"Good" Game = "I Like this Game"?

[MadMatt910]

Yes, a game can be objectively good. Just as it can be bad. Let's use the oft-acclaimed GTA IV as an example. It's a good game. The writing is good, the gameplay is good. It's a great game. Yet public opinion is different. Some love it while others find some aspects irksome.

I agree with this principle of this

Objectively good does not equal subjectively good

The X3 games are good at what they do, and I'm told their mechanics are very solid. Yet I do not enjoy them.

Conversely I love virtually all of the Resident Evil games despite their dodgy controls, poor dialogue and madly inconsistent tone and feel.

captcha agrees! (okey-dokey)

 

[Zhukov]

The quality of all entertainment is entirely subjective.

That said, there are games out there that I do not like that I still consider to be good (e.g. Starcraft). Likewise there are games that I have enjoyed but to not consider to be good (e.g. Binary Domain).

 

[Rawne1980]

No game is truly bad?

I beg to differ. Go find E.T clips somewhere on ye olde internet and see what we had thrust upon us in our youths.

 

[johnnyLupine]

You might want to keep in mind that I suffer from verbal diohrriah and that most of what comes out of my mouth at any given time is likely to be complete and utter crap so..read on at your own risk.

I would have to say that there are certain aspects of games which can be thought of as objectivly good or bad but have to admit that it is likely that such things are likely to be drowned out by our subjective viewpoint of the other pieces of the game, if you love one of the more visable pieces which make up a game, the story, the game's appearance, its mechanics and suchlike then a game's dodgey camera angles, graphical limitations, being riddled with bugs and glitches (having the nasty habbit of shutting down every 20 minutes..for example. BAD GAME. BAD. DONT DO THAT.)probably aren't going to matter to you.

It seems likely that there will be or perhaps already are one or two games which are objectivly bad but to fall under that catagory they would likely have to have screwed up so many of the major factors which make a game objectivly good or bad or have so few redeeming subjective qualities that you can't not judge them by their aspects which are objectivly aweful.


So basically there are some aspects of a game which can certainly be thought of as being objectivly good or bad but a game having one or two objectivly good/bad pieces does not necissarily paint the entire game in that light.

 

[King of Asgaard]

There are plenty of ostensibly 'good' games on the market which I will not touch with a ten foot pole. Conversely, there are a number of games in my collection that are not that well-known, or rather niche, i.e not for everyone. 'Good' or 'bad' are subjective terms in themselves, because the concept of quality differs from person to person. For instance, I consider Metal Gear Solid 3 to be an all-time classic, but some people feel that the lengthy cutscenes pretty much spoil everything. True objectivity is impossible to achieve, regardless of subject matter.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I'm with you there fella! People say something is good because they like it... Without a guideline that has specific parameters to say what good is then it is completely just opinion, and therefore is only the same as liking or not liking...
The only time this is different is when it is a published reviewer or proffessional eho is qualified to say it is good or not...

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

The only time this is different is when it is a published reviewer or proffessional eho is qualified to say it is good or not...

What`s really so different about it? Those are just guys who got the job. They may have played a wider range of games and genres (because the job demands it) and have standards how they are reviewing the game but in the end they are doing the same as other people. They may try to be as objective as posible but we all know that this doesn`t always turn out the way you would rate the game for yourself. Even those "pros" only use their opinion and over the years since printmagazines almost died, with "let`s play"vids, forums and the option to rent games they have lost their influence on me.

Otherwise i`m with you and it`s all about opinions. When it comes to rate games only my own counts (to me obviously).

 

[Entitled]

In my experience, whenever something is claimed to be "objectively good" or "objectively bad", it only means that there were lots of vocal people subjectively liking/not liking it, and the speaker doesn't want to start arguing with them.

You can say that Resident Evil 6 is a shit game, because everyone is likely to agree with you, but if you didn't like Mass Effect, you must be careful with Mass Effect fans, so you say "Mass Effect is good but I didn't like it", not to start flame wars.

And vice versa, even if you liked Resident Evil 6, declaring it good would start a flamewar, so you say that "I know that it's (supposed to be) bad, but it's a guilty pleassure of mine"

 

[Entitled]

In my experience, whenever something is claimed to be "objectively good" or "objectively bad", it only means that there were lots of vocal people subjectively liking/not liking it, and the speaker doesn't want to start arguing with them.

You can say that Resident Evil 6 is a shit game, because everyone is likely to agree with you, but if you didn't like Mass Effect, you must be careful with Mass Effect fans, so you say "Mass Effect is good but I didn't like it", not to start flame wars.

And vice versa, even if you liked Resident Evil 6, declaring it good would start a flamewar, so you say that "I know that it's (supposed to be) bad, but it's a guilty pleassure of mine"

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Yes, certainly. I don't like Skyrim and it bored me to death playing it but i conceed that it is a good game and recommend it to people i think might enjoy it. Infact, i generally don't think of many games as particularly good but still recommend them to people i think will like them.

I can seperate what i don't like about a game that makes me dislike it and what is good about a game and how that might allow other people to like it. The difference comes when i find a game that i consider broken at a basic level...something like Dark souls...where i can find nothing positive to say about it at all and as such consider it a bad game.

I'm with you there fella! People say something is good because they like it... Without a guideline that has specific parameters to say what good is then it is completely just opinion, and therefore is only the same as liking or not liking...
The only time this is different is when it is a published reviewer or proffessional eho is qualified to say it is good or not...

Since when is the advice of someone getting paid to tell you what they do different? I would say that reviewers are less qualified to make calls on what is good or bad...they do after all lose their jobs if they say the wrong thing.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

Well, I review games for an independent website, and not too long ago, I wrote one up on Marvel vs. Capcom Origins. Now, as far as arcade fighters go, Marvel vs. Capcom is pretty tops, and even the early entries in the franchise are still incredibly tight. However, I didn't have fun with either of the games included in MvCO (that being Marvel Super Heroes and Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes). It felt incredibly weird to give a game that I had absolutely no fun playing a recommendation, but I understood that it was a good game, just not clicking with me.

I mean, what you're asking is sort of the big question, isn't it? It's why a lot of people (especially when a game they like kind of gets shat on) argue that game critics have no purpose: is there any objectivity when deciding whether or not you like a video game? I say yes, only because I've seen it.

But asking someone whether or not they LIKE something isn't the same as asking if it's GOOD. Personally, I really enjoy the Priest movie, but would never say it's a 'good' movie. Likewise, I like most JRPGs I play, but would only qualify a small percentage of those as actually 'good.' (Over the last few years, anyway).

It's not always easy to recognize the difference between liking something and it being good, simply because your own opinions can cloud your judgement somewhat. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

[elvor0]

I got into an argument with my sister over whether a game can be objectively good. I told her that no game is truly "good" or "bad" in the objective sense but what people mean when they say that is "I like this game" or "I do not like this game". She asked about when people say things like "I could recognize that the game was good, but I didn't really like it". I told her that when that is stated it just means that said person has aspects of the game they respect or like, but the game as a whole doesn't satisfy them.

But she stuck to her belief that Good Game=/=Subjective and that I Like It=Subjective only. I figured that these two statements were synonyms basically. What do you think about this, Escapist? Is a game good in the objective sense? Can you dislike a game that is "good"?

you are WRONG. Why can't something be objectively better than another in it's on genre? You can't compare action to rts but you can tell when something's total shit. Yes a game isn't good subjectively if the subjected person is an arrogant moron incapable of any amount of logical thinking, and only likes fighting games but was forced to sit through an RTS but you know what? That's obviously subjective. You can tell when something does it's JOB right. A game is good if it can achieve it's intended purpose. That's it. Same with movies. Same with everything else. Not that difficult to understand. :|

I fucking hate League of Legends. The game's whole concept revolves around the sole concept of DPS. All the fucking characters are the same. All the fucking items are to modify damage, heal being reverse damage. The mechanic is based around the single value that is DMG, it is by logical necessity imbalanced. Stupidity are often inconsequential. Catching up requires the other team to fuck up, instead of your team pulling clever shit out of your ass. Runes, Levels, and Hero release are a shameless money scam. Heroes that come out are either imba or buffed to be imba, as a money scam. The marketting is a psychological scam. The Runes, Levels, and Hero releases are also psychological scams (look up B.F. Skinner). The game's single and only upside is that it's incredibly inclusive - which is ALSO a money scam. I look at this game and get disgusted at it given I understand the psychology working behind the game. Does that make it a bad game? No. I believe it's a great game, because it's both inclusive and competitive, a rare combination but EVEN if I believed it's a terrible game, doesn't change the fact that it's inclusive, it's competitive, ripping off countless players daily, and it's immersing for those who only want brainless fun. A movie is good if it's immersing. A song is good if it's immersing. Art is good if it's immersing. If it's purpose is to immerse it's audience and give about an array of emotions ; A game is a good if it's *immersing.*

While I see where you're coming from with the point of that paragraph, I would like to ask how LoL is ripping people off. You don't have to buy anything, and there are no advantages to spending money beyond cosmetics, everything can be acquired through in game "money" and even the skins could be (I have two from this) obtained through waiting out for free riot points. Even buying runes with real cash is pointless, as by the time you're 30 you should have enough IP to buy them anyway, as long as you didn't just spend them on useless crap.

If people want to put money into it, let them, it's their choice and they don't HAVE to do it, not only do they get stuff, but they also help support the game.

But OT: Yeah, I can look at a game I don't "like" persay and say it's a good game. Monkey Island games, undisputed as great adventure games, but I don't like them because I'm horrendous at point and clicks, yet on it's own merits it's a fantastic game. It's just not for me.

 

[mohit9206]

yes you can dislike a game universally acclaimed . for example i disliked batman arkham city even though it almost universally received great reviews. i found the story dull the gameplay repetitive etc. but maybe that was because i am not a huge batman fan. so yeah it can happen. everyone' taste is different. liking games or not is similar to movies. a movie may be critically praised but you may hate it for various reasons

 

[wookiee777]

Alright, let me provide an example, this is the one my sister gave me: the Sonic Adventure Games. I fucking despise the two Sonic Adventure games. They are seriously among the worst games I've ever played, worse than even Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide on NES. She tells me that I may not like it, but they are good games because they have good characters, good music, etc. I told her no, the characters are shit, cardboard cut-outs, the music is terrible and generic, and the story is a black hole of idiocy. But she stuck to it, that it was "good".

Or what about Skyrim? I certainly wouldn't call it the worst ever (it's far better than Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide), but I do think it's one of the worst disappointments to a franchise, but most people would disagree with me. And I think that when my sister says a game is good she really means that a majority of people like the game and that somehow translates to objectivity. What really makes something objective if you believe that a game's quality can be?

Also:

Snip Snip Snip Snip Snip Snap

I agree with that idea. I think we've all watered down our opinion on a forum before to avoid a shitstorm.

 

[Entitled]

It's not always easy to recognize the difference between liking something and it being good, simply because your own opinions can cloud your judgement somewhat. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

And how can you tell that you succeeded?

In this thread, you make big claims about how Marvel vs. Capcom is objectively good, and most JRPGs are objectively bad, but how do you know that you succeeded in finding that truth, instead of just adding another layer of opinions?

We know that hydrogen is lighter than air, that the Holocaust happened, or that the Earth is revolving around the sun, because we can prove these with scientifically acceptable proof.

But can you actually demonstrate the "fact", that Marvel vs. Capcom is a good game, with a proof that any logical human is forced to accept?

 

[Lt._nefarious]

You can dislike a game that's objectively good, hell there are tons of people who hate an absolutely brilliant survival horror that everyone should totally buy because it's awesome *cough* [sub]Resident Evil 6[/sub] *cough*. One can also like an objectively bad game. It's all purely down to the amount of fun YOU have and not the amount of fun people tell you you should be having... Unless it's Resident Evil 6, in which case, you should listen to the people who're saying it's one of the best games of 2012, because it is and if you don't like it then you're crazy...

On a side note: I really like Resident Evil 6, just wanted to get that out there now that I've missed all the Resi 6 themed threads...

 

[Launcelot111]

For Uncharted 2, I enjoyed every part of the game that didn't have guns. For the parts that did have guns, some of my lack of enjoyment comes from personal taste, and some comes from elements of the game that were unsuccessful or poorly designed (bullet sponge minibosses that undermine cover shooting). Still, I thought some of the shooting was very cleverly done (all the shooting while hanging). I feel like if you look hard enough and narrowly enough, you can articulate that there might be a bit of objective quality to a game, but as with any creative endeavor, our ultimate enjoyment is subjective.

 

[shrekfan246]

Generally speaking, when "this is a good game" comes up in an average conversation, it can be translated into "I liked this game because of reasons."

However, it's possible for games to still be good and for people to not enjoy them. Call of Duty, for instance, is objectively a rather solid title with tight controls and crisp visuals, and multi-player modes that repeatedly seem to suck people in over and over again. However, especially around here, you'll find that bringing it up in a general topic will likely incite massive amounts of rage over how "terrible" it is. Which brings us to the next part.

Generally speaking, when people say "this game was terrible" in an average conversation, it can be translated to "I didn't like this game because of reasons."

However, it's entirely possible for a game to be utterly horrible and for people to still enjoy it.

The distinction typically should be made by people being able to identify that even though they like/dislike a game, it can still be a good/bad game. Which doesn't happen very often.

 

[Entitled]

Generally speaking, when "this is a good game" comes up in an average conversation, it can be translated into "I liked this game because of reasons."

However, it's possible for games to still be good and for people to not enjoy them. Call of Duty, for instance, is objectively a rather solid title with tight controls and crisp visuals, and multi-player modes that repeatedly seem to suck people in over and over again.

And how do you know, that it's not an objectively terrible title, that some people subjectively consider solid "because of reasons"?

For example, I think that COD's visuals feel rather bland, generic, brownandgrey, and ugly. It's multiplayer didn't suck me in. (MW2). The controls were fine, but that's like saying that a novel's binding was fine. Being functional should be expected from any product, not just from an entertainment experience.

So, other than that, how can you prove that the game was objectively good anyways, if that seems to be solely your interpretation of it?

 

[Il_Exile_lI]

There is absolutely a difference between a game being good or bad and someone personally liking or disliking a game. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, so everyone will like and dislike certain things, but there undeniable facts to consider when judging a game on objective quality.

Things like game performance, control responsiveness, voice work, and graphical quality can all be quantified fairly easily. Other aspects like level design, combat, writing and story can be a bit more subjective, but there are still genre standards of quality to judge by. While the quality of these elements can pretty accurately determine what makes a game objectively good, everyone will have their own preferences.

Take for example, Deadly Premonition. If you were to judge the game based solely on the above the criteria, it is an objectively bad game. However, many people found aspects like the characters and story, which were the game's high points, good enough to look past it's many shortcomings. Whether or not someone liked the game, it is still objectively bad due to its clunky controls, dated visuals, poor and repetitive animations, and bad level design.

To summarize, just like any art form, games can be very subjective, but that doesn't mean there aren't things about games that can be objectively good or bad. So, just because you don't like a certain game, doesn't mean it's necessarily bad, nor does your love of a game make it objectively either.