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

[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!

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

well of course you can I didn't like Fallout 3 or New vegas. I understood they were good, and saw they were good, but I didn't like them personally. Same for Halo 3. People can dislike good games, it's not a sin or a crime, ha.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

I liked the game 'Final Fantasy: Dirge of Cerberus' where as many people said that they hated the game, and that it was awful. You can totally like a game that people think is terrible, and hate a game that everyone loves. It's all a matter of preference really.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

[
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!

Odd example, it doesn`t click. When it comes to history it`s about facts. When it`s comes to games it`s about entertainment.
Gaming journalists aren`t a good comparsion to historians. They are more like book- or movie- critics where their opinions aren`t worth much because every reader or viewer decides for himself. Of Course you can`t play, read, see everything by yourself but how many good/trust worthy reviewers are there? The fun fact is that you actually search for someone who clicks with your opinion the most and even then you`re in for some suprises.

No one can tell you how much fun or entertainment you`ll get out of your games besides yourself, not even the so called "pros". I trust my own ratings more for sure. No one needs a pro to tell you how much the game you`re actually enjoying is worth, it`s yours to decide.