fun is subjective. quality is not.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[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.

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.

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

This is why, if you go out to the internetz and read reviews of movies / games etc. They tend to say, from a personal standpoint I did not like this game, but from a critical standpoint, it is a good one nonetheless, if you are into this type of genre you will like it, etc.

Twilight:NM review on IGN: basically what she says is it's overall a 2.5.But the fans will like it nonetheless. Obviously she is a fan because 2.5 is way higher than any other review i've seen, and she even says I think that she is a fan of the series, from a movie standpoint, its not something you don't want to see (1/5), but if you are into vampires and stuff (2/5), or love the series (2.5/5) then its a movie for u. This is how the "norm" works

Edit: it's funny, if you look at the poll, which atm is basically 50/50. Quality is actually both subjective and objevtive as I argued in an earlier post

I have a question for all of you people who think quality is objective:

Do you guys all think Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Galaxy, and GTAIV are the most quality experiences of all time?

I have a question for all of you people who think quality is objective:

Do you guys all think Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Galaxy, and GTAIV are the most quality experiences of all time?

GreySeal9

OoT is holding up pretty ok, altough in my eyes,mario 64 is unplayable due to the at-the-time stellar controls, being out-dated. For its time, OoT was the best game out there and mario 64 was a quality game, still probably is in other aspects, but not control-wise.

SMG and GTA4 are quality games, compared to other games of theire genre / gen.

Personally...... SMG is the best experience overall, all time. best game ever. GTA4 is not on my top 3, but its somewhere there

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I have a question for all of you people who think quality is objective:

Do you guys all think Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Galaxy, and GTAIV are the most quality experiences of all time?

kontejner44

OoT is holding up pretty ok, altough in my eyes,mario 64 is unplayable due to the at-the-time stellar controls, being out-dated. For its time, OoT was the best game out there and mario 64 was a quality game, still probably is in other aspects, but not control-wise.

SMG and GTA4 are quality games, compared to other games of theire genre / gen.

Personally...... SMG is the best experience overall, all time. best game ever. GTA4 is not on my top 3, but its somewhere there

I'm aware that all of those are quality experiences and I'd put all three very high on the list. I'm just saying that it game quality is objective, those three must be considered the most quality, no questions asked.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I have a question for all of you people who think quality is objective:

Do you guys all think Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Galaxy, and GTAIV are the most quality experiences of all time?

GreySeal9

OoT is holding up pretty ok, altough in my eyes,mario 64 is unplayable due to the at-the-time stellar controls, being out-dated. For its time, OoT was the best game out there and mario 64 was a quality game, still probably is in other aspects, but not control-wise.

SMG and GTA4 are quality games, compared to other games of theire genre / gen.

Personally...... SMG is the best experience overall, all time. best game ever. GTA4 is not on my top 3, but its somewhere there

I'm aware that all of those are quality experiences and I'd put all three very high on the list. I'm just saying that it game quality is objective, those three must be considered the most quality, no questions asked.

Thats why I'm saying, quality in games are both objective and subjective :P.

Castlevania music is not that great out of context. But it's a great soundtrack in the game becuase they fit the game well (random example ftw)

And having a lot of numbers could easily mean you all bandwagoned to look cool. Also, you're misusing the word quality. You should say fidelity, not quality. Vandalvideo

And you are completely right about the whole bandwagon part, but that can also go both ways. A lot of ppl reject numbers, facts and standards just to 'look cool'.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[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.

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.

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

You are the poster child for argumentum ad populum. Not to worry. It's a logical trap that many fall into.

Your standpoint relies on popular opinion. Your standpoint exists only because it's derived from other people. Just because everyone thinks one way doesn't dictate the way I define quality. And yes, I do have a standpoint. I judge a game based on many things which can change based on the game and my mood. Just as with any game reviewer.

And sorry, I DO have time to think for myself. All. The. Time. Pity those like yourself who can't form your own thoughts without the approval of the populace.

The definition of subjectivity and objectivity and the notion of quality have been debated since man was able to think abstractly. From the I-Ching to the exploration of the tao and dharma.

Quality IS subjective.

All of the things you said equal quality are subjective.. So I disagree completely with everything you said lmao

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="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.

VoodooHak

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

You are the poster child for argumentum ad populum. Not to worry. It's a logical trap that many fall into.

Your standpoint relies on popular opinion. Your standpoint exists only because it's derived from other people. Just because everyone thinks one way doesn't dictate the way I define quality. And yes, I do have a standpoint. I judge a game based on many things which can change based on the game and my mood. Just as with any game reviewer.

And sorry, I DO have time to think for myself. All. The. Time. Pity those like yourself who can't form your own thoughts without the approval of the populace.

The definition of subjectivity and objectivity and the notion of quality have been debated since man was able to think abstractly. From the I-Ching to the exploration of the tao and dharma.

Quality IS subjective.

First of all, facts doesn't make you smart. We have entered the age of internetz,people way back, HAD to remember facts, or write them down,I feel so free with internet.I have taken a course in Latin aswell, you are not alone don't worry.

The only difference between you and me, is that I go after the rules set up by a group of people, I don't make my own rules. Specifically speaking, I follow the definition set by professional game critics (people who get payed for what they do = pro), you on the other hand decide urself, if what is considered by this group quality or not.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] And having a lot of numbers could easily mean you all bandwagoned to look cool. Also, you're misusing the word quality. You should say fidelity, not quality. Dystopian-X

And you are completely right about the whole bandwagon part, but that can also go both ways. A lot of ppl reject numbers, facts and standards just to 'look cool'.

I think the original Killzone is a quality game with good characters, setting, and level design. Reviewers didn't. How is that not subjective?

Quality is subjective, for example if I have much fun playing a game then for me it is of high quality, some may not agree but that is still an opinion. However quality can be objective in certain cases like the quality of the graphics.

I think the original Killzone is a quality game with good characters, setting, and level design. Reviewers didn't. How is that not subjective?

stepat201

I think the original Killzone is a quality game with good characters, setting, and level design. Reviewers didn't. How is that not subjective?

stepat201

That's because it's your personal opinion. I don't know anything about this game, but at least the reviewers, who get money for what they do, knows something you don't. There wasn't mixed reactions. Same with SMG. GOTY everywhere, still there are people who personally dislike it.

[QUOTE="stepat201"]

I think the original Killzone is a quality game with good characters, setting, and level design. Reviewers didn't. How is that not subjective?

kontejner44

That's because it's your personal opinion. I don't know anything about this game, but at least the reviewers, who get money for what they do, knows something you don't. There wasn't mixed reactions. Same with SMG. GOTY everywhere, still there are people who personally dislike it.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="stepat201"]

I think the original Killzone is a quality game with good characters, setting, and level design. Reviewers didn't. How is that not subjective?

Theguy56

That's because it's your personal opinion. I don't know anything about this game, but at least the reviewers, who get money for what they do, knows something you don't. There wasn't mixed reactions. Same with SMG. GOTY everywhere, still there are people who personally dislike it.

Then Something must be clearly and fundamentally wrong, if 100% of the professionals are in agreement,from your standpoint, how do you explain that

You can hate the game personally, but when you critically review something there is a definition of what is good, set by these people, and I follow that pattern because I can!

High fidelity does not necessarily mean high quality. Again, the minimalist amongst us may think that high fidelity sound may be overbearing and soudn really bad. Fidelity does not necessitate sounding good or being better. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Theguy56"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]

That's because it's your personal opinion. I don't know anything about this game, but at least the reviewers, who get money for what they do, knows something you don't. There wasn't mixed reactions. Same with SMG. GOTY everywhere, still there are people who personally dislike it.

kontejner44

Then Something must be clearly and fundamentally wrong, if 100% of the professionals are in agreement,from your standpoint, how do you explain that

You can hate the game personally, but when you critically review something there is a definition of what is good, set by these people, and I follow that pattern because I can!

Has anybody seen the reviews of 24 by Brian Zomerski on IGN? He is a 24 hater, bashes and nitpicks every little bad detail about 24 episodes, but at the end of the day the overall score is like 7.

Recently, they replaced him with an unbiased reviewer. He scored a following episode, 8. Brian being a professional, sticked with the defined pattern and tried his best to review it from a movie standpoint.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] High fidelity does not necessarily mean high quality. Again, the minimalist amongst us may think that high fidelity sound may be overbearing and soudn really bad. Fidelity does not necessitate sounding good or being better. Dystopian-X

There certainly is a difference between a well made game and a poorly made game, but what good is it to argue things that are actually provable one way or the other?

That's what graphics threads are, and **** those and everything like them.

[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] High fidelity does not necessarily mean high quality. Again, the minimalist amongst us may think that high fidelity sound may be overbearing and soudn really bad. Fidelity does not necessitate sounding good or being better. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[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.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.

Well, let's take GTA IV. The game, has quality graphics, story line, sound, controls, and online play. Just because all of these work well, does not make it fun for me to play. I think the driving in many other games is more fun (opinion), the combat in other games is more fun (opinion), there are shooters that I find to be more fun (opinion), I do not find it that enteraining to randomly kill people on the street, or run them over with a car, or jack their car. (opinion)

None of that takes away from my being able to see that it is a well crafted video game that is, no doubt, a quality game. The simple fact that I don't like it has no effect on the quality of the game.

Along the same lines, my liking a game has no effect on the games quality. Fun is subjective, quality is not.

I think too many people here are equating taste with quality.

Absolutely.

However, quality is irrelevant. When it comes to games, fun is all that matters.

Absolutely.

However, quality is irrelevant. When it comes to games, fun is all that matters.

supa_badman

Why do these elements have to be separate?

I find that's games that are fun are usually quality experiences.

I have a question for all of you people who think quality is objective:

Do you guys all think Ocarina of Time, Super Mario Galaxy, and GTAIV are the most quality experiences of all time?

GreySeal9

No. I think life offers more quality experiences than video games. However, you changed the question. Video games are products. There are high quality products and low quality products. Experiences are personal and more dependent upon personal taste and opinion.

I can have a high quality experience with a low quality game or a low quality experience with a high quality game. Examples: I can play Wii Bowling with a few friends and have a high quality experience, or, I can play GTA IV by myself and wonder why I wasted my money.

I can see that GTA is a quality game without being compelled to say it sucks just because I don't like it.

I enjoy playing Indiana Jones and The Staff of Kings, but I would not call it a quality video game. The controls are iffy, you can't skip cutscenes or tutorials, multiplayer is lame, sometimes the game fails to recognize when all enemies have been defeated and, thus, won't continue to the next area. It definitely has problems. The fact I like it doesn't change those things and magically make it a quality video game. I just happen to enjoy the way you can use the environment for combat.

Meanwhile, GTA IV suffers from none of those problems. It is a quality product that I just don't care for. I might like red cars more than blue cars, but that doesn't mean red cars are higher quality than blue ones. Taste is not the same as quality.

If quality is not subjective, then why do the scores games get from review sites differ? FF13 got a 99 from one site and a 42 from another. Quality differs between people.

What does "quality" mean? I don't get it. "Good level design" has the subjective adjective "good" in front of it... making it an opinion. I don't understand this argument. Visual appeal is in the eye of the beholder as well. Are you saying that, for instance, because a game lets you move forward when you hit the button to move forward... that makes it a "quality" title? I'm not sure I understand.stiggy321

It's really hard to break it down, a game is so complex because nowadays for example the gameplay in Uncharted 2 has dynamic sound. The sound affects the gameplay, not just the atmosphere / mood!! wtf hehe. What do I mean? Try one of the areas where there are enemy snipers. In Uncharted it takes a few seconds from the time when you get visible for them, to the time they go for the killshot, giving you some time to hide / kill them. You can literally hear when your time is up, because the the music goes faster and faster every second then silence.... BOM!. That is quality

Gravity effects woven in the level designs are so incredibly intuitive, along with the motion control feeling so natural to spin mario as a mid-air jump, you know what game this is!

Trackmania has superb gameplay. It's just perfect... When I found out they played this game competetivelly as an e-sport, I wasn't surprised.

This is quality!

Both are opinions...

I'm still on my lanch 360 while I'm on my second PS3..Does that make the 360 a higher more reliable system….Yes in my experance…..Does that make it fact to the world hell no..

[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="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.

mrfokken

Well, let's take GTA IV. The game, has quality graphics, story line, sound, controls, and online play. Just because all of these work well, does not make it fun for me to play. I think the driving in many other games is more fun (opinion), the combat in other games is more fun (opinion), there are shooters that I find to be more fun (opinion), I do not find it that enteraining to randomly kill people on the street, or run them over with a car, or jack their car. (opinion)

None of that takes away from my being able to see that it is a well crafted video game that is, no doubt, a quality game. The simple fact that I don't like it has no effect on the quality of the game.

Along the same lines, my liking a game has no effect on the games quality. Fun is subjective, quality is not.

I think too many people here are equating taste with quality.

If quality is not subjective, then why do the scores games get from review sites differ? FF13 got a 99 from one site and a 42 from another. Quality differs between people.

rsoxguy12

If you go to Metacritic, you can compare the reviews from Games Radar (100) to Destructiod (40) both thought the graphics were excellent (quality) as was the sound (quality). They also both had good things to say about the combat system (quality), but thought the story was convoluted, at least at times. So why the difference in the scores? One found the game enjoyable (fun) the other did not.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[QUOTE="osan0"] why do you think i said that the games with the highest production vaules always win? fun isnt dictated by the cost of a games development. im currently playing baldurs gate again...anchient game and has nothing in production values. i still consider it to be a superior game to the vast majroity of games released this gen....its more enjoyable imho. i also rate the quality of okamis graphics higher than crysis. one could argue that crysis is a more technically sophistacated than okami and is thus of a higher visual quality. but given the choice...id still take okamis visuals...i consider them to be of a higher quality. you say you dont like the GTA series and yet consider them to be quality titles. what makes them quality titles of you dont like them?osan0

Well, let's take GTA IV. The game, has quality graphics, story line, sound, controls, and online play. Just because all of these work well, does not make it fun for me to play. I think the driving in many other games is more fun (opinion), the combat in other games is more fun (opinion), there are shooters that I find to be more fun (opinion), I do not find it that enteraining to randomly kill people on the street, or run them over with a car, or jack their car. (opinion)

None of that takes away from my being able to see that it is a well crafted video game that is, no doubt, a quality game. The simple fact that I don't like it has no effect on the quality of the game.

Along the same lines, my liking a game has no effect on the games quality. Fun is subjective, quality is not.

I think too many people here are equating taste with quality.

Again, I think it is more a question of taste. Just because those components don't satisfy my tastes doesn't make them flawed. They work fine, other people enjoy them, I don't see the game as flawed.

What standard do I judge them by? I can SEE the graphics are technically clear, crisp, and functional, I can HEAR the game sounds are well recorded and produced, I can CONTROLL the characters on screen as they were inteded to be controlled. I just don't FEEL like I am having fun while I play.

Since fun is a feeling that you get, it is subjective.

Fun is really subjective. I have more fun playing Stalker SoC with harder AI mods getting every kill with sweet and blood instead of the going gun-blazing in some CoD game. Also I'm a fan of heavy Killzone 2 controls. I bet I'm in minority.

[QUOTE="osan0"]

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

Well, let's take GTA IV. The game, has quality graphics, story line, sound, controls, and online play. Just because all of these work well, does not make it fun for me to play. I think the driving in many other games is more fun (opinion), the combat in other games is more fun (opinion), there are shooters that I find to be more fun (opinion), I do not find it that enteraining to randomly kill people on the street, or run them over with a car, or jack their car. (opinion)

None of that takes away from my being able to see that it is a well crafted video game that is, no doubt, a quality game. The simple fact that I don't like it has no effect on the quality of the game.

Along the same lines, my liking a game has no effect on the games quality. Fun is subjective, quality is not.

I think too many people here are equating taste with quality.

mrfokken

Again, I think it is more a question of taste. Just because those components don't satisfy my tastes doesn't make them flawed. They work fine, other people enjoy them, I don't see the game as flawed.

What standard do I judge them by? I can SEE the graphics are technically clear, crisp, and functional, I can HEAR the game sounds are well recorded and produced, I can CONTROLL the characters on screen as they were inteded to be controlled. I just don't FEEL like I am having fun while I play.

Since fun is a feeling that you get, it is subjective.

No. I think life offers more quality experiences than video games. However, you changed the question. Video games are products. There are high quality products and low quality products. Experiences are personal and more dependent upon personal taste and opinion.mrfokken

When I said "most quality experience of all time," I was only talking about video games since we're in a video game forum.

I can have a high quality experience with a low quality game or a low quality experience with a high quality game. Examples: I can play Wii Bowling with a few friends and have a high quality experience, or, I can play GTA IV by myself and wonder why I wasted my money.

I can see that GTA is a quality game without being compelled to say it sucks just because I don't like it.

I enjoy playing Indiana Jones and The Staff of Kings, but I would not call it a quality video game. The controls are iffy, you can't skip cutscenes or tutorials, multiplayer is lame, sometimes the game fails to recognize when all enemies have been defeated and, thus, won't continue to the next area. It definitely has problems. The fact I like it doesn't change those things and magically make it a quality video game. I just happen to enjoy the way you can use the environment for combat.

Meanwhile, GTA IV suffers from none of those problems. It is a quality product that I just don't care for. I might like red cars more than blue cars, but that doesn't mean red cars are higher quality than blue ones. Taste is not the same as quality.

mrfokken

Nobody is saying that taste is the same as quality. What we are saying is that quality is subjective as people have different standards and criteria for what constitutes quality.

The fact that one can not care for what they consider quality products doesn't change the FACT that quality is a subjective thing. What one thinks is "quality" another person might think is crap or at least somewhat lacking of quality.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]No. I think life offers more quality experiences than video games. However, you changed the question. Video games are products. There are high quality products and low quality products. Experiences are personal and more dependent upon personal taste and opinion.GreySeal9

When I said "most quality experience of all time," I was only talking about video games since we're in a video game forum.

I can have a high quality experience with a low quality game or a low quality experience with a high quality game. Examples: I can play Wii Bowling with a few friends and have a high quality experience, or, I can play GTA IV by myself and wonder why I wasted my money.

I can see that GTA is a quality game without being compelled to say it sucks just because I don't like it.

I enjoy playing Indiana Jones and The Staff of Kings, but I would not call it a quality video game. The controls are iffy, you can't skip cutscenes or tutorials, multiplayer is lame, sometimes the game fails to recognize when all enemies have been defeated and, thus, won't continue to the next area. It definitely has problems. The fact I like it doesn't change those things and magically make it a quality video game. I just happen to enjoy the way you can use the environment for combat.

Meanwhile, GTA IV suffers from none of those problems. It is a quality product that I just don't care for. I might like red cars more than blue cars, but that doesn't mean red cars are higher quality than blue ones. Taste is not the same as quality.

mrfokken

Nobody is saying that taste is the same as quality. What we are saying is that quality is subjective as people have different standards and criteria for what constitutes quality.

The fact that one can not care for what they consider quality products doesn't change the FACT that quality is a subjective thing. What one thinks is "quality" another person might think is crap or at least somewhat lacking of quality.

You are right. But you can also define exactly what quality is in a video game, thus objectifying something that is completely subjective. Why do we do this? because it is better. So, according to this definition, SMG is a quality game. It's that simple

If you don't like it, don't use it. If you ask me, your interpretation of the definition of quality, is much more enjoyable to read (aka reviews from professionals) than your subjective reviews, because they don't tell me a thing about the game.

Quality that is objective = good framerate, no screen tearing, glitch free, functional controls.

Quality that is subjective = level design, artstlye, music, gameplay.

[QUOTE="Theguy56"]

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

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

gamedude234

you mean: "i do not think Halo is a FUN game"

Quality that is objective = good framerate, no screen tearing, glitch free, functional controls.

Quality that is subjective = level design, artstlye, music, gameplay.

gamecubepad

That basically sums it up. I think what many confuse (including the OP) is what is being meant when people talk about quality. There are definitely objective quality aspects, basically those that can be measured.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Quality that is objective = good framerate, no screen tearing, glitch free, functional controls.

Quality that is subjective = level design, artstlye, music, gameplay.

calvinsora

That basically sums it up. I think what many confuse (including the OP) is what is being meant when people talk about quality. There are definitely objective quality aspects, basically those that can be measured.

fun is subjective. quality is also to a degree

It is only your opinion that Halo 3 has a great soundtrack, and great weapons, and great level design. Personally, I feel as though it had a good soundtrack, a decent selection of weapons, and extremely iffy level design that ranged from excellent to terrible from one level to the next.

Someone else might find all three of those areas to be incredibly lacking, whilst another person might disagree, and say that each Halo 3 excels at each one. Neither person is necessarily wrong; it all has to do with how well you can logically defend your position, ie, how well you can debate.

For instance, I think the God of War series sucks in comparison to Ninja Gaiden, or Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta, and I will gladly defend that position to anyone who cares to argue with me, and I will attack all of their arguments to the contrary as best I am able, but that doesn't mean that I'm right, and that everyone else is wrong, it just means that I have a strongly formed opinion.

The weak opinions fall apart, and the strong opinions come out on top; this is the nature of the subjective argument.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

[QUOTE="osan0"] by what standard are you judging the controls, sound, graphics etc and if they are good quality...why dont you like them? as you say....if these elemets are supposedly working well together then whats wrong? you seem to be pointing out that other games are doing it better. well if other games are doing those things better then should GTA4 be considered a flawed game....objectively speaking?the standard for those things is higher in other games.

osan0

Again, I think it is more a question of taste. Just because those components don't satisfy my tastes doesn't make them flawed. They work fine, other people enjoy them, I don't see the game as flawed.

What standard do I judge them by? I can SEE the graphics are technically clear, crisp, and functional, I can HEAR the game sounds are well recorded and produced, I can CONTROLL the characters on screen as they were inteded to be controlled. I just don't FEEL like I am having fun while I play.

Since fun is a feeling that you get, it is subjective.

I didn't say the graphics were beautiful, I said they were technically clear, crisp, and functional. I don't see that as an opinion. Do you have any evidence that the graphics are not what I said? I said I can hear that the sounds are well recorded and produced. I am capable of hearing recordings that lack fidelity or have excessive noise in such forms as cracks, hiss, white noise, or static. I did not hear such faults in the game. The sound production keeps the volume levels consistent enough to not be noticeably too low or too high. It also keeps the soundtrack sink-ed closely enough to the graphics as to not become confusing. Since the characters or vehicles control consistent with the directions for the game, I can only assume that they work as intended.

Do I like the controls? For the most part the controls are fine. I think for my tastes, the steering of vehicles is a little stiff and too dependent on skidding the rear ends around, but that has more to do with my preference, not a flaw in the game. I have played alot of games that have worse driving mechanics (a couple of destruction derby games from ps2 and more recently the Japanese motorcycle boss level from NMH2 come to mind) and from experience would say that the controls work fine. Again, I don't think that is an opinion as I haven't heard anyone complain that they were not able to control their characters or vehicles in the game. Do you have evidence that the controls are flawed?

You seem to be working from the premise that quality games must be liked by all, and if they are not liked by all, then they must not be quality. That is simply a false premise.

Let's look at this premise. First, is GTA a quality game? Since Metacritic scores it as the highest ranked 360 game ever, I think you would be hard pressed to find a game expert who believes it is not a quality game. Second, is it liked by all? Well I am a person and I don't like it, but with a 360 base of over 22 million and a game of about 8 million in sales, odds are I am not the only gamer who doesn't like it.

Your premise is false.

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]No. I think life offers more quality experiences than video games. However, you changed the question. Video games are products. There are high quality products and low quality products. Experiences are personal and more dependent upon personal taste and opinion.GreySeal9

When I said "most quality experience of all time," I was only talking about video games since we're in a video game forum.

I can have a high quality experience with a low quality game or a low quality experience with a high quality game. Examples: I can play Wii Bowling with a few friends and have a high quality experience, or, I can play GTA IV by myself and wonder why I wasted my money.

I can see that GTA is a quality game without being compelled to say it sucks just because I don't like it.

I enjoy playing Indiana Jones and The Staff of Kings, but I would not call it a quality video game. The controls are iffy, you can't skip cutscenes or tutorials, multiplayer is lame, sometimes the game fails to recognize when all enemies have been defeated and, thus, won't continue to the next area. It definitely has problems. The fact I like it doesn't change those things and magically make it a quality video game. I just happen to enjoy the way you can use the environment for combat.

Meanwhile, GTA IV suffers from none of those problems. It is a quality product that I just don't care for. I might like red cars more than blue cars, but that doesn't mean red cars are higher quality than blue ones. Taste is not the same as quality.

mrfokken

Nobody is saying that taste is the same as quality. What we are saying is that quality is subjective as people have different standards and criteria for what constitutes quality.

The fact that one can not care for what they consider quality products doesn't change the FACT that quality is a subjective thing. What one thinks is "quality" another person might think is crap or at least somewhat lacking of quality.

Didn't you say:

I'm aware that all of those are quality experiences and I'd put all three very high on the list. I'm just saying that it game quality is objective, those three must be considered the most quality, no questions asked.

That doesn't make quality sound very subjective.