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

[ScrabbitRabbit]

"Good" and "bad" are inherently subjective words. Nothing can be objectively "good" since quality is defined by human perception, it's not something that simply *is*.

You can see how something could be enjoyable to people with different values and standards than yourself and respect that your opinion is an exception, but I feel it's erroneous to call something "good" if you dislike it.

 

[TrevHead]

If a game has good level polish and is mechanically good, then imo it's a good game even if I don't like it.

Someone who isn't a blind fan can critic a game they love to death, and would give a better analysis on the game because they have a deeper understanding of it compared to others.

On the flip side you might have ppl who are new to a genre, don't understand it very well and haven't played similar games to form a sound judgement on quality. I watch movies but I'm far from a movie buff, I don't know the finer details of what makes a great movie. There's probably tons of bad movies I like.

Infact scratch that I don't mean bad, I mean mediocre which is what most of us mean when gamers say bad nowadays.

If we judge a game solely based on how much we enjoyment we devive from it, then how does that take into account multiplayer and ones level of enjoyment based on playing with random jerk offs compared to friends?

Since RE6 has been brought up, would anyone care to tell me why they liked it? All I've seen is ppl saying I liked it, therefore its good (which doesn't cut it imo) or those who liked it and say it's mediocre.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't know about that but I do know that the opposite is true. There are a few objectively bad games that I really, really like! I wouldn't try to tell anybody that Predator on the NES, Alice: Madness Returns or, Fist of the North Star (by Koei) are good games but I still enjoy them to varying degrees. If I can like those than there must, reasonably, be a game that is objectively good that people can agree to like or, agree are good.

 

[Conner42]

http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-what-makes-a-movie-good/

The article can be easily replaced with video games, but it's worth a read either way.

There is no clear definition on what makes a good game. Games that are generally accepted to be good just means that a lot of people find the game good. Though, you could probably find many people who hate the said game. And none of these people are wrong. If you can give your reasons of why you don't like a game and even think its bad, even if the game has been generally accepted as good, then it's not wrong to say that the game is bad.

There are probably even some of the worst games ever out there that some people might find good. Kind of like me with Duke Nukem Forever. Yes, the game is broken in a lot of ways, but the game resonated with me a lot more than almost every other shooter that came out that year.

To say that certain games are objectively good and objectively bad really destroys the reason why people enjoy games in the first place. Sure, it's clear when you don't like a game even though it's pretty popular and you can still recommend it to other people. But it doesn't really make the game good or bad. There's no great big God of Objectivity telling us which games are good and which games are bad, making the people who disagree with him wrong. Games just don't work like that.

We use terms like good and bad to express how we feel about the games we play.

So yes, games are completely subjective. But that's a good thing though.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

If MvCO ended up being a fun game anyways, then why isn't it possible that it created a new sub-genre on it's own, that is good outside of traditional arcade fighter values?

I will tip my hat to that one. The sub-genre question - as it is a question of evolution - is a tough one to handle. I think the thing about sub-genres is the fact that they DO break the mold, but do so in a more... transcendental kind of way, if that makes any sense. They don't do what they set out to do initially, or what you would EXPECT them to do, but what they DO accomplish stands outside of the failures of whatever classification you'd initially give them.

For example: if Demon's/Dark Souls were not billed as punishingly difficult games, the reception may have been a little different: depending on the circumstance, extreme difficult can either be a good or bad thing. It all depends on what you're expecting. I would argue that these opened the way for a sub-genre of Hellishly Difficult Action RPGs.

So, yes, sub-genres are more difficult to judge, because they are deliberately moving away from what games have done in the past. This is what makes some games difficult to review. Look at Neverdead: it did something totally different with the combat, and while it didn't do well critically, there are still some pretty positive reviews floating around for it, BECAUSE of that difference.

I'm not saying that a game's quality is always going to be able to be written out in black-and-white. Sometimes, there are going to be some tough ones to judge. I'll have to give you that one. But I think as gaming progresses as a medium of entertainment, it becomes easier and easier to tell when a game is trying to break the mold, shoot for something different and, while it may not reach the level it wanted, be worthy of praise, and when a game is just bad due to poor mechanics, or bad story, or what-have-you.

 

[Vigormortis]

Absolutley, if you can't then you're simply not objective when it comes to gaming opinions. I can both hate and admire a game at the same time, that's my objectiveness of being able to appreciate a game, whilst knowing that it doesn't appeal to me personally. There is the reverse that should be true as well, you may like a game, but admit to its failings and claim that it isn't really a very good game overall, but you like some aspects of it enough to make it something you enjoy, whilst still wishing that it were a better game.

The classics 'I love this game and its great' as well as 'I hate this game, and its terrible' are pure subjectivism, and whilst often true, being that the mechanics of a game lead you to your opinion, if you don't leave room for the juxtaposition, then you're simply not objective.

Spoiler

Finally. Someone who actually grasps the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective critique.

You've no idea how aggravating it is to constantly see people, often in a condescending tone, go on and on about how it's "impossible" to provide an objective critique of something without having ones subjective opinion take over. It's even worse when you see people argue that subjective opinion IS an objective critique.

It's refreshing to see someone actually appreciate the difference.

Is a game good in the objective sense? Can you dislike a game that is "good"?

Yes to both questions, though most people don't appreciate the difference.

It is very possible to not like something that is good. For example:

Bioshock and Skyrim are two exceptionally well-made games. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion went into their creation. The people responsible for making those two games were very skilled in their craft and clearly had/have a lot of love for the property and the medium. The quality of the games reflect that.

However, I am not a fan of either game. They simply are not that entertaining to me. Yet, I will be one of the first to stand up and defend the quality of both titles.

It's also possible to like something that's bad. For example:

I love the hell out of the film Tron: Legacy. I've watched it at least a half-dozen times.

Even so, I'll be the first to tell you it's anything but a good film. In fact, I'll flat out state that it's a terrible film. But, that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the film.

. . . . . . . . .

It all comes down to realizing that it's okay to like "bad" things and to not like "good" things. You just need to be willing to critically analyze somethings merits and flaws, and understand that you liking or disliking it has no effect on its actual quality; and vice-verse.

Think of it this way. When a little kid presents their parents with one of those macaroni art pictures, said parents will often (and indeed, genuinely) admire the image and praise the child for it.

But let's face it. More often than not that image will be horrible. It won't look at all like what the child intended.

So in a sense, the image is objectively "bad", but the parents will still look at it with admiration, making it objectively "good".

Same thing applies to everything. I just wish more people could appreciate that.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I don't think that it necessarily needs to be that "if Good game =/= I like this game then a game's quality is objective". I think that good means something different than just liked. There are games that I look at, admire and legitimately think are good, yet could never enjoy playing. Likewise with movies, some movies are incredibly well made, yet I could never appreciate because I'm not interested in the genre.

 

[II2]

In review of games, systems analysis can reveal objective, empirical problems in the games mechanics, or in a good case, the lack of any. The 'feel' they convey as to whether the game is satisfying to play, is much more subjective, as is the content analysis of the game's artistic, aesthetic and narrative merits.

A statement of preference is just that, but carries more weight when presented with logical arguments in the game's favor. The two are regularly paired, but some people of exceptionally divorced bias can speak to the efficacy and merit of a game they actively dislike.

 

[Entitled]

Bioshock and Skyrim are two exceptionally well-made games. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion went into their creation. The people responsible for making those two games were very skilled in their craft and clearly had/have a lot of love for the property and the medium. The quality of the games reflect that.

That alone doesn't prove that they are good. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion can be poured into shitty games, too.

For example, I would say that Skyrim is rather mediocre. It has high production values, but pretty much every AAA game nowadays has high production values, after huge studios spend years polishing them. That alone doesn't mean that they are all "good", or that games with lower production values are worse.

 

[Vigormortis]

Bioshock and Skyrim are two exceptionally well-made games. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion went into their creation. The people responsible for making those two games were very skilled in their craft and clearly had/have a lot of love for the property and the medium. The quality of the games reflect that.

That alone doesn't prove that they are good. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion can be poured into shitty games, too.

For example, I would say that Skyrim is rather mediocre. It has high production values, but pretty much every AAA game nowadays has high production values, after huge studios spend years polishing them. That alone doesn't mean that they are all "good", or that games with lower production values are worse.

You're confusing production values with talent and passion. You also seem to think I meant only one of those things is required.

Someone can have a lot of passion for their project, but without talent, then their project will more than likely turn out poorly.

Likewise, someone with a lot of talent, who has no real passion for the project, will often churn out something bad. (see some of Tim Burtons last few films)

It's the combination of these factors that lead to a quality product.

You may think Skyrim is mediocre, but that doesn't negate the talent behind the game. Even if you didn't like the game.

Neither did I. But I can still recognize the skill behind it's creation. I can still see the time and effort put into it's creation. As such, I can safely say it was a well-made game. I.E. a "good" game.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to being able to appreciate the difference between an objective critique and an objective opinion. Most people, especially most critics, can not.

It would also help if people realized it's okay to like something bad and to not like something good. Just like I said before. But, just because someone likes something, that something isn't inherently "good". Just as someone not liking something doesn't automatically make that thing "bad".

[sub]('Course, it would help even more if we didn't have so many people desperate to put other people down simply because of the others opinion)[/sub]

 

[MammothBlade]

For some people, "good" is synonymous with how much one actually likes a game. Nothing wrong with that as long as you acknowledge it's your own personal view.

You will never play every game or read every book, or watch every television show in your lifetime, therefore distinguishing between what you are and aren't most likely to enjoy is important. Splitting things between good and bad games by your own tastes is lazy, but it works, you can convince yourself you're not actually missing anything by not playing anything that's "bad".

 

[Conner42]

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to being able to appreciate the difference between an objective critique and an objective opinion. Most people, especially most critics, can not.

It would also help if people realized it's okay to like something bad and to not like something good. Just like I said before. But, just because someone likes something, that something isn't inherently "good". Just as someone not liking something doesn't automatically make that thing "bad".

[sub]('Course, it would help even more if we didn't have so many people desperate to put other people down simply because of the others opinion)[/sub]

:/

The day when it's recognized that certain works like games, movies, books, or anything with any sort of artistic values can be objectively viewed as good is the death of art itself.

http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

That's the closest you'll ever get to a review being objective. Even Jim himself said it wasn't completely objective because he chose the screen shots he chose, but without considering that, this is what objectivity looks like.

You are not wrong for thinking a game is good or bad. It's how we feel about games. Of course, I reserve the right to think you're an idiot if you like or dislike something in particular, but that's completely besides the point.

I can think of a lot of reasons of why something like Skyrim can be considered a bad game. But I can also think of reasons why it's a good game. But whether or not someone likes the game is completely up to them.

But what makes a game "objectively good"? Is there some sort of great big force that deems something as good or bad? Is based on popularity? Is it based on the stupid fucking Metacritic scores? Stuff like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are there to show how many people liked it and what kind of people liked it. It's not their to officially deem something as shit or not shit. If you look at it that way, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

And just because a game is well designed does not mean it's good. The game can function perfectly, but if I'm not enjoying it, and I can say why I'm not, then does that make the game bad? Well, for me it does, but it might be entertaining for someone else. But it doesn't make the game either good or bad, at least, not objectively.

Saying something like "The game is good" should carry about the same amount of weight as "I think the game is good" or "I liked it". Games that are universally considered to be good just means that it was well liked by quite a few people. It doesn't make the game "objectively good". Because they're all just opinions.

I posted this article before on the same forum, but just in case.....

http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-what-makes-a-movie-good/

I realize some people may not have time to read his monster of an article, though, you totally should, because it's amazing, but to paraphrase him...

"WHAT MAKES A GOOD MOVIE? YOU TELL HULK!"

And it's the same way with games as well.

 

[Callate]

I think there's plenty of room for criticism that is- perhaps "objective" isn't the best word, because those words get abused a lot, especially when someone doesn't agree with a particular critic. Let's say that certain kinds of criticism are more valuable because they maintain a certain distance and perspective. I can applaud a game for coming up with innovations in its interface that overcome problems that the particular genre has faced for some time, for example, and if those innovations mean that virtually every player will spend more time engaging the game itself and less time struggling with the perspective camera or the inventory, it would seem foolish to dismiss that observation, however positive, as "subjective".

There are many places in most games where a useful critic will make observations that take into account the state of the medium and other experiences the audience for that criticism will likely have also consumed. A critic could note that the graphics were closer to photorealism than those in a similar game a couple of years before, or that it appeared the game's designers weren't attempting photorealism at all but going for a particular visual style that highlighted things about the game's tone, theme, or elements. They can observe whether things like clipping or flickering occur, and whether those "glitches" actually interfere with gameplay or the ability to immerse and/or suspend disbelief. They can mention whether the story highlights the experience, if it's laden with cliches and unbelievable twists, and whether or not it matters to the game as a whole. And I think a good critic can weigh those things in their overall good-bad continuum evaluation of the game while still making it clear to their audience that they, weighing those issues differently, might come to a different conclusion.

So, yes, I think it's perfectly possible to recognize that a game is "good" while still disliking it, and even to a degree to recognize a game as "bad" in a way that maintains enough perspective to be able to point out solid reasons that most people could or should think the game is bad. Much in the way I could find a painting technically masterful even while I found the subject matter morally reprehensible.

 

[wookiee777]

Holy crap! I didn't think so many people would agree that there is a difference between "objectively good" and "I like it". I entirely expected the Escapist to side with me. My sister read the thread and laughed at me.

Bioshock and Skyrim are two exceptionally well-made games. A lot of talent, ingenuity, and passion went into their creation. The people responsible for making those two games were very skilled in their craft and clearly had/have a lot of love for the property and the medium. The quality of the games reflect that.

But what if I disagreed? As I've said, I hate Skyrim, I don't think it has those things you listed, especially the love for the property, I don't see it as being "good". Even if I did, by what standards do we call games good and bad? There has to be some kind of factual scale to base an objective critique off of. So what is it? Who decides what goes on that scale?

Nobody seems to be giving me a specific answer as to what exactly to base this objectivity off of (unless I missed a post). I hear things like "level design" or "voice acting", but those seem to be general, technical things, not necessarily objective things. And both of those can very well be shitty. I want an example of a particular game that is reviewed and talked about in this objective manner I keep hearing about, so that I can understand what you people mean.

EDIT: I knew I would miss a post. And it's a big one, too! Thanks, Conner42, for the links. The first link and video it linked to, Jim nails it again! The second link was very interesting. I don't know why it's in all caps, but the checklist thing he goes on about, that really makes me think... Hell, that article deserves it's own thread.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Snip.

Snip.

Ah... I Wrote my post standing in the queue in a shop! Seems I misrepresented what I meant... I misstyped reviewer... What I meant to say was that people with published games counts as more... much in the way that in any field somebody with published works and has studied ithas their ideas and opinions valued more...

Like take history for example... someone reading a book on WWII, who comes up with a new look at a particular event... As they are not an expert and haven't had published works means it's just their opinion. If a revered published WWII historian sees something in a new light, they can write a paper on it and it will be published as well and can become disputed fact...

It's just how these things work... so a published game designer should be able to say whether a game is good or not, and their opinion should be held higher as a proffessional in their field!

EDIT:

Snip.

PSA.

 

[thereverend7]

I was thinking of this earlier actually. Dues Ex human Revolution was objectively good to me- the story elements were well done, I felt like my choices actually mattered, but the gameplay was just clunky to me and I couldn't get into it. It's a good game and one i might re-visit some day- but It's not one that interests me, per say.

 

[Entitled]

You may think Skyrim is mediocre, but that doesn't negate the talent behind the game. Even if you didn't like the game.

Neither did I. But I can still recognize the skill behind it's creation. I can still see the time and effort put into it's creation. As such, I can safely say it was a well-made game. I.E. a "good" game.

Yes, it does negate the skill behind it's creation.

Even if I see the skill behind it's creation, but it fails at it's ultimate purpose; entertaining me, then it is still a bad game.

I understand what you say, that you can appreciate some aspects of the game but not others, but I don't agree with your way of using it, as if certain attributes of a game, such as "skill" or "passion", would be somehow above others, and they should always be considered objective.

For example I didn't like many of the logic puzzles of Portal, but I still appreciate it for it's humor alone. But that's not because I put "humor" on a pedestral where it's untouchably objective, simply that while I disliked most of it's gameplay, I liked some other aspects that were more important to me. But with Skyrim, even if I liked some aspects, for example that it was made with skill, the ones that I disliked overshadowed it, so I still call it bad.

Your way of putting "skill" and "passion" on a higher level that everyone must equally see and respect as making the game good, doesn't make sense. These are just another reason why you might like or dislike a game.

There is nothing to a game beyond "I liked it" or " disliked it" that's all that makes them good or bad. If you think that you see some "objective quality" in a game that you dislike, that's only becaus you arbitarily sparated some thing that you like into a different category.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Snip.

Snip.

Ah... I Wrote my post standing in the queue in a shop! Seems I misrepresented what I meant... I misstyped reviewer... What I meant to say was that people with published games counts as more... much in the way that in any field somebody with published works and has studied ithas their ideas and opinions valued more...

Like take history for example... someone reading a book on WWII, who comes up with a new look at a particular event... As they are not an expert and haven't had published works means it's just their opinion. If a revered published WWII historian sees something in a new light, they can write a paper on it and it will be published as well and can become disputed fact...

It's just how these things work... so a published game designer should be able to say whether a game is good or not, and their opinion should be held higher as a proffessional in their field!

EDIT:

Snip.

PSA.

I disagree. When someone is paid to give an opinion, no matter how professional they seem, their opinion cannot be considered as valued. There will be reviewers/developers/publishers out there that will lose their job for saying something that harms a games credibility. They have a vested interest in saying the game is better than it is and thus they forfeit the right to credibility.

Also, in this generation of consoles i have played over 300 games through from start to finish. Doesn't my experience make me a more valuable source than the guy who gets paid to sell a product on the games companies behalf?

If it was an historian and they were getting paid by the government to come up with reasons why something should change to benefit the people they get paid by...wouldn't that be less credible?

Just a few thoughts

 

[aguspal]

I didnt exactly liked Dragon Age, to put it lightly, but I realize it must be at least decent enough if so many people liked it.


Same for Minecraft, althougt its not that I didnt liked that game so much that I hated the wasted potential. Minecraft could be a SUPER awesome game, instead it is stuck as a "Okay decentish game to waste time" game.

 

[Conner42]

I don't know why it's in all caps

Yeah, that's his gimmick. All of his essays are in the voice of the Hulk.

These kinds of discussions piss me off a lot more than they probably should, but I feel like whenever someone brings up "objectivity", they're doing a great disservice to Video Games and...well, pretty much everything else.

There's nothing wrong with arguing why a game is good or bad with people who disagree. That also makes progress. But when objectivity is brought up, that's kind of a problem. It dismisses people who might think a certain thing is good or bad even when they have good reasons.

Maybe you should show your sister the article. Actually, pretty much anything FilmCritHulk writes is worth reading. But that one is the most appropriate for this thread.

And, now, re-reading that article, I'm saying nearly the exact same things Hulk has said without even realizing it.

.....Go me!