fun is subjective. quality is not.

[QUOTE="supa_badman"]

Absolutely.

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

GreySeal9

Why do these elements have to be separate?

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

Good poll, obviously very split opinions. I'd say yes, though some people seem to miss the point. How high of quality the game appears to you is affected by how much fun you have, but when you take a step back and try to analyze the game, observing flaws (even if they didn't bother you) and things it does right (even if they don't help you have more fun), you can give a somewhat objective analysis of quality.

Generally people acknowledge that Rogue Warrior is a crap game, even the few people I've seen have fun with it say it's really bad. It's generally acknowledged that Uncharted 2 and Super Mario Galaxy are great games. You may not like all these games, or you may like the crappy one and not the others, but you can't deny that the level design, graphics, etc. are superior in the "better" games. The only challenge to quality you can make is to say it's underrated or overrated and state why you believe people blindly say it's the best. Saying it's not fun does not mean it's not a quality game.

fun is subjective. quality is also to a degree

Half-Way

Quality is entirely subjective.SteveTabernacle

What if I define what quality is equal to in video games. The same way I can define that 0.999999999....=1, in my calculator, just for the sake of simplicity. Is it still subjective? no

A game, only has a certain ammount of quality, compared to another game. The example "Mcdonalds is not considered quality in the US, but in Africa it is" is flawed. Because you have compared MC food to other food available in the US, thats why it is of low quality there, and not in Africa. Also thats not the only flaw in the statement, because MC food is of low quality, from a healthy PoV, even in Africa.

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"]Quality is entirely subjective.kontejner44

What if I define what quality is equal to in video games. The same way I can define that 0.999999999....=1, in my calculator, just for the sake of simplicity. Is it still subjective? no

A game, only has a certain ammount of quality, compared to another game. The example "Mcdonalds is not considered quality in the US, but in Africa it is" is flawed. Because you have compared MC food to other food available in the US, thats why it is of low quality there, and not in Africa. Also thats not the only flaw in the statement, because MC food is of low quality, from a healthy PoV, even in Africa.

...yeah, in your opinion.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"]Quality is entirely subjective.jethrovegas

What if I define what quality is equal to in video games. The same way I can define that 0.999999999....=1, in my calculator, just for the sake of simplicity. Is it still subjective? no

A game, only has a certain ammount of quality, compared to another game. The example "Mcdonalds is not considered quality in the US, but in Africa it is" is flawed. Because you have compared MC food to other food available in the US, thats why it is of low quality there, and not in Africa. Also thats not the only flaw in the statement, because MC food is of low quality, from a healthy PoV, even in Africa.

...yeah, in your opinion.

And in the opinion of professional reviewers, if quality = subjective, then I wouldn't have been interested in this industry, what one person thinks of a game is completely useless for me

And in the opinion of professional reviewers, if quality = subjective, then I wouldn't have been interested in this industry, what one person thinks of a game is completely useless for me

kontejner44

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

And in the opinion of professional reviewers, if quality = subjective, then I wouldn't have been interested in this industry, what one person thinks of a game is completely useless for me

jethrovegas

You dont understand what I am trying to say here, I am trying my best to express myself...

What I, me, as a person, think subjectively about a video game, is useless for even me. I have those games with low quality I play for personal reasons sure, example is Dynasty warriors, from the start of that series I have grown attached to the story / charachters etc. But the gameplay is not that of quality, I consider, even though I have spent countless of hours, and have had TONS of fun playing this multiplayer with my friend. Then I have this other side of me, which I do for a hobby, because I like it, I play certain video games I find boring as hell (GTA4) becase they are of quality, acoording to this industries definition of what quality is

Edit: Also, playing a game which I personally love at the same time it is of high quality, is the best experience ever, games like that this gen on consoles are: SMG, Uncharted 2, MGS4, MPTrilogy.

You dont understand what I am trying to say here, I am trying my best to express myself...

What I, me, as a person, think subjectively about a video game, is useless for even me. I have those games with low quality I play for personal reasons sure, example is Dynasty warriors, from the start of that series I have grown attached to the story / charachters etc. But the gameplay is not that of quality, I consider, even though I have spent countless of hours, and have had TONS of fun playing this multiplayer with my friend. Then I have this other side of me, which I do for a hobby, because I like it, I play certain video games I find boring as hell (GTA4) becase they are of quality, acoording to this industries definition of what quality is

kontejner44

So you play games that you find boring as hell because some gaming critic said it was quality? How does that make any sense? I mean, personally, I only play the games I want to play, and if I don't like a game (also GTA4, which I hate) then I simply do not play it.

Not only do gaming critic's opinions have no influence on me, they also do not have any standard consensus, aside from score averaging sites. When you take into account the fact that many gaming critics are influenced by advertising dollars, and that many of them have different gaming tastes than you or I do, then it really doesn't make sense to put a whole lot of weight on their opinions (which are also subjective), wouldn't you agree?

Your subjective opinion of a game shouldn't be useless to you; otherwise you'll spend a great deal of time being very, very, bored, and playing games that you don't actually like, or enjoy playing.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

You dont understand what I am trying to say here, I am trying my best to express myself...

What I, me, as a person, think subjectively about a video game, is useless for even me. I have those games with low quality I play for personal reasons sure, example is Dynasty warriors, from the start of that series I have grown attached to the story / charachters etc. But the gameplay is not that of quality, I consider, even though I have spent countless of hours, and have had TONS of fun playing this multiplayer with my friend. Then I have this other side of me, which I do for a hobby, because I like it, I play certain video games I find boring as hell (GTA4) becase they are of quality, acoording to this industries definition of what quality is

jethrovegas

So you play games that you find boring as hell because some gaming critic said it was quality? How does that make any sense? I mean, personally, I only play the games I want to play, and if I don't like a game (also GTA4, which I hate) then I simply do not play it.

Not only do gaming critic's opinions have no influence on me, they also do not have any standard consensus, aside from score averaging sites. When you take into account the fact that many gaming critics are influenced by advertising dollars, and that many of them have different gaming tastes than you or I do, then it really doesn't make sense to put a whole lot of weight on their opinions (which are also subjective), wouldn't you agree?

Your subjective opinion of a game shouldn't be useless to you; otherwise you'll spend a great deal of time being very, very, bored, and playing games that you don't actually like, or enjoy playing.

See thats the thing, I only do this with top games, to get a feel for what is considered top in this industry. It's like a movie fantast, who haven't seen Godfather1-3 which is considered a classic, doesn't make sense

Edit: the question why do I do this, lies within the reason that I want to understand everything. I play the game, to get a sense of why these people gave it 10/10

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

mrfokken

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.

Quality can only get you so far. I've a game runs smoothly has reasonable graphics etc, it gets it up to about a 6/10. Now matter how "polished"/smooth it is, it's no good if it lacks innovation, is boring, repetitive, bad level design etc. So for me MGS 4 would be about 7/10, it's smooth and polished but I expect more than an interactive movie.

The subjective side is very important, if not, devs could just produce games on a production line. Thats why I *read* reviews and don't just look at the number, I buy games down to about 6/10 if they sound interesting. I'm personally more interested in innovation than I am in marketing/presentation and "polish".

wow this is a controversial thread;)

anyway, i'm here to reinforce my point a little.

crysis has the best quality graphics. FACT.

crysis is/isn't fun. OPINION.

Halo: combat evolved had very high quality graphics for the time. It also had a wide vairety of weapons(for its time) FACT.

Halo's weapons were/were not dull and generic. OPINION

super mario galaxy has much higher quality controls, graphics, and soundtrack than action girlz racing. FACT

i found action girlz racing to be more fun than SMG. OPINION

see what i did there?

wow this is a controversial thread;)

anyway, i'm here to reinforce my point a little.

crysis has the best quality graphics. FACT.

crysis is/isn't fun. OPINION.

Halo: combat evolved had very high quality graphics for the time. It also had a wide vairety of weapons(for its time) FACT.

Halo's weapons were/were not dull and generic. OPINION

super mario galaxy has much higher quality controls, graphics, and soundtrack than action girlz racing. FACT

i found action girlz racing to be more fun than SMG. OPINION

see what i did there?

gamedude234

wow this is a controversial thread;)

anyway, i'm here to reinforce my point a little.

crysis has the best quality graphics. FACT.

crysis is/isn't fun. OPINION.

Halo: combat evolved had very high quality graphics for the time. It also had a wide vairety of weapons(for its time) FACT.

Halo's weapons were/were not dull and generic. OPINION

super mario galaxy has much higher quality controls, graphics, and soundtrack than action girlz racing. FACT

i found action girlz racing to be more fun than SMG. OPINION

see what i did there?

gamedude234

[QUOTE="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.

1zenron1

[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.

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.

You know what the problem is EGO people cant get past there own Ego and take a subjective look at something it always has to be about them and how they feel not the fact that something may be well designed regardless of if you like it or not.