at the end. The text would be the only thing that mattered. If one is reviewing a videogame as a product of entertainment expressing a consumer advice/information then a score should be given at the end of the text.

 

[daviyoung]

The problem isn't with a grading system. The problem is the writer not being able to write, and the reader not being able to read.

 

[Strummerjones]

However for moderate fans of any franchise it hurts discussion about the quality of the games in the same franchise as well as comparisons to other franchises. Reviewers are supporting this behavior and I would argue most are atleast fans of whichever industry they are reviewing in.

Because 99.9% of people playing videogames have no real interest in the medium itself and just want to know what piece of disposable entertainment is the next big thing so they can grab it for a week or two and then trade it in for the next one. There are far too many games for any one person to play so scores offer a helpful guide of what is likely to be popular. Intentionally or not, this typically sides with polished big budget games that offer experiences that are easily digestable for the most people.

Grand Theft Auto will always be a 10/10 whether or not it is a good or bad videogame. Boxes shift. The system works.

 

[demon arm]

The Mona Lisa is obviously an unfinished painting. Until the painter patches in the missing eyebrows, I'm afraid I can only give it 6/10.

 

[shaneskim]

The Mona Lisa is obviously an unfinished painting. Until the painter patches in the missing eyebrows, I'm afraid I can only give it 6/10.

There should be a code on the back of the canvas for the eyebrows.

 

[Lime]

Objectively valid aesthetic analysis and criticism are certainly possible, given the correct methodology and conceptual framework.

However, contemporary "reviews" of mass entertainment have nothing to do with the above. Therefore, their epistemic worth is almost close to nil.

 

[Rolf NB]

They're not objective and any sensible reviewer wouldn't pretend that they're objective - it's an opinion and a certain perspective and so what's the problem with adding a number?

Vanity. To judge anything with granularity, you have to have accepted expertise and opinion leadership. Game reviewers rarely, rarely have that. They are ones of many. Interchangeable. Indistinguishable. Their individual opinions aren't worth the depreciation of their keyboards caused by typing them out.

Aggregates however ... that's useful.

 

[vareon]

Vanity. To judge anything with granularity, you have to have accepted expertise and opinion leadership. Game reviewers rarely, rarely have that. They are ones of many. Interchangeable. Indistinguishable. Their individual opinions aren't worth the depreciation of their keyboards caused by typing them out.

Aggregates however ... that's useful.

If it's an aggregate of opinions, then I agree. In fact this is what NeoGAF is best at.
If it's an aggregate of scores, then I don't think it's very useful.

 

[lobdale]

Works are not art, the art is the process of making a work.

YEP

 

[Raonak]

Theres multiple alternatives.

don't give review scores; pool the game into 1 of 5 catergories.

Awesome -Uncharted2, MGS4
Great -Infamous 2, Motorstorm:A, DMC4
Good -GT5, Ratchet:ACIT, Bayonetta
Average -Bad company
Not Good -Motion Games
Bad -Lair, Haze
Terrible -shovelware


10point review scores are inflated as all hell. we all know an IGN 7 really means average.

---------
another is to not gives scores to reviews, just wait til the end of the year, that way, scores actually matter, as they are relative to every game that came out. that year.

A 50 will be the most medicore game of that year, while the 100 will be the goty. and everything else inbetween. (with 0 being worst)

that way you don't get truly accurate scores. And if gameX gets 100, and it's sequel gets 99, it doesn't mean the sequels worse, it just means that the original was the best that year. while theres a game better than the sequel out.

Also, this addresses the problem of GameX getting a 10 because it's perfect. then gameY comes out... but it's even more perfect. WHAT DO YOU DO!?!?!!?

 

[Riposte]

Dumbest thread title I've ever read. I couldn't really finish reading the post(watched the video though). Some people seem to have lost all perspective on what scores actually are.

There is nothing objective about scores! It is literally splitting the range of your judgment values into groups of 5, 10, or 100. It shouldn't be surprising that once you get up to 10(let alone a fucking 100, jesus christ) this system becomes needlessly convoluted(causing problems which should be beaten to the ground at this point and can fairly summarized as "inaccuracy").

Getting rid of the score doesn't really solve anything in the long run. People will just assign scores to your review "He loved it, he liked it, he was ambivalent, he disliked it, he hated it". 1-5/5. Yes, it would stop metacritic's bullshit(Adam Sessler has my sympathy), but only until a new system was developed to churn all these written articles together until they each lose all their character and thought for an easy to digest answer(not to mention the process of the many bad writers pulling down the few good ones). They would just incorrectly assign their own scores. (The best thing you can do is get all the major sites to adopt a 1-5 scoring range, if not, then a 1-3, 1-4, or 1-6 one. No more fucking decimals.)

If anyone thinks this is a "videogame maturity problem", they are very wrong. You think other mediums are not following this same model? (Look at Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, even YouTube.) This is the reality of the internet and the mediocrity in criticism and analysis its democracy breeds.

Games aren't art.

Just like pornography, videogames are art. And if that wasn't hard enough to swallow: videogames are better than most art because they are generally much more immersive and stimulating(and a hell of a lot more complex and demanding of craftsmanship to boot).

1. Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.

When people try to apply this to videogame criticism it is almost always vomit-inducing and anti-critical. This only makes sense when a dude is bashing a Football Simulator for not being FIFA '11. Meaning, when they are ignoring genre for some dumb reason or another. When a critic(or god forbid a developer) uses this to try to defend a game which has some dumbed-down mechanics or is simply flawed or simple then the proper course of action is to call that weasel out on his crap.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Holy crap at all the butthurt in the title haha

Dude its just a fucking score, it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game at all(if it does then kill yourself right now please). And when that score usually means great (8/10) then why bitch?

Look, all this just stems more from list wars and pointing at numbers then wanting to buy the game or not. I've enjoyed games that got shitty scores before(GodHand, No More Heroes, Alpha Protocol and Beatdown), and I hated games that got high scores(GTA IV is a peace of shit game). If you can't help but get your panties all twisted up cause some guy gave it a lower score than you hoped then you deserve all the humiliating laughs you get.

Too much bitching all over the place.

 

[ASIS]

Games aren't art.

But I believe a large part of the uproar also comes from the metacritic angle. Big hype games are considered to be capable of 'beating' all others, including the historical record of ocarina. Anything that derails that possibility can gave devastating results in those people of a fragile mental state.

Yes they are. You might have different expectations as to what you can gain from anything you call "art". But fact remains that Videogames are a platform of creativity, therefore, it's art.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Let me try to state this simply.

Games are reviewed using subjective standards. The only reason why most people put up with them is because many consumers have a similar standard for rating games. For example, most people would agree that Uncharted 3 has better graphics than Star Fox 64. However, that opinion is still subjective and is based on a subjective standard.

All of the arguing and fussing comes from differences between the standards of multiple people.

Now can we please stop using the words "objective" and "objectively" incorrectly? There is no scale for rating games that transcends the mind, for crying out loud.

 

[Kade]

When will this all end?

 

[Fredescu]

For example, most people would agree that Uncharted 3 has better graphics than Star Fox 64. However, that opinion is still subjective and is based on a subjective standard.

That's not subjective at all, there are multiple objective standards for determining "better graphics", resolution, framerate, texture detail, and so forth, all of which Uncharted 3 would come out ahead in. "Looks better" or "better art" is a better example of a subjective statement.

 

[obonicus]

Music reviewers have been giving albums scores for a very long time.

 

[goodfella]

Well, as you say, games are subjective. Therefore, we can all assign a score to a game. The scores purpose should to give context to the review.

For example, if the score is 8, then that should be like a final statement from the reviewer that says, after taking into account the flaws of the game and the strengths of the game, the game is very good or 8/10.

Of course people will disagree with the reviewer, so you tend to find a reviewer that share similar tastes to you, or who's opinion you hold in high regard.


What is stupid is when certain websites or publications assign scores on a 100 point scale, which give the illusion that the score is objective, and that the reviewer has used some kind of mathematical formula to differentiate a game that is 76/100 from a game that is 78/100, when in actuality, no reasonable human could make such a precise decision on a games worth.

 

[zigg]

I even bold some important parts.

I'd bold the whole last bit, myself.

To these concrete five might be added a vaguer sixth, having to do with maintaining a chemical purity in the reaction between product and appraiser. Do not accept for review a book you are predisposed to dislike, or committed by friendship to like. Do not imagine yourself a caretaker of any tradition, an enforcer of any party standards, a warrior in any ideological battle, a corrections officer of any kind. Never, never ... try to put the author "in his place," making of him a pawn in a contest with other reviewers. Review the book, not the reputation. Submit to whatever spell, weak or strong, is being cast. Better to praise and share than blame and ban. The communion between reviewer and his public is based upon the presumption of certain possible joys of reading, and all our discriminations should curve toward that end.

 

[teruterubozu]

Because ALL media is obsessed with the quantitative value system. It has nothing to do with gaming magazines/websites in particular.

Forbes TOP 10 bets places to live in the U.S.
52% favor Obama
5 Ways to ask you boss for a bonus
Top 20 Summer getaways
How to decorate your kitchen with these 5 simple tips

Etc. Etc.

That's what sells - that's the kind of information the media thinks people want.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

That's not subjective at all, there are multiple objective standards for determining "better graphics", resolution, framerate, texture detail, and so forth, all of which Uncharted 3 would come out ahead in. "Looks better" or "better art" is a better example of a subjective statement.

Nope, you're wrong. As soon as you say something is "better" than something else, regardless of how you quantify better, you are creating a subjective standard. It's as simple as someone saying, "I think games with less polygons have better graphics." Of course, that is a pretty crazy standard to defend, but it's a subjective opinion just like the one you have.

What you're doing is confusing a commonly accepted subjective standard for one that is objectively true.

From wiki:

A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

The statement, "Uncharted 3 has more polygons in a given level than Star Fox 64" is objectively true. However, the statement "Uncharted 3 has better graphics than SF64" is not.

 

[padlock]

I love the irony in that prominently displayed right beside the video... was its rating (5 out 5)

 

[Fredescu]

Nope, you're wrong. As soon as you say something is "better" than something else, regardless of how you quantify better, you are creating a subjective standard.

The truth conditions for resolution, framerate, and texture detail, are all "mind independant", that is they are measurable, and therefore objective. The phrase "better graphics" tends to be used to refer to the technical side of things. The subjective preference is referred to as "better art."

"I know Uncharted 3 has the better graphics, but I think Starfox 64 has better art." The former is objective, the latter is subjective. If you use "better graphics" to refer to your personal taste, you're being imprecise.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

Reviewing a game is like reviewing a movie and the television it's being shown on at the same time.

 

[toastyToast]

Games are a commodity in which judging quality helps consumers in their purchases.

We're not talking about quoting prices on paintings here.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

The truth conditions for resolution, framerate, and texture detail, are all "mind independant", that is they are measurable, and therefore objective. The phrase "better graphics" tends to be used to refer to the technical side of things. The subjective preference is referred to as "better art."

"I know Uncharted 3 has the better graphics, but I think Starfox 64 has better art." The former is objective, the latter is subjective. If you use "better graphics" to refer to your personal taste, you're being imprecise.

They are measurable indeed, and it is certainly possible to say that Uncharted 3 has a higher resolution, a higher framerate, and higher texture detail. All of that can be said objectively. However, the standard you are adhering to that assumes that "better graphics" is defined by these technical parameters is still a subjective standard. It is a widely accepted subjective standard that most people agree upon, but that doesn't make it any less subjective.

The conclusion that "better graphics" are defined by the technical aspects you mentioned is not one that can be reached mind independently.

In short, the word "better" is always subjective. Nothing can be defined as "better" than something else independently of the mind.