Expert opinion vs. average person

[evilneko]

There were surprises in Avatar's plot?

Imperator_DK and Craorach basically hit the nail on the head.

Case in point:
It's not that Borderlands has "worse" graphics than Fallout it's that it kept crashing on my system and I wasn't really having fun anyway.

 

[ElectroJosh]

There are times when the "average Joe's" veiws are way off base and that tends to happen in entertainment more often than not.

Movies and music are great examples. Often the critically acclaimed vs the popular at the time refelct this (although some can be both) when reveiwed a few years later. Listen/watch to some of the biggest hits of the nineties that were critically panned vs some of the critical darlings that weren't popular (as I said films/music that tick both boxes don't count here). The popular but panned hits tend to range from terrible, to trite and silly. Why? Because they are based on trends and clever marketing - things that go out of style easily.

Also there is a little psychological trick that we do to ourselves when a song/film comes out and we spend money on it. We tend to like it more because we have invested in it. That means that we overlook the flaws automatically. If we were hyped about hearing the new release from a favourite singer or the sequel to a film we loved we tend to assume its good once we encounter it. After a couple of years we often are willing to revise our initial impression.

What a lot of these experts can provide is a good way to assess critically whether the said form of entertainment is worth the time you are about to invest in it. They do look at things differently but often if comes from a wealth of knowledge because they have heard and seen a lot of this stuff before.

The average person is usually willing to uncritically accept that the film with the most ads and biggest billboards must be awesome. The average person thinks that an expensive music video and a guest vocal slot by (insert this year's popular singer) makes a good song by default. In reality those things have no effect one way or another.

 

[Heathrow]

When I was younger I very stoutly refused to accept the in-depth analysis of any work of art as valid, I chose to focus entirely on whether or not the work presented an enjoyable experience. As I've grown older and my craft has matured I find literary or generally technical critique has a high degree of practical use in the actual creation of art, however I have not abandoned my youthful position that the goal of art is the pleasurable experience: technique will simply aid in communicating the desired result to your audience.

 

[Avistew]

It depends. I say when the material is targeted to an audience, their opinion should matter and it's not like they should all need to take advanced classes and stuff to appreciate things. That's why you can have several levels in for instance a movie, with one of them requiring prior knowledge.

Usually I disagree when people say thins like "if you can't do better don't complain". Because I'm no doctor, but if someone sewed the wrong leg back to my thigh I'd sure complain, even though I couldn't do better. It's an exaggerated example of course, but my point is that being unable to do something doesn't mean you can't criticise it as a consumer.

On the other hand, between a doctor (who didn't mess up my legs) and an average Joe, I'll trust the doctor on medical advice or the accuracy of a medical show.

But I don't think it means you need to be a doctor to have an opinion on ER or House.

 

[Waffle_Man]

snip

Half of that was this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicallyMissingThePoint] and the other half was just arguments for the sake of arguments. You barely even gave any input on the subject, just trying to rip apart his post.

Missing the point?

In what way is responding to the criticism of those with limited experience as having a less valid opinion by pointing out that opinions are experientially limited by nature missing the point?

I understand that subtext (or at least the the subtext that I thought I got) that he didn't mean that their opinions don't matter in general, he meant that they don't matter on our level. Whether or not this was actually what the OP meant, the point still stands that artists ultimately need to work for their audience, not hope for the audience to change.

Secondly, I don't argue for arguing sake. Notice how I didn't use broad generalizations of his posts or just said "uh uh"? I went through it section by section because I genuinely want a response. It's interesting to me.

Interesting! Very interesting indeed.

Can I even call your opinion valid? Opinions are subjective, so they will always be based on limited experience. Who the hell is going to come up with some sort of objective standard for what qualifies as a good opinion or a bad opinion? You?

I see what you mean. I think my post suffered from being way to broad. I'll try to address some points.

I also don't think you need to know anything about CGI to know if it's good or not. If it looks good, it's good. If it looks bad, it's bad.

I think this is true. And trust me, my point wasn't that Battlefield 3 will have "better" CGI than Final Fantasy [which ever number is the newest] for instance. But when talking about the technical side alone, often people will argue along the lines of what looks best, and not what is best. Because that is what is so cool about games and movies. The way you turn a concept or a story into a game or a movie is almost purely technical. I would say you can easily take an action scene in the Bourne movies and put it up against this infamous scene;


and suddenly everyone can tell which one is "better". One has more time, money and years of film-evolution behind it. You can easily take two much more similar scenes and then dissect which one is the better scene. There will probably still be subjective ideas in play, but a bit less than if we are just going by "like". What I'm saying is that I think more people agree with me than they think, that there is a correct answer, because every time you talk about "overrated" and "guilty pleasure" you are saying that there is a standard and the general consensus is wrong (overrated) or right (guilty pleasure).

The thing about that is that fidelity isn't indicative of quality. Hell, quality isn't even what always matters. Why do people have an affinity for old sprite art or why do I have an affinity for the look of late 1990's 3D engines such as Id tech 2 or Unreal 1? Style is doing something badly with consistency.

Well, that's sort of hyperbole, but the point stands.

With art I don't think it matters. Art is truly subjective, what looks good to one will look like complete garbage to another, and both opinions will be valid. With other topics like genetic engineering for example, an informed opinion is far more valid than an ignorant one.

Yes! I like that you brought this up. I would say music is very subjective. Almost all. But with video-games, which is the most technical medium, you can really tell the difference in what people are looking for from that to music. In music you look for something you "like" and no one can really help you find it. In games, reviews are basically a point-by-point overview of "how well was this made and how well did it work". Because there is a standard for everything. Hack-and-slash? Is it as good as God of War? Nice cutscenes? As nice as Square Enix?

With music you can't do that. Is this as good as The Wombats? Who knows? Is The Wombats even good? And so on. The fact that you can with games is my point. Someone has to know what they are talking about, and someone has to be correct?

I think that this is getting the heart of the issue. Too many people lump "conjecture" and "opinion" together. Opinions are subjective. Conjectures are objective. If someone says that taxes should be raised, it's an opinion. If they say an effect of it, it's a conjecture.

Another big mistake people make is assuming that subjective means undefined. Just because my opinion can't be criticized externally doesn't mean it can't contradict my reasoning for my opinion. Therefore, as long as I have a consistent reason for my opinion, it's just as valid as any other opinion. Conversely, if my conjecture is consistent internally, it can still be debunked externally (epistemology aside).

Isn't "good" a subjective term? Hell, what is an "average" person? Someone with 2.5 kids?

Your post was really hard to quote (due to length) so just know that I read it. Some of your points weren't direct questions to me, but I can answer this with that I meant "not interested" by average. With everything you get people who think they know what they are talking about. People who know about cars, games, interior design, wine etc. Then you have everyone else who also drive cars, play games, decorate their house and drink wine, but with no interest or extra knowledge of the subject.

My OP was about who has the most say in what is considered "good" and what isn't. Do you pander to the critics first, or the general audience? What do you do when you've made something pretty ingenious, but nobody cares because they can't tell?

Hope that explains it better.

I guess that does explain it better. However, I think I could easily make the same argument. You have to know your audience. The mark of a good artist is being able to express something on multiple levels to multiple audiences.

OT: Like people have said, the average audience can at least give an opinion on if it was enjoyable. The direction, production value, and whatever else doesn't mean shit if it isn't plain old enjoyable.

That's actually the problem with some games, they forget the whole "fun" part.

Indeed! This is very relevant. I'd forgotten to consider you actually can get lost in getting everything "right" that you don't step back to see if it actually works. A very strong counter argument. (And a cookie for TVtropes link and teaching me how to link [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg] on words. )

What is enjoyable is different for people. I like to be challenged. I like to be asked a question I can't answer. It isn't fun in visceral exciting way, but it's far more fulfilling.

Again, create for your audience. Really, there will always be opinions thrown out that aren't informed, which you are perfectly in the right to ignore, but if someone comments on your work and is consistent in their rational, you should probably pay attention regardless of how familiar the person is with the subject.

 

[dyre]

Eh, I'll take the expert opinion on foreign policy, and the average opinion on film recommendations (assuming the average person generally has similar opinions to me). The average person might not know exactly what good film direction is supposed to be, but he knows if he's enjoying the damn film or not.

By the way, I've never heard anyone claim in any way that any part of Kane and Lynch 2 was better than any part in Uncharted 2.

 

[Arsen]

When I was younger I very stoutly refused to accept the in-depth analysis of any work of art as valid, I chose to focus entirely on whether or not the work presented an enjoyable experience. As I've grown older and my craft has matured I find literary or generally technical critique has a high degree of practical use in the actual creation of art, however I have not abandoned my youthful position that the goal of art is the pleasurable experience: technique will simply aid in communicating the desired result to your audience.

Entertainment and emotion > Everything else conveyed within a story. Without those two elements...there is no reason to create a story. I think we live in a generation where the snobs have forgotten the audience. AKA: The people who are meant to be impressed.