What exactly constitutes as "Objectively" good/bad or "Subjectively" good/bad in games?

[Hyper-space]

*Bugs
*Bland environments
*Repetitive uncreative actions
*Mechanics that are narratively dissonant/narrative that is mechanically dissonant. If you have an RPG about a man succumbing to old age, but the mechanics are levelling up and become stronger as time progresses, then although the game can still be enjoyable, it is almost always a bad pairing of story and gameplay
*Cutscenes that strongly conflict with gameplay and take away power from players in a cheating way.
*Bosses who you have to defeat and then once you've beaten them, will win against you in a cutscene
*Emotional blandness
*Poorly responsive controls
*Games that don't understand their core engagements and don't consistently provide for any of them

With the exception of bugs (things that were objectively not supposed to be in the final product and were not intended), all the points you've mentioned are subjective and open for interpretation. You might not like them, but they are not objectively bad things, its still just your opinion.

 

[BrotherRool]

*Bugs
*Bland environments
*Repetitive uncreative actions
*Mechanics that are narratively dissonant/narrative that is mechanically dissonant. If you have an RPG about a man succumbing to old age, but the mechanics are levelling up and become stronger as time progresses, then although the game can still be enjoyable, it is almost always a bad pairing of story and gameplay
*Cutscenes that strongly conflict with gameplay and take away power from players in a cheating way.
*Bosses who you have to defeat and then once you've beaten them, will win against you in a cutscene
*Emotional blandness
*Poorly responsive controls
*Games that don't understand their core engagements and don't consistently provide for any of them

With the exception of bugs (things that were objectively not supposed to be in the final product and were not intended), all the points you've mentioned are subjective and open for interpretation. You might not like them, but they are not objectively bad things, its still just your opinion.

If they aren't completely objective, I'm still pretty sure it would be reasonably hard to find someone who would ask for a game to be emotionally bland, or to have gameplay mechanics that are dissonant with the story. If someone was trying to make a game, it's a fair rule of thumb that those are things to avoid and I doubt many people would criticise a review for calling a game bad on those counts.

If anything, I thought bugs were the more subjective one, because you can get a lot of enjoyment out of a buggy game, and Yahtzee explicitly listed it as one of the things that made Skyrim fun. There are less people who've described a game as great because it had a boss fight where you beat the boss and then he beat you in a cutscene (although I feel like a lot of my points could probably be tidily summed up under gameplay/narrative dissonance).

I figure they have about the same level of objectivity as using a dutch angle to create an unsettling emotion in a film. A film that matches dutch angles to unsettling is going to be doing the right thing 9 times out of 10, if a director didn't know what one was meant to do and used it in the wrong place, it probably would confuse the audience and detract from the emotion of the film and be a sign that he wasn't yet an experienced director with that showing in the project. But there are exceptions to the rule and it isn't going to go over the same with absolutely everyone

 

[wulf3n]

If they aren't completely objective, I'm still pretty sure it would be reasonably hard to find someone who would ask for a game to be emotionally bland, or to have gameplay mechanics that are dissonant with the story. If someone was trying to make a game, it's a fair rule of thumb that those are things to avoid and I doubt many people would criticise a review for calling a game bad on those counts.

I think it's more a case of "bland" not being thoroughly defined. Ask 3 people what constitutes bland, and you'll get 4 answers.

Because of this vagueness it's hard to distinguish between a subjective opinion and an objective assessment.

 

[Little Gray]

Excuse me but I dont give a flying fuck about games as an artistic medium.

Then why the hell are you here? The only reason I can see, besides people who like is if you really really like the off topic section and don't realize that other forums have that, is if maybe you have no idea what constitutes "art" is actually the reverence and care that people put into certain objects, i.e. the kind of reverence and care and people put into games, that drives them to even visit these sorts of forums to discuss games. 'Course art is a mangled and misunderstood term so that kind of logic is common.[/quote]

Its simple really I enjoy playing games. This artistic medium crap that has been all the rage the last couple years is meaningless.

 

[BrotherRool]

If they aren't completely objective, I'm still pretty sure it would be reasonably hard to find someone who would ask for a game to be emotionally bland, or to have gameplay mechanics that are dissonant with the story. If someone was trying to make a game, it's a fair rule of thumb that those are things to avoid and I doubt many people would criticise a review for calling a game bad on those counts.

I think it's more a case of "bland" not being thoroughly defined. Ask 3 people what constitutes bland, and you'll get 4 answers.

Because of this vagueness it's hard to distinguish between a subjective opinion and an objective assessment.

Oh yeah, thats a good point. Maybe if you went more specific, like the need for a feedback mechanism when someone is hit by a bullet, using crosshairs that don't overly obscure the target etc.

 

[Hyper-space]

If they aren't completely objective, I'm still pretty sure it would be reasonably hard to find someone who would ask for a game to be emotionally bland, or to have gameplay mechanics that are dissonant with the story. If someone was trying to make a game, it's a fair rule of thumb that those are things to avoid and I doubt many people would criticise a review for calling a game bad on those counts.

If anything, I thought bugs were the more subjective one, because you can get a lot of enjoyment out of a buggy game, and Yahtzee explicitly listed it as one of the things that made Skyrim fun. There are less people who've described a game as great because it had a boss fight where you beat the boss and then he beat you in a cutscene (although I feel like a lot of my points could probably be tidily summed up under gameplay/narrative dissonance).

I figure they have about the same level of objectivity as using a dutch angle to create an unsettling emotion in a film. A film that matches dutch angles to unsettling is going to be doing the right thing 9 times out of 10, if a director didn't know what one was meant to do and used it in the wrong place, it probably would confuse the audience and detract from the emotion of the film and be a sign that he wasn't yet an experienced director with that showing in the project. But there are exceptions to the rule and it isn't going to go over the same with absolutely everyone

Popular opinion does not constitute an objective view of something and emotional blandness is a subjective assessment of something. And how do you define emotional blandness in the first place? Is it lack of diversity or just thereof? Who exactly determines how moving a piece of art-work is? Games such as Amnesia: Dark Descent only really let you feel one emotion, that of fear, but does so well. Would it be considered emotionally bland due to its lack of range on the emotional spectrum?

I'm starting to think that people are confusing "objectively" with commonly agreed upon subjective (emphasis) qualities. 99% of people may agree that a rich story and complex gameplay make for a good game, but what exactly entails "rich" and "complex" may differ wildly and depend entirely upon personal preferences. Hence; Subjective.

 

[Frokane]

it depends on who you are talking to, and the ever swaying 'trend' of what is acceptable to like and not like.


for example,sonic 06 is a poor game in most peoples eyes, and you can openly call it poor becuase even the small amount of people who call themselves die-hard sonic fans wont defend that particular game.

however when it comes to a game like Halo 3, which has a shit load of problems, you have to tread lightly, because the fanbase is more likely to jump out at you for anything you say.

objective may be a term, but ultimatley WE the fans are the onss who determine its meaning

 

[BrotherRool]

Popular opinion does not constitute an objective view of something and emotional blandness is a subjective assessment of something. And how do you define emotional blandness in the first place? Is it lack of diversity or just thereof? Who exactly determines how moving a piece of art-work is? Games such as Amnesia: Dark Descent only really let you feel one emotion, that of fear, but does so well. Would it be considered emotionally bland due to its lack of range on the emotional spectrum?

I'm starting to think that people are confusing "objectively" with commonly agreed upon subjective (emphasis) qualities. 99% of people may agree that a rich story and complex gameplay make for a good game, but what exactly entails "rich" and "complex" may differ wildly and depend entirely upon personal preferences. Hence; Subjective.

The best measure of objectivity we have is something which people will reliably come to the same answer on independently, so some measure of popular opinion doesn't seem like much of a stretch