Support NeoGAF

[SeraphJan]

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.

I agree with your first part, but this second part...

remove a lot of the subjectivity

I cannot agree with this take. How are you going to remove them? Banning them? Censor them? Downvote the heck out of them?

The opinion of the majority could change over time as well, and this start with respecting unpopular opinion, and let them flourish and prove themselves overtime, this is how everything evolves. Some of the most well regarded scientist were actually the minority at their respective time. If we just take popular opinion as doctrines, the progress stagnates.

We could disagree with certain views, but we should respect them instead of bashing them.

Subjectivity is not necessarily bad, it just meant it is open to debate, and we could all debate friendly.

Or else guess how console war started? They both believe they are the absolute objectivity while disrespecting the oppositions.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

This is philosophy though, nothing is really objectively absolute, everything can change.

1+2 will still be 3 in a million years. the same goes for the shape of the earth. it will still be round in a million year. those things are objective absolutes. they are definitive facts and they will remain facts for the rest of our times.

art is free of absolutes. sure, in art you also have certain "rules", but they are more like suggestions. suggestions that are there from the experiences of past artists. however, you can totally create art without those suggestions in mind.

 

[Bragr]

1+2 will still be 3 in a million years. the same goes for the shape of the earth. it will still be round in a million year. those things are objective absolutes. they are definitive facts and they will remain facts for the rest of our times.

art is free of absolutes. sure, in art you also have certain "rules", but they are more like suggestions. suggestions that are there from the experiences of past artists. however, you can totally create art without those suggestions in mind.

"Our times" is not absolute, it will also end. The shape of the earth will cease like anything else, so any form of "absolute objectivity" will also cease, how can it then be absolute.

I don't know exactly why you say the last line or why it's relevant here, but are you sure that the brain can conceptualize forms without any sort of suggestion? every art we know has roots in other aspects.

 

[Bragr]

I agree with your first part, but this second part...

I cannot agree with this take. How are you going to remove them? Banning them? Censor them? Downvote the heck out of them?

The opinion of the majority could change over time as well, and this start with respecting unpopular opinion, and let them flourish and prove themselves overtime, this is how everything evolves. Some of the most well regarded scientist were actually the minority at their respective time. If we just take popular opinion as doctrines, the progress stagnates.

We could disagree with certain views, but we should respect them instead of bashing them.

Subjectivity is not necessarily bad, it just meant it is open to debate, and we could all debate friendly.

Or else guess how console war started? They both believe they are the absolute objectivity while disrespecting the oppositions.

I should have said "reduce" some of the influence of subjectivity (when it comes to arguing about games), not remove it.

The goal is so we don't end up in a world where you can make a game about headbutting a wall by pressing X 500 times, and when we criticize it, the counter-argument is always some nonsense like: "every view is subjective, some people love this game, so it's not a bad game at all".

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

"Our times" is not absolute, it will also end. The shape of the earth will cease like anything else, so any form of "absolute objectivity" will also cease, how can it then be absolute.

it will when the earth will be evidently go down in flames (literially), but until then though, the earth is a sphere and 1+2 will be 3.

but are you sure that the brain can conceptualize forms without any sort of suggestion? every art we know has roots in other aspects.

what I essentially mean is that there is no true and right way to do art. art shouldn't be put in exclusive self centered social clubs, with exclusive ways of doing it, and there shouldn't be gate keeping in art.
but to answer your question, yes most if not all pieces of art have their roots and influences from other pieces of art or sources outside the world of art. It's someones (subjective)interpretation of art, beauty and other aspects of life that will lead to new art. that doesn't mean though that new art can't be creative and fresh.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

The goal is so we don't end up in a world where you can make a game about headbutting a wall by pressing X 500 times, and when we criticize it, the counter-argument is always some nonsense like: "every view is subjective, some people love this game, so it's not a bad game at all".

this won't happen imo.

a game's success (which isn't the same as its quality per se) can be measured by its sales and reception among peers, critics and consumers. devs will create their games (usually) based on what's known, what concepts and gameplay ideas have been tried and what currently is popular, if not they will revolutionize or evolutionize.

a game about head butting is maybe good for a few laughs, but I doubt it would succeed. Also in this hypothesis no one would hinder you to criticize it. saying art is subjective doesn't lead to a world where no form of criticism is applied. but if someone actually has a well construed take why the head butting game is actually genius, why should we say he is wrong? It's his opinion on something subjective.

 

[IFireflyl]

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.

Half of video games is art. The other half is programming. The only parts of games which can be quantified is the programming. But even when we quantify the programming aspects into objective facts we are still left with subjective interpretation of good and bad.

With my previous response to another user I gave examples of this. What load times is considered good? Is 300 seconds good? 100? 60? 30? 10? What about frame rate? Is 15 fps the minimum acceptable frame rate? 30? 60? 120? 144? How about bugs? Is one bug that isn't game breaking acceptable? 10? 100? 1,000? How about controls? If a game doesn't allow you to remap controls is it a bad game? If a PC game doesn't include controller support is it a bad game? How about resolution? If a game only supports 1080p or lower is that a bad game? Or what if it only supports 4k or lower when we finally move to 8k? Does that make it bad?

 

[ikbalCO]

farcry 6 is the best game in the series (yes, including 3) and it is geniunly a great open world fps game.

but it wasn't well recieved critically due to franchise fatigue.

 

[Bragr]

this won't happen imo.

a game's success (which isn't the same as its quality per se) can be measured by its sales and reception among peers, critics and consumers. devs will create their games (usually) based on what's known, what concepts and gameplay ideas have been tried and what currently is popular, if not they will revolutionize or evolutionize.

a game about head butting is maybe good for a few laughs, but I doubt it would succeed. Also in this hypothesis no one would hinder you to criticize it. saying art is subjective doesn't lead to a world where no form of criticism is applied. but if someone actually has a well construed take why the head butting game is actually genius, why should we say he is wrong? It's his opinion on something subjective.

We should say he is wrong because he is an idiot if he likes that game. But it's not about his opinion, is using the "it's subjective" argument as a crutch.

 

[Bragr]

Half of video games is art. The other half is programming. The only parts of games which can be quantified is the programming. But even when we quantify the programming aspects into objective facts we are still left with subjective interpretation of good and bad.

With my previous response to another user I gave examples of this. What load times is considered good? Is 300 seconds good? 100? 60? 30? 10? What about frame rate? Is 15 fps the minimum acceptable frame rate? 30? 60? 120? 144? How about bugs? Is one bug that isn't game breaking acceptable? 10? 100? 1,000? How about controls? If a game doesn't allow you to remap controls is it a bad game? If a PC game doesn't include controller support is it a bad game? How about resolution? If a game only supports 1080p or lower is that a bad game? Or what if it only supports 4k or lower when we finally move to 8k? Does that make it bad?

I would argue that programming is also art.

To find out the answer to those questions you could look back in time, for example, we see that gameplay that is hard to reproduce survives changes in technology better than others. We have a pretty good take on what makes good frame rates at this point, as well as controls, image quality, and all those other things.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

We should say he is wrong because he is an idiot if he likes that game. But it's not about his opinion, is using the "it's subjective" argument as a crutch.

why can't we just let both takes co-exist? it's not like he argues about the earth being flat, water being green or 1+1 being 4.

I really don't see how it would be used as a crutch. You have different takes on the same subject with different conclusions. The subject matter itself being subjective. Even if only one person likes that head butting games it would remain that way. Thats all. Both takes can be valid. And things like general consensus among peers, critics and consumers would still exist. So yeah, I don't see it.

 

[Bragr]

it will when the earth will be evidently go down in flames (literially), but until then though, the earth is a sphere and 1+2 will be 3.

what I essentially mean is that there is no true and right way to do art. art shouldn't be put in exclusive self centered social clubs, with exclusive ways of doing it, and there shouldn't be gate keeping in art.
but to answer your question, yes most if not all pieces of art have their roots and influences from other pieces of art or sources outside the world of art. It's someones (subjective)interpretation of art, beauty and other aspects of life that will lead to new art. that doesn't mean though that new art can't be creative and fresh.

Yes, but the earth will go down, just like opinions change, can we then judge objectivity as something that never changes?

I do think there should be some level of gatekeeping in art, I think it's important unless everything will be considered art and everything will be watered down. Of course there limits, but it shouldn't be easy.

 

[Bragr]

why can't we just let both takes co-exist? it's not like he argues about the earth being flat, water being green or 1+1 being 4.

I really don't see how it would be used as a crutch. You have different takes on the same subject with different conclusions. The subject matter itself being subjective. Even if only one person likes that head butting games it would remain that way. Thats all. Both takes can be valid. And things like general consensus among peers, critics and consumers would still exist. So yeah, I don't see it.

Because one of the takes ignores reasoning. Saying that you enjoy pressing X 500 times to headbutt a wall is a dumb take, no matter how subjective it is.

If someone throws 10K into a lake, it's a dumb ass thing to do, saying it's subjective doesn't make it less dumb.

 

[IFireflyl]

Yes, but the earth will go down, just like opinions change, can we then judge objectivity as something that never changes?

I do think there should be some level of gatekeeping in art, I think it's important unless everything will be considered art and everything will be watered down. Of course there limits, but it shouldn't be easy.

Objectivity doesn't mean that something never changes. It means something is verifiable. The Earth is a sphere. That is verifiable. 1+1=2. That is verifiable.

To find out the answer to those questions you could look back in time, for example, we see that gameplay that is hard to reproduce survives changes in technology better than others. We have a pretty good take on what makes good frame rates at this point, as well as controls, image quality, and all those other things.

We have a pretty good take on what makes good frame rates at this point? Really? Have you not looked at the NeoGAF threads talking about how 30 fps needs to die, and 60 fps should be the minimum because people "literally can't play" 30 fps games anymore after getting used to 60 fps? This is 100% subjective. You can measure these things, but objectively defining what is good and what is bad? It can't be done. It's subjective as to what each person thinks is good. I still think the old Final Fantasy VIII game on PSX is great, and its at 15 fps. Would I prefer 60 fps? Sure. But that doesn't mean I can't handle the lower fps. But others can't even go back and play those games because they find 15 fps terrible.

Because one of the takes ignores reasoning. Saying that you enjoy pressing X 500 times to headbutt a wall is a dumb take, no matter how subjective it is.

If someone throws 10K into a lake, it's a dumb ass thing to do, saying it's subjective doesn't make it less dumb.

But this is 100% your subjective take. You're arguing that something isn't subjective from a subjective standpoint. That doesn't somehow make you right.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

Because one of the takes ignores reasoning. Saying that you enjoy pressing X 500 times to headbutt a wall is a dumb take, no matter how subjective it is.

If someone throws 10K into a lake, it's a dumb ass thing to do, saying it's subjective doesn't make it less dumb.

it may be dumb, but it's still his take. if you don't like his take you have every right in the world to counter it, just as he has every right to double down on his take.

 

[Pagusas]

Super Mario Sunshine. The game itself is actually pretty good, but if you were on forums/the internet at the time, it was basically the anti-christ.

 

[NinersAllDay]

Jedi: Fallen Order basically being Star Wars Dark Souls. The platforming was unforgivable and the combat too difficult to master. I beat the game, but even on Normal its more difficult than it needs to be. I was expecting a laid back virtual theme park ride like Tomb Raider and Assassin's Creed and instead got Dark Souls. The blocking and parrying is trash in this game. I actually prefer the combat in Assassin's Creed to this.

I hope the sequel is more forgiving. 3D platforming has always been janky to me.

 

[Shaqazooloo]

Super Mario 3D World:
Very good game, made at a time Nintendo was going 2D Mario crazy and injecting it into everything. Also the previous two 3D Mario's were Galaxy 1 & 2 and it didn't help that the game was pretty much just a console sequel to the handheld game that released a year earlier.

Nintendo really dropped the ball with this.

 

[SCB3]

I feel like Guardians of the Galaxy last year counts, people were so burnt on Avengers that this went really under the radar and is fantastic

 

[Bragr]

Objectivity doesn't mean that something never changes. It means something is verifiable. The Earth is a sphere. That is verifiable. 1+1=2. That is verifiable.



We have a pretty good take on what makes good frame rates at this point? Really? Have you not looked at the NeoGAF threads talking about how 30 fps needs to die, and 60 fps should be the minimum because people "literally can't play" 30 fps games anymore after getting used to 60 fps? This is 100% subjective. You can measure these things, but objectively defining what is good and what is bad? It can't be done. It's subjective as to what each person thinks is good. I still think the old Final Fantasy VIII game on PSX is great, and its at 15 fps. Would I prefer 60 fps? Sure. But that doesn't mean I can't handle the lower fps. But others can't even go back and play those games because they find 15 fps terrible.



But this is 100% your subjective take. You're arguing that something isn't subjective from a subjective standpoint. That doesn't somehow make you right.

Objectivity means that something is verifiable, and a consensus is verifiable.

We have plenty of data on what sort of frame rates people want, over 24 is a golden rule, 60 is preferable. You can easily test what people want if you had a comprehensive study on this.

What I was talking about at the end with the money in the river, is not about what is subjective or not, more about if we should tolerate other's opinions, no matter if it's subjective or not. You can say "it's subjective" on absolutely everything, but there is a point where it becomes absurd.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

more about if we should tolerate other's opinions,

do you mean the paradox of intolerance? like if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant?

 

[IFireflyl]

Objectivity means that something is verifiable, and a consensus is verifiable.

We have plenty of data on what sort of frame rates people want, over 24 is a golden rule, 60 is preferable. You can easily test what people want if you had a comprehensive study on this.

What I was talking about at the end with the money in the river, is not about what is subjective or not, more about if we should tolerate other's opinions, no matter if it's subjective or not. You can say "it's subjective" on absolutely everything, but there is a point where it becomes absurd.

Dude, you're not getting this. We have already said multiple times that the best you can do is say, "Objectively, X percent of people polled prefer this game/style/whatever." But that doesn't make a game objectively good or bad. Once upon a time the majority of people felt like slavery was fine. You're saying that because most people were okay with slavery that it was an objectively good thing. That's not right.

And yes, the money in the river is subjective. People throw coins into wells and fountains all the time. $10,000 to you is worth more than a coin, but to Bill Gates throwing $10,000 into a fountain would be no different than you throwing a penny into a fountain. It's subjective.

 

[Bragr]

it may be dumb, but it's still his take. if you don't like his take you have every right in the world to counter it, just as he has every right to double down on his take.

Sure, he can double down as much as he wants, but you should call out idiots when they do idiot things, no matter how subjective it is.

 

[Bragr]

Dude, you're not getting this. We have already said multiple times that the best you can do is say, "Objectively, X percent of people polled prefer this game/style/whatever." But that doesn't make a game objectively good or bad. Once upon a time the majority of people felt like slavery was fine. You're saying that because most people were okay with slavery that it was an objectively good thing. That's not right.

And yes, the money in the river is subjective. People throw coins into wells and fountains all the time. $10,000 to you is worth more than a coin, but to Bill Gates throwing $10,000 into a fountain would be no different than you throwing a penny into a fountain. It's subjective.

Slavery? man, what? man, you are far out in the fog right now man.

Think about it like this, you want to find the consensus of what people think about jumping mechanics in games. You survey hundreds of games. Through this process, you find will find out how some jumping mechanics are looked upon better than others, and eventually, you will find the best jumping mechanic as told by the sample size at any given moment.

This is the objective consensus of jumping mechanics, which is basically a measure of how our psychology functions in tandem with the on-screen interactivity. Then you can measure if other games got a similar jump mechanic. Now, of course, it would be absurd to view it that simplistic, but in our minds, this is what we do, we break it down and deduct why and why not a game system is good or not based on previous experience. Point is, our reasoning is based on something and we can argue for it. Whether or not you enjoy it or not is up to you, but you can explain why a system is better than another based on results in the target user group.

I wasn't saying it is subjective to throw money in the river lol, I said it's dumb to say "hey, for the person throwing it in, it's just subjective". That's a dumb statement. And no, 10k is not like a penny for Bill Gates hehe.

 

[Bragr]

do you mean the paradox of intolerance? like if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant?

No, I mean you can't refuse to judge someone's subjective views. If you think you are a hawk, you are an idiot.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

No, I mean you can't refuse to judge someone's subjective views. If you think you are a hawk, you are an idiot.

no disrespect to the hawk please

 

[IFireflyl]

Slavery? man, what? man, you are far out in the fog right now man.

Think about it like this, you want to find the consensus of what people think about jumping mechanics in games. You survey hundreds of games. Through this process, you find will find out how some jumping mechanics are looked upon better than others, and eventually, you will find the best jumping mechanic as told by the sample size at any given moment.

This is the objective consensus of jumping mechanics, which is basically a measure of how our psychology functions in tandem with the on-screen interactivity. Then you can measure if other games got a similar jump mechanic. Now, of course, it would be absurd to view it that simplistic, but in our minds, this is what we do, we break it down and deduct why and why not a game system is good or not based on previous experience. Point is, our reasoning is based on something and we can argue for it. Whether or not you enjoy it or not is up to you, but you can explain why a system is better than another based on results in the target user group.

I wasn't saying it is subjective to throw money in the river lol, I said it's dumb to say "hey, for the person throwing it in, it's just subjective". That's a dumb statement. And no, 10k is not like a penny for Bill Gates hehe.

How do you not see that the overall consensus of something still doesn't mean it is objectively good or bad? It is one thing to say, "X percent of people think this is a good game." It is another thing to say, "This is objectively a good game," when your basis for "objectively" is just using the majority of subjective opinions.

And yeah, that directly tied in to my slavery example. If the majority of people are okay with slavery does that make slavery objectively good? Because that's what you're saying with video games.

 

[Bragr]

How do you not see that the overall consensus of something still doesn't mean it is objectively good or bad? It is one thing to say, "X percent of people think this is a good game." It is another thing to say, "This is objectively a good game," when your basis for "objectively" is just using the majority of subjective opinions.

And yeah, that directly tied in to my slavery example. If the majority of people are okay with slavery does that make slavery objectively good? Because that's what you're saying with video games.

I'm not saying it is an objectively good game, that's you, I am saying the consensus of why this is a good game, is objective. It's objective that the majority likes it. That's a very good starting point to figure out what is what.

Last I checked, slavery isn't a video game.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm not saying it is an objectively good game, that's you, I am saying the consensus of why this is a good game, is objective. It's objective that the majority likes it. That's a very good starting point to figure out what is what.

Last I checked, slavery isn't a video game.

But I've never said anything about an objective consensus... You're arguing a point I never had a problem with. I said a LONG time ago that at most you can say, "The majority of people polled think X." That is an objective claim with verifiable proof. If there are 10,000 people polled and exactly 8,000 of them like X then you have an objective claim that 80% of people polled like X. That wasn't ever what I was discussing.

 

[SeraphJan]

I still dislike the term "Objectively good games" but I'll still play along with this post.

For me it was Resident Evil Code Veronica, when the game was released on Dreamcast in 2000 it was consider one of the best game ever made with aggravated score of 94, It was truly revolution for the horror genre at its time

But Capcom gets greedy, keep on releasing identical port on almost every platform in the later generations with nearly no enhancement, this is were the later port's reception gets bombed. Newer generation does not held the game in the standard as in 2000 when criticizing it. Soon the herd mentality follows, now this game had became the most controversial RE game in the series. Just for one example, one of the commonly criticized aspect was its cheesy voice acting, but we have to understand, in 2000 a game with full voice acting to even begin with is still rare, using later 2010 - 2020 standard of voice acting to judge a game release from 2000, the result was clear.

 

[manfestival]

Horizon Forbidden West

 

[Bragr]

But I've never said anything about an objective consensus... You're arguing a point I never had a problem with. I said a LONG time ago that at most you can say, "The majority of people polled think X." That is an objective claim with verifiable proof. If there are 10,000 people polled and exactly 8,000 of them like X then you have an objective claim that 80% of people polled like X. That wasn't ever what I was discussing.

Hey, you are the one that started discussing this with me.

 

[PanzerAzel]

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?

It’s really amazing that you guys are so adamant to this. I’ll C & P, yet again:

“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 then 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?”

I‘m awaiting an answer to this, once already ignored. By what criteria do you believe anything in this world is well made? Do buildings have superior structural integrity in one design over another simply because someone thinks so? Are high performance automobiles’ quality at the notion of subjective predilections? You don’t believe these same principles cannot be applied to a game’s design? This is the very important distinction between one’s taste, and objective metric, and to even begin to claim that subjectivity dictates quality is absolute laughable nonsense.

“If person x likes the game, who are we to say he is wrong?”

Is it possible for someone to enjoy eating feces believing it’s good for their health? Or taking a chainsaw to their legs in the same belief? Yes, but don’t attempt to sit there and shovel me this bullshit that consuming feces and chopping off your legs isn’t objectively bad for you simply because someone (somehow) enjoys it. There are absolutely, 100%, objectively better made games than others. Some may like them, some may hate them. I myself dislike quite a few games that I can admit are, objectively, incredibly well-crafted. But my feelings have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Simply because I dislike them in no way means they are poorly made.

 

[IFireflyl]

It’s really amazing that you guys are so adamant to this. I’ll C & P, yet again:

“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 then 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?”

I will repeat what I said earlier:

Half of video games is art. The other half is programming. The only parts of games which can be quantified is the programming. But even when we quantify the programming aspects into objective facts we are still left with subjective interpretation of good and bad.

With my previous response to another user I gave examples of this. What maximum load time is considered good? Is 300 seconds good? 100? 60? 30? 10? What about frame rate? Is 15 fps the minimum acceptable frame rate? 30? 60? 120? 144? How about bugs? Is one bug that isn't game breaking acceptable? 10? 100? 1,000? How about controls? If a game doesn't allow you to remap controls is it a bad game? If a PC game doesn't include controller support is it a bad game? How about resolution? If a game only supports 1080p or lower is that a bad game? Or what if it only supports 4k or lower when we finally move to 8k? Does that make it bad?

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.

 

[IFireflyl]

“If person x likes the game, who are we to say he is wrong?”

Is it possible for someone to enjoy eating feces believing it’s good for their health? Or taking a chainsaw to their legs in the same belief? Yes, but don’t attempt to sit there and shovel me this bullshit that consuming feces and chopping off your legs isn’t objectively bad for you simply because someone (somehow) enjoys it. There are absolutely, 100%, objectively better made games than others. Some may like them, some may hate them. I myself dislike quite a few games that I can admit are, objectively, incredibly well-crafted. But my feelings have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Simply because I dislike them in no way means they are poorly made.

We have objective data that shows how eating feces or cutting off your legs is harmful. But someone could say that amputating their legs is subjectively good because its given them a new outlook that has enhanced their life. You can't say that they are objectively wrong for having a subjectively good experience even by doing something that is objectively harmful physically.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

It’s really amazing that you guys are so adamant to this. I’ll C & P, yet again:

“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 then 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?”

I‘m awaiting an answer to this, once already ignored. By what criteria do you believe anything in this world is well made? Do buildings have superior structural integrity in one design over another simply because someone thinks so? Are high performance automobiles’ quality at the notion of subjective predilections? You don’t believe these same principles cannot be applied to a game’s design? This is the very important distinction between one’s taste, and objective metric, and to even begin to claim that subjectivity dictates quality is absolute laughable nonsense.

“If person x likes the game, who are we to say he is wrong?”

Is it possible for someone to enjoy eating feces believing it’s good for their health? Or taking a chainsaw to their legs in the same belief? Yes, but don’t attempt to sit there and shovel me this bullshit that consuming feces and chopping off your legs isn’t objectively bad for you simply because someone (somehow) enjoys it. There are absolutely, 100%, objectively better made games than others. Some may like them, some may hate them. I myself dislike quite a few games that I can admit are, objectively, incredibly well-crafted. But my feelings have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Simply because I dislike them in no way means they are poorly made.

What is argued, is that the overall enjoyment of a game and art in itself is subjective, and that even applies to art that is poorly regarded among the general public.
No one argues that a non functional camera is something good (and even then this is highly specific), although I'd definitely say that to a certain degree people can perceive cameras differently. I've heard people saying that Resident Evil has an objectively bad camera. I couldn't disagree more. I like how cinematic the camera is, all the different shots that build up the atmosphere. Now to be fair, in Resident Evil you can't really move your camera like in Mario Sunshine or most modern games, but it shows that even the camera can be subjective in a way. Now if the camera is broken, not working etc. I'd consider it poorly designed. Objectively bad if you will. To which degree this applies is another question, because again, some people may have less problems with the camera than others.

You wouldn't compare music or a movie to a car or a building, wouldn't you? I already answered that though.
Anyway, if you build all those barriers and and keep gate keeping what is and what isn't art, we will be stuck one day with super generic, homogenized 'art' devoid of anything.

and as for the comparison with the feces... seriously, I'm speechless. Come on, what's next? Is it possible to hit your thump rapidly with a hammer and believing its good for your health? Yes, it's possible, but what do you think this will tell me? That eating feces and cutting off your legs is objectively bad? Yeah, it is. Duh. Just has nothing to do with video games being art and art being subjective.

 

[SeraphJan]

What is argued is that the overall enjoyment of a game and art in itself is subjective, and that even applies to media that is poorly regarded among the general public.
No one argues that a non functional camera is something good (and even then this is highly specific), although I'd definitely say that to a certain degree people can perceive cameras differently. I've heard people saying that Resident Evil has an objectively bad camera. I couldn't disagree more. I like how cinematic the camera is, all the different shots that build up the atmosphere. Now to be fair, in Resident Evil you can't really move your camera like in Mario Sunshine or most modern games, but it shows that even the camera can be subjective in a way. Now if the camera is broken, not working etc. I'd consider it poorly designed. Objectively bad if you will. To which degree this applies is another question, because again, some people may have less problems with the camera than others.

You wouldn't compare music or a movie to a car or a building, wouldn't you? I already answered that though.
Anyway, if you build all those barriers and and keep gate keeping what is and what isn't art, we will be stuck one day with super generic, homogenized 'art' devoid of anything.

and as for the comparison with the feces... seriously, I'm speechless. Come on, what's next? Is it possible to hit your thump rapidly with a hammer and believing its good for your health? Yes, it's possible, but what do you think this will tell me? That eating feces and cutting off your legs is objectively bad? Yeah, it is. Duh. Just has nothing to do with video games being art and art being subjective.

After pages of reading this thread, I found out that the real problem is actually Logical fallacy, Its incredibly difficult to debate with people having Logical fallacy, because even themselves does not realize it.

 

[MHubert]

Art cannot be objectively measured, so the overall product cannot be objectively measured.

This is just a false statement, plain and simple - every artform involves craftmanship and technique - something that can, and is, being objectively measured and valued every day. There is a reason why you can learn this stuff at a school.

Why is it you claim that videogames is 'Art', and not merely an artform?

 

[IFireflyl]

This is just a false statement, plain and simple - every artform involves craftmanship and technique - something that can, and is, being objectively measured and valued every day. There is a reason why you can learn this stuff at a school.

Why is it you claim that videogames is 'Art', and not merely an artform?

Do you know what art form means?

Art form: a form or medium of expression recognized as fine art.
Fine art: art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural.

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?

 

[SeraphJan]

Talking about logical fallacy, we have one here too

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

This is just a false statement, plain and simple - every artform involves craftmanship and technique - something that can, and is, being objectively measured and valued every day. There is a reason why you can learn this stuff at a school.

my art teacher would like to have a talk with you

there is no objectivity in art. per definition it doesn't exist in the world of arts. there is no right way or wrong way of doing things as art isn't based on verifiable evidence. why is it so hard to accept this?
out of all the things you can learn in school, most of them will be either 100% objective absolutes (e.g. maths), or empirically proven (e.g. social sciences). art is neither.
video games are admittedly a little bit of an outliner here, because the development of a video game also has objective and empirical aspects (e.g. programming), and technical aspects are measurable, but ultimately it boils down to an individuals enjoyment
and that is subjective. if you go with the idea of video games being 50% art and 50% programming that makes at least one half subjective and you can't just leave out the art-part of video games just for the sake of it.

 

[MHubert]

Do you know what art form means?

Art form: a form or medium of expression recognized as fine art.
Fine art: art (such as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural.

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?

You just quoted Merriam-Webster - one can only wonder why you purposefully left out these examples from the same article:
a: an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed
b: an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement

People have already provided you with plenty of objective criteria that can be measured in a video game but you are gracefully ignoring them all and I'm not going to teach you how to be good at painting, dancing, singing, sculpturing, cooking or making video games. Go to school for that.

 

[IFireflyl]

You just quoted Merriam-Webster - one can only wonder why you purposefully left out these examples from the same article:
a: an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed
b: an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement

People have already provided you with plenty of objective criteria that can be measured in a video game but you are gracefully ignoring them all and I'm not going to teach you how to be good at painting, dancing, singing, sculpturing, cooking or making video games. Go to school for that.

Not a single person has provided me with objective criteria that can be measured objectively in a video game. You're dodging the question because you don't have answers. You're also dodging the question about how art is judged objectively because you don't have the answers. Don't bother replying with a "gotcha!" post if you're then going to cross your arms when I challenge you. This just proves you came in here to say, "I'm right and you're wrong, but I don't have to tell you how!"

 

[MHubert]

my art teacher would like to have a talk with you

there is no objectivity in art. per definition it doesn't exist in the world of arts. there is no right way or wrong way of doing things as art isn't based on verifiable evidence. why is it so hard to accept this?
out of all the things you can learn in school, most of them will be either 100% objective absolutes (e.g. maths), or empirically proven (e.g. social sciences). art is neither.
video games are admittedly a little bit of an outliner here, because the development of a video game also has objective and empirical aspects (e.g. programming), and technical aspects are measurable, but ultimately it boils down to an individuals enjoyment
and that is subjective. if you go with the idea of video games being 50% art and 50% programming that makes at least one half subjective and you can't just leave out the art-part of video games just for the sake of it.

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.

 

[MHubert]

Not a single person has provided me with objective criteria that can be measured objectively in a video game. You're dodging the question because you don't have answers. You're also dodging the question about how art is judged objectively because you don't have the answers. Don't bother replying with a "gotcha!" post if you're then going to cross your arms when I challenge you. This just proves you came in here to say, "I'm right and you're wrong, but I don't have to tell you how!"

Every person has. I think it is time for you to open up to the fact that you might have a flawed understanding of what the term objective means, and how it is used in language - something that has been pointed out to you a few times already. There is tons of material - books, videos, message boards, videos - about how to make good video games, or how to be a good painter for that matter, and you are basically asking me to sum all that up for you. Art is being valued objectively all the time, through numerous metrics.

How about you tell me what cannot be measured objectively in a videogame?

 

[MomsNewBoyfriend]

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

On what planet? It was so droll beyond some very good dialogue animation. In most ways it's not even far cry tier

 

[IFireflyl]

Every person has. I think it is time for you to open up to the fact that you might have a flawed understanding of what the term objective means, and how it is used in language - something that has been pointed out to you a few times already. There is tons of material - books, videos, message boards, videos - about how to make good video games, or how to be a good painter for that matter, and you are basically asking me to sum all that up for you. Art is being valued objectively all the time, through countless metrics.

How about you tell me what cannot be measured objectively in a videogame?

That's like telling a person they have to prove unicorns don't exist. You're the one making the claim that there is objective criteria that determines if a game is good or bad. Just list it.

 

[MHubert]

There are exactly zero objectively good games. "Good" is an entirely subjective term.

You are the one who claim something (merited objective valuation of a videogame) doesn't exist. I just pointed out that objective valuation is being done all the time, even to the point where people write books about it and companies spend millions on Q&A.

So, please tell me, what is inappropriate to value objectively in a videogame?

 

[radewagon]

What did I just walk into? This poor thread had such promise.

 

[IFireflyl]

You are the one who claim something (merited objective valuation of a videogame) doesn't exist. I just pointed out that objective valuation is being done all the time, even to the point where people write books about it and companies spend millions on Q&A.

So, please tell me, what is inappropriate to value objectively in a videogame?

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.