fun is subjective. quality is not.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Games are complex and hard to break down and analyze. Take this example:

We have 2 toothbrushes in front of us.

Nr 1 is of higher quality than the 2nd, lets assume we have defined exactly what quality is in a toothbrush. (objective)

However, the quality toothbrush does not come in the color red which happends to be my fav. (subjective)

I choose the red one because in my mind, its more important to have the red colored one as the higher quality one wont do much difference. But I will still agree that the first toothbrush is of higher quality.

(Game is good, but not for me)

smokeydabear076

I agree with you about the entertainment part. It's all about gameplay yes, but the gameplay can be stellar, and still there's some people will say "the game sucks", which is strange for me (super mario galaxy). The game might not entertain you, but it has quality gameplay compared to other platform games in 3D.

You can say about a game: "This game did not entertain me, because I am not into this type of genre / artwork / whatever." This would actually be a topic fun to discuss, to get a perspective which is radically different from my own, on the same matter. But to say SMG sucks is wtf to me

IGN made a prediction list pre-oscars where they listed 2 things: Movies / actors that they THINK will win an oscar, and movies / actors that they WANT to win. In my mind that means; It's a damn good movie / But I personally liked this movie more.

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"][QUOTE="Theguy56"] Crap game no, but not quality. I also think MW2 is not a quality game even if it got AAA reviews almost everywhere. Sales are definitely not an indicator of quality. I don't usually put trust in reviewers who only try to see quality in FPS.smokeydabear076

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] That is fine by me. Why should I care if people on the internet agree with my opinion or not? It is nothing more than opinion, just as yours is nothing more than opinion. Yours does not gain strength by numbers.Dystopian-X

idk quality of a game are from reviews which are their own opinions but fun is subjective no doubt

I agree with you about the entertainment part. It's all about gameplay yes, but the gameplay can be stellar, and still there's some people will say "the game sucks", which is strange for me (super mario galaxy). The game might not entertain you, but it has quality gameplay compared to other platform games in 3D.

You can say about a game: "This game did not entertain me, because I am not into this type of genre / artwork / whatever." This would actually be a topic fun to discuss, to get a perspective which is radically different from my own, on the same matter. But to say SMG sucks is wtf to me

IGN made a prediction list pre-oscars where they listed 2 things: Movies / actors that they THINK will win an oscar, and movies / actors that they WANT to win. In my mind that means; It's a damn good movie / But I personally liked this movie more.

kontejner44

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]Quality is not subjective You can respect a game and how its been designed but not enjoy it, or vice versa. tomarlyn

i feel this message needs to be spread to all system wariors.

for example, halo 3. it is a high quality game. it has good graphics (for the time) great soundtrack, and great level design and weapons.

did you have playing it? maybe.

another example: super mario galaxy. a high quality game. absolutely level design, wonderful soundtrack, great gameplay.

did you have fun? you should¨ve, but maybe its not you're kind of game.

so when people say "*insert bad game here* is the best" they're wrong: its a bad game, but he had fun playing it.

or if they say:"*insert AAA game here* sucks." they're wrong, its a high quality game, but they didn't have fun with it

discuss.

gamedude234

I agree with the statement, but your OP isn't really strong in supporting that. :?

But yeah, quality of games can not be denied. Many people didn't like FF13, but I see it as a game of extremely high production values.

surely the quality of a game is derived from how much fun/enjoyment you got from it? unless were talking about bugs and instability in the game.osan0

Not at all. I think SMG is a very quality game, but I have more fun playing No More Heroes 2. The later is not nearly as quality and polished as SMG, but I still find it to be more fun. If what you say were true, the game with the highest production value would always be the most fun.

I believe an objective person can see the quality behind a game even if they don't find it that fun. I don't find the GTA series to be much fun, but there are some quality GTA games. Thus, fun factor is more subjective than quality.

...Quality is subjective.:| Your example of "well,this game has great level design, music, etc." assumes that these statements are fact, which they are not.

VGobbsesser

Quality is subjective though. Maybe you didn't like the music, or the levels and environments. Maybe you didn't like the art style, you can't just say something is "high quality" it's still an opinionmgkennedy5

I agree. Wii Sports Resort is one of my favorite games this generation, and most people wouldn't call it quality.

It's easily the most fun game I've ever played though.

Yes...

But at the same time: Reviews =/= Objective

So AAA title doesent mean its a quality title, it just means the reviewer liked playing it (or his walet gained some weight).

I agree. quality is not subjective.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"] Sales can be a result of quality though, and ongoing popularity is certainly an indicator of quality. Why would hundreds of thousands of people continue to play the game every day if it was crap? Anyway, sounds to me like you getting into conspiracy theory territory, which i don't really have time for. Halo gets reviewed very well because its a high quality game. You should really just accept that it doesn't suit you, but that by no means makes it any less of a quality game. Anjunaddict

[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"] Sales can be a result of quality though, and ongoing popularity is certainly an indicator of quality. Why would hundreds of thousands of people continue to play the game every day if it was crap? Anyway, sounds to me like you getting into conspiracy theory territory, which i don't really have time for. Halo gets reviewed very well because its a high quality game. You should really just accept that it doesn't suit you, but that by no means makes it any less of a quality game. Vandalvideo

Anyway, I 100% agree with your post, TC.

...Quality is subjective.:| Your example of "well,this game has great level design, music, etc." assumes that these statements are fact, which they are not.

VGobbsesser

\ No, there are established technical methods you can judge pretty much anything in a video game review, and that is exactly what he's talking about. Some are not very good at it, some are, but it all comes down to the fun you have. rolo107

And I refer you to...

Higher fidelity does not necessarily equate to higher quality. Some people prefer the minimalist approach to design. One may prefer the low res graphics of a game like Mega Man X to that of Crysis, or someone may prefer the sound of midi to that of modern orchestral scores. Everything is subjective. Vandalvideo

So, just because I love Halo, I'm being brainwashed into thinking it's good by a "Horde Mentality"? I mean, what's your beef against Halo and its fanbase?gmc2u_64

So i dislike Onions so the quality of an Onion is bad it was badly designed and did not incorporate what i like in a vegetable. jwsoul

That's not really the same situation there... You can't use onions as a comparison to games. One is far more complex than the other. In fact, your argument doesn't actually make much sense.

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"] So, just because I love Halo, I'm being brainwashed into thinking it's good by a "Horde Mentality"? I mean, what's your beef against Halo and its fanbase?Vandalvideo

Quality is subjective becuase it depends on what aspects you value in a game.

[QUOTE="88mphSlayer"]

i think it'd be better if you pointed out what quality means in a video game

gamedude234

everything exept fun really.

I totally disagree - quality is subjective. for ex:- Oblivion is an AAA game at GR/GS/MC but I find it pretty lame -- so I don't really see the quality here and it's not because "but maybe its not you're kind of game"naval

I totally disagree - quality is subjective. for ex:- Oblivion is an AAA game at GR/GS/MC but I find it pretty lame -- so I don't really see the quality here and it's not because "but maybe its not you're kind of game"naval

But is the game something that appeals to a large majority? It most certainly is. The big world, wealth of choices and considerable emphasis on building up a character is something that one core demographic loves in their games. Not liking a game, and even not seeing what others like in it, does not equate that the quality isn't present.

For instance, I find Fallout 3 bland, rather boring, glitchy and generic. I don't personally see why it's popular. However, and it might seem a large contrast, I know that the game is very well-crafted, offers an atmosphere that appeals to many and has more choices in it then most other games. It's that differentation that the OP is going for. You can literally hate a game, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively bad.

This isn't the only medium that acts this way. Music can be judged based on how well the performers play the instruments, sing or how the song is written (is it derivative, stolen etc.). In movies, you can look at the cinematography, how well the actors portray their roles, how the story is presented; does it stay in the confines of its relative genre and other things of that matter. In literature, is the story well-written, are there grammatical mistakes present, how does the story flow etc. If there was no objective quality present in gaming media, then it would be impossible, in contrast, to say a game is bad. Is there anyone willing to say that Stalin vs. Martians is bad in only a subjective sense? What about Big Rigs? Superman 64? The list goes on. If one game is unequivocally bad, then it must work in the opposite way. Of course, people's taste on what is quality varies, but it isn't hard to categorize gamers into a number of groups that like a certain components in their games. That's what this is all about.

...Quality is subjective.:| Your example of "well,this game has great level design, music, etc." assumes that these statements are fact, which they are not.

VGobbsesser

[QUOTE="naval"]I totally disagree - quality is subjective. for ex:- Oblivion is an AAA game at GR/GS/MC but I find it pretty lame -- so I don't really see the quality here and it's not because "but maybe its not you're kind of game"calvinsora

But is the game something that appeals to a large majority? It most certainly is. The big world, wealth of choices and considerable emphasis on building up a character is something that one core demographic loves in their games. Not liking a game, and even not seeing what others like in it, does not equate that the quality isn't present.

No, It may quality for majority ,but not for me . What does this say ? Quality is subjective. Let point out the things you bought up :-

big world - It was a big world filled uninteresting copy paste locations , dull quests, poorly devloped characters.

wealth of choices - What wealth of choices ? all choice I saw was to kill all.

considerable emphasis on building up a character - Sorry but the character building system was average at best, pretty simplistic, lacking any variety or depth and one could easily master in all areas

So like I said you may see the quality, but I don't see where it is and hence I cannot consider it a quality game

[QUOTE="VGobbsesser"]

...Quality is subjective.:| Your example of "well,this game has great level design, music, etc." assumes that these statements are fact, which they are not.

Wolfetan

These kids crack me up.

I'll just echo what you guys have said and agreed to.

Quality IS subjective. That something is 16.2 cm radius, 8.0 kg. Those are measurable, replicatable facts that no one can refute. The moment you say 8.0 cm is too heavy or too light...those are applications of quality that an individual places on that object. This is highly subjective.

Same with games. The Sims does not have the same graphical fidelity of Crysis. This can be measured in pixel count, resolution, etc. But that one is better than the other is purely subjective. Someone of simple gaming tastes may find the simplicity of Sims's graphics to be a perfect fit with style and mechanics of the game. In that way, he may think The Sims's graphics are better. He's not wrong. That's just his idea of quality.

Most people may disagree and say Crysis has better graphics. But that doesn't make it fact. That's just concensus.

Tbh, there are certain properties of a game that is of objective quality, and certain that is subjective. The answer is both, not one of them.

You just have to agree, from a critical standpoint, that Super Mario Galaxy should be rated somewhere between 9 and 10 (objective). There are always extreme cases,with 8-8.5's. But any digit lower than that is way out of line. It's out of the "objective" intervall.

I love discussing with my friends whether a game should be given 9 or 10 = discuss the subjective part of the game. One of them says, it's not for me since I am more into story-based games, so I would've given it a 9, while I, who happends to study physics, find SMG's to have such brilliant gameplay with the gravity parts, that the fact is has no story, the gameplay outweights it anyway, so I give it a 10. We have exactly the same conversation when it comes to GTA4, but this time I'm the one giving it a 9, while he a 10. 10 because the story / graphics / details are so incredible, that it outweights gameplay in his mind.

But if you come and say Super mario galaxy is bad = less than 5, then you are completely out of line, period.

Edit: forgot to mention, you rate the game compared to other games. It is a 10 compared to this console gen's other games. The Conduit, is a 8.5 compared to Wii FPS's. But only a mere 7 at max, compared to all FPS games out, this gen.

Tbh, there are certain properties of a game that is of objective quality, and certain that is subjective. The answer is both, not one of them.

You just have to agree, from a critical standpoint, that Super Mario Galaxy should be rated somewhere between 9 and 10 (objective). There are always extreme cases,with 8-8.5's. But any digit lower than that is way out of line. It's out of the "objective" intervall.

I love discussing with my friends whether a game should be given 9 or 10 = discuss the subjective part of the game. One of them says, it's not for me since I am more into story-based games, so I would've given it a 9, while I, who happends to study physics, find SMG's to have such brilliant gameplay with the gravity parts, that the fact is has no story, the gameplay outweights it anyway, so I give it a 10. We have exactly the same conversation when it comes to GTA4, but this time I'm the one giving it a 9, while he a 10. 10 because the story / graphics / details are so incredible, that it outweights gameplay in his mind.

But if you come and say Super mario galaxy is bad = less than 5, then you are completely out of line, period.

kontejner44

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Tbh, there are certain properties of a game that is of objective quality, and certain that is subjective. The answer is both, not one of them.

You just have to agree, from a critical standpoint, that Super Mario Galaxy should be rated somewhere between 9 and 10 (objective). There are always extreme cases,with 8-8.5's. But any digit lower than that is way out of line. It's out of the "objective" intervall.

I love discussing with my friends whether a game should be given 9 or 10 = discuss the subjective part of the game. One of them says, it's not for me since I am more into story-based games, so I would've given it a 9, while I, who happends to study physics, find SMG's to have such brilliant gameplay with the gravity parts, that the fact is has no story, the gameplay outweights it anyway, so I give it a 10. We have exactly the same conversation when it comes to GTA4, but this time I'm the one giving it a 9, while he a 10. 10 because the story / graphics / details are so incredible, that it outweights gameplay in his mind.

But if you come and say Super mario galaxy is bad = less than 5, then you are completely out of line, period.

Vandalvideo

Read the edit xD

Read the edit xDkontejner44

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="naval"]I totally disagree - quality is subjective. for ex:- Oblivion is an AAA game at GR/GS/MC but I find it pretty lame -- so I don't really see the quality here and it's not because "but maybe its not you're kind of game"naval

But is the game something that appeals to a large majority? It most certainly is. The big world, wealth of choices and considerable emphasis on building up a character is something that one core demographic loves in their games. Not liking a game, and even not seeing what others like in it, does not equate that the quality isn't present.

No, It may quality for majority ,but not for me . What does this say ? Quality is subjective. Let point out the things you bought up :-

big world - It was a big world filled uninteresting copy paste locations , dull quests, poorly devloped characters.

wealth of choices - What wealth of choices ? all choice I saw was to kill all.

considerable emphasis on building up a character - Sorry but the character building system was average at best, pretty simplistic, lacking any variety or depth and one could easily master in all areas

So like I said you may see the quality, but I don't see where it is and hence I cannot consider it a quality game

I'm also not a big fan of the character build-up, I think it's bland and boring. But that doesn't mean it is for others. It just doesn't appeal to a certain group of people, hence, it is good for what it is. Wealth of choices, however, is what Oblivion really has in spades. You could join guilds, learn magic, take on missions such as espionage missions and missions based on thievery, you could become an assassin, a benevolent hero, a thief, whatever you really wanted. Weapons were in the hundreds, ranging from swords to bows to hammers. The characters are an objective downside of the game, most reviewers agree on this. The game has bad characters. The big world motif genuinely appeals to a number of people.

The focus here lies in the fact that certain concepts work for a certain type of taste. If taste varied really that much, then indeed, it would be subjective, but there is a large similarity to be found in the gaming community. If something is good for the crowd it is trying to appeal to, then the developers have achieved their goal. I don't like sports games, period, but does that instantly mean there are no quality sports games out there? Just based on my personal whim? I don't think so, at least.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]Read the edit xDVandalvideo

Depends what you compare the story with. Compare it with GTA4 and it's probably even lower, but I'm talking about overall score. I compare it as it should, SMG story vs other 3D platformers story, say ratchet and clank. Gameplay outweights story in the case of SMG, that's why I am basically neglecting "story" factor of the game. Example:

Ratchet and clank story / gameplay = 9 / 8, Overall score = 8.2

SMG story/ gameplay = 8 / 9,Overall= 8.8

The fact is that the overall score in this example should be around 8.5 but depending on what you value as a person, it can get an 8 or a 9.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]Read the edit xDkontejner44

Depends what you compare the story with. Compare it with GTA4 and it's probably even lower, but I'm talking about overall score. I compare it as it should, SMG story vs other 3D platformers story, say ratchet and clank. Gameplay outweights story in the case of SMG, that's why I am basically neglecting "story" factor of the game. Example:

Ratchet and clank story / gameplay = 9 / 8, Overall score = 8.2

SMG story/ gameplay = 8 / 9,Overall= 8.8

The fact is that the overall score in this example should be around 8.5 but depending on what you value as a person, it can get an 8 or a 9.

Well I see what you mean, you want to define your own system of rating a game, which can be vastly different than the norm, so in your system the same game would get much less. Then I can see why you call it completely subjetive. That is completely un-interesting for me, I want to go after the norm, because otherwise, the whole world would be subjective and, frankly, boring. I am a scientist, the world is based on laws. Either natural laws, or definitions humans set. I go after the definition of the professional gaming world.

Tbh, there are certain properties of a game that is of objective quality, and certain that is subjective. The answer is both, not one of them.

You just have to agree, from a critical standpoint, that Super Mario Galaxy should be rated somewhere between 9 and 10 (objective). There are always extreme cases,with 8-8.5's. But any digit lower than that is way out of line. It's out of the "objective" intervall.

I love discussing with my friends whether a game should be given 9 or 10 = discuss the subjective part of the game. One of them says, it's not for me since I am more into story-based games, so I would've given it a 9, while I, who happends to study physics, find SMG's to have such brilliant gameplay with the gravity parts, that the fact is has no story, the gameplay outweights it anyway, so I give it a 10. We have exactly the same conversation when it comes to GTA4, but this time I'm the one giving it a 9, while he a 10. 10 because the story / graphics / details are so incredible, that it outweights gameplay in his mind.

But if you come and say Super mario galaxy is bad = less than 5, then you are completely out of line, period.

Edit: forgot to mention, you rate the game compared to other games. It is a 10 compared to this console gen's other games. The Conduit, is a 8.5 compared to Wii FPS's. But only a mere 7 at max, compared to all FPS games out, this gen.

kontejner44

Brilliant, outweigh, incredible.

Quantify those terms in a way that's universally accepted. Exactly what constitutes "brilliant" or "incredible"? At what measurable way does one aspect of a game outweigh another?

You can't. They are subjective terms used to define your "objectivity".

Who says I have to rate a game compared to other games? You? I'll rate it based on whatever I want. You're certainly not going to dictate it to me. If you're trying to state an assumption or premise to your argument, then I don't agree with your premise.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]Read the edit xDkontejner44

Depends what you compare the story with. Compare it with GTA4 and it's probably even lower, but I'm talking about overall score. I compare it as it should, SMG story vs other 3D platformers story, say ratchet and clank. Gameplay outweights story in the case of SMG, that's why I am basically neglecting "story" factor of the game. Example:

Ratchet and clank story / gameplay = 9 / 8, Overall score = 8.2

SMG story/ gameplay = 8 / 9,Overall= 8.8

The fact is that the overall score in this example should be around 8.5 but depending on what you value as a person, it can get an 8 or a 9.

Well I see what you mean, you want to define your own system of rating a game, which can be vastly different than the norm, so in your system the same game would get much less. Then I can see why you call it completely subjetive. That is completely un-interesting for me, I want to go after the norm, because otherwise, the whole world would be subjective and, frankly, boring. I am a scientist, the world is based on laws. Either natural laws, or definitions humans set. I go after the definition of the professional gaming world.

kontejner44

The "norm" is not objective. It's a concensus. Consensus is not fact. If your idea of quality is so heavily based on what other people think, then more power to you.

I'll stick to thinking for myself.

I'm also not a big fan of the character build-up, I think it's bland and boring. But that doesn't mean it is for others. It just doesn't appeal to a certain group of people, hence, it is good for what it is.

calvinsora

Just because if it appeals to a group of people , why should I need to consider it good or quality ? If some group of people consider Big Rigs a quality game, then should I say "It just doesn't appeal to a certain group of people, hence, it is good for what it is." ?

Wealth of choices, however, is what Oblivion really has in spades. You could join guilds, learn magic, take on missions such as espionage missions and missions based on thievery, you could become an assassin, a benevolent hero, a thief, whatever you really wanted. Weapons were in the hundreds, ranging from swords to bows to hammers. The characters are an objective downside of the game, most reviewers agree on this. The game has bad characters. The big world motif genuinely appeals to a number of people.calvinsora

These are not really choices -- you don't have to choose between anything -- you can do everything . Like you said you can become an Assassin andbenevolenthero at the same time .Also, You have no choice of how to do things. So for me the game fails at having choices

The focus here lies in the fact that certain concepts work for a certain type of taste. If taste varied really that much, then indeed, it would be subjective, but there is a large similarity to be found in the gaming community. If something is good for the crowd it is trying to appeal to, then the developers have achieved their goal. I don't like sports games, period, but does that instantly mean there are no quality sports games out there? Just based on my personal whim? I don't think so, at least.

calvinsora

"certain concepts work for a certain type of taste" -- yes and that true for all games even games scoring high and game scoring low. games like Necorvision, Hellgate London, Too Human etc appeal to a large group of gamers, but that doesn't everyone should consider it to be a quality game just because other gamers thinks.

"If something is good for the crowd it is trying to appeal to" - How to do you define the Crowd it is appealing to ? I have played all the Elder Scrol games starting from daggerfall and generally like all kinds of rpgs. Secondly, I can agree with if the game appeals to a large group of people, I would say the the devolopers have achieved their goal of making money, but how does it means it is a quality game. Would you call the first 50 cents game high quality because it sold so well ?

"I don't like sports games, period, but does that instantly mean there are no quality sports games out there" - May be the quality in sports games is not there for you, but as your opinion =/= fact it doesn't really meansthere are no quality sports games out there.

Another way to look at this is if you critically look at the various aspects of the game, based on your own views of what makes a game a quality game, to determine the quality of a game---- it shouldn't really matter to you if others think it is a quality game or not

It doesn't matter how many numbers you have, it won't turn subjectivity into objectivity. Subjectivity is still subjectivity. Vandalvideo

Yes it does matter. It can't change your preference but lack of numbers means you can be easily dead wrong and have an uneducated opinion.

You may prefer something like a midi as sound format but that will never mean it's of higher technical quality than say lossless audio.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Well I see what you mean, you want to define your own system of rating a game, which can be vastly different than the norm, so in your system the same game would get much less. Then I can see why you call it completely subjetive. That is completely un-interesting for me, I want to go after the norm, because otherwise, the whole world would be subjective and, frankly, boring. I am a scientist, the world is based on laws. Either natural laws, or definitions humans set. I go after the definition of the professional gaming world.

VoodooHak

The "norm" is not objective. It's a concensus. Consensus is not fact. If your idea of quality is so heavily based on what other people think, then more power to you.

I'll stick to thinking for myself.

It's human nature to stick with the norm, because from a biological PoV, we just don't have time to "think for ourselves" in every case. What I mean when I say norm, is that the norm is my standpoint. From there, I start arguing. You on the other hand have no standpoint, you begin from 0 and argue your way through by definitions you have created yourself

I can't believe what I'm reading here. How so many people here can say quality is "objective" makes me sad for humanity.

Different people have different standards of quality. If I say that Halo is a "high quality game", that is my opinion, not a fact. I thought this was common knowledge. WTF?

Both are subjective, I don't care what anyone says.

With that said, I do not think Halo is a quality game.

Theguy56

Yeah, you shouldn't because anybody that says that quality in games is objective is objectively wrong.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] It doesn't matter how many numbers you have, it won't turn subjectivity into objectivity. Subjectivity is still subjectivity. Dystopian-X

Yes it does matter. It can't change your preference but lack of numbers means you can be easily dead wrong and have an uneducated opinion.

You may prefer something like a midi as sound format but that will never mean it's of higher technical quality than say lossless audio.

[QUOTE="osan0"]surely the quality of a game is derived from how much fun/enjoyment you got from it? unless were talking about bugs and instability in the game.mrfokken

Not at all. I think SMG is a very quality game, but I have more fun playing No More Heroes 2. The later is not nearly as quality and polished as SMG, but I still find it to be more fun. If what you say were true, the game with the highest production value would always be the most fun.

I believe an objective person can see the quality behind a game even if they don't find it that fun. I don't find the GTA series to be much fun, but there are some quality GTA games. Thus, fun factor is more subjective than quality.