I can agree with this. If there were boundaries or limitations on what we would put in a game. Then gaming as a whole will stagnate.sethisjimmy said:
What exactly constitutes as "Objectively" good/bad or "Subjectively" good/bad in games?
- Thread starter scorptatious
- Start date
Wait, quality of writing? How exactly do we determine how objectively good writing is? There is plenty of writing, in and out of videogames, which I like that others don't.shrekfan246 said:
Objectively good can only be inferred with some degree of confidence based on a large sampling of subjective opinions amid the target audience. Subjective good is a byproduct of objective qualities filtered through the individuals perception. There are qualities that a skilled designer can utilize to make games with objective qualities that bring about a lot of subjective approval, but the only data that can be gathered on the subject is subjective. Attempting to define the 2 more distinctly will resort in angry pointless internet ranting shortly before your brain explodes.
How exactly does one determine if a narrative is objectively good or bad? What if I really like a game's (or other medium's) story, dialouge, ect and think it is good, but someone else dislikes it and thinks it is bad? Do we have a vote?Lilani said:
I left in the relevant parts. Also, just because something is bad, that doesn't mean you can't like it.Lonewolfm16 said:
To cherry pick an example here, the Devil May Cry franchise has terrible writing. It's just awful. But it's awful in a campy way that makes it turn right around and become endearing. It still doesn't mean it's good writing, but it's bad writing that people can enjoy, partly because it's bad.
You're right that it can be difficult to determine the "objective" quality of writing in a piece of media, but it doesn't preclude the existence of good and bad writing.
And how does one determine that Devil May Cry has terrible writing? The quality of writing is fairly subjective, I have read books hailed as classics with fantastic writing and disliked them, and I have read books that people said had terrible writing and enjoyed it. Prove, without using personal opinoin, that Devil May Cry has poor writing, until you can do that your conclusion is purely subjective.shrekfan246 said:
There aren't that many things that can be objectively bad. Clipping, controls, graphics and bugs, for example, can be objectively bad. But it's not a dichotomy, it's a sliding scale. There are a lot of things like voice acting, plot integrity, animations, etc. that are generally considered to be objective in the same way that cement is generally considered to be hard. Stiff or repetitive animations may be said to be bad, despite some people thinking they're good. It is subjective, but it's closer to objective than 'anyone's guess'. Then there are things like character design, atmosphere, soundtrack, that are pretty much subjective. You can say a character's outfit is gaudy or overdesigned, but someone else might find it appealing, and they're not wrong, whereas someone who attempts to argue that a stiff animation is fluid will have a harder time of it.
As a side note though, something can be bad and still be liked. Bad voice acting can be hilarious, and sometimes endearing. Just because you like it doesn't mean you have to defend it as good.
As a side note though, something can be bad and still be liked. Bad voice acting can be hilarious, and sometimes endearing. Just because you like it doesn't mean you have to defend it as good.
an objectively bad game would be one which, if it were dug up a thousand years from now along with a sampling of other games of that period, will be referred to as "the bad one"
Why strive for objectivity in the first place? Seems like a silly thing to do when everyone's going to come up with their own subjective opinion anyway.
It should be noted that "Objectively bad" is an oxymoron, as "bad" is itself a subjective qualifier.
Why strive for objectivity in the first place? Seems like a silly thing to do when everyone's going to come up with their own subjective opinion anyway.
It should be noted that "Objectively bad" is an oxymoron, as "bad" is itself a subjective qualifier.
There's plenty of factors things in games that you can qualify as objective, and these are things you can measure, for example:
* Is the game turn based? Real Time? Civilization is a turn-based title
* Are the loading times long compared to other games? Sonic 06's loading times are objectively worse than 90% of all videogames released in 2006.
* Are the in-game mechanics constant and repeatable? Angry Birds fails at having constant physics.
* Framerate. DmC on consoles has a worse frame rate than the other games in the series.
* Production Values. Gears of War has high production values because it has a high budget that was used in the design and programming of the game.
* Slowdown and Texture Pop-in. Can they be repeated at will?
* Bad controls. If you do the exact same motion in a game does the game always throw out the same result?
Subjective values of a game:
* Fun
* Enjoyable
* Scary
* Atmospheric
* Addictive
* Well-designed
* Well-written
* Childish
* All the -isms
* Is the game turn based? Real Time? Civilization is a turn-based title
* Are the loading times long compared to other games? Sonic 06's loading times are objectively worse than 90% of all videogames released in 2006.
* Are the in-game mechanics constant and repeatable? Angry Birds fails at having constant physics.
* Framerate. DmC on consoles has a worse frame rate than the other games in the series.
* Production Values. Gears of War has high production values because it has a high budget that was used in the design and programming of the game.
* Slowdown and Texture Pop-in. Can they be repeated at will?
* Bad controls. If you do the exact same motion in a game does the game always throw out the same result?
Subjective values of a game:
* Fun
* Enjoyable
* Scary
* Atmospheric
* Addictive
* Well-designed
* Well-written
* Childish
* All the -isms
Good or bad are matters of opinion. Period. The only thing that could be objective is if a game is literally non-functional, like Steel Battalion (or so I hear).
Well the thing is there's a huge difference between something being good/bad, and liking/disliking something. The two are completely separate. You can easily like something that's bad or hate something that's good. A surprisingly lot of people don't seem to make that distinction. You don't have to defend yourself if you like/dislike something because sometimes you just do for no real reason. But if you say something is good/bad, you generally should be able to back it up.
For example, many younger people really dislike certain older movies like say 2001: A Space Odyssey. That doesn't change the fact that it is a good movie. Or to use videogame examples, Ocarina of Time or the original Half-Life. By today's standards they might not be that great and because of that younger audiences might not like them as much but when taken in the context of their time, they're groundbreaking. Same goes for stuff like Shakespeare, early black and white films, and so on.
By that same measure, people can also really like something that is absolutely terrible. Justin Bieber, Transformers, The Expendables, Call of Duty, take your pick. If simply liking something was enough to classify it as good, all of the above are the pinnacle of their respective mediums.
I myself, I really love the movie Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. I don't hesitate in the slightest to say that movie is an abomination that should never be seen by human eyes, let alone compare it to a movie like 2001 or call it a good movie.
A good rule of thumb for figuring out if something is good/bad is by seeing how much you can back up your stance with reasonably objective claims. Why is it good/bad? Saying it's good because I like it isn't enough. Saying it's good because it's graphics are better, the art style is well executed, the gameplay is polished and fun, there are few bugs, it has good pacing, etc. is way more valid. And the more in depth you can get, the more valid your position is. For example, the graphics are good because of XYZ, something hard to do well given the constraints. The art direction works to form a unique and consistent style using cel shading and cartoony outlines. And so on. The more of those kinds of reasons you can give, the more likely it is that it's objectively good.
For example, many younger people really dislike certain older movies like say 2001: A Space Odyssey. That doesn't change the fact that it is a good movie. Or to use videogame examples, Ocarina of Time or the original Half-Life. By today's standards they might not be that great and because of that younger audiences might not like them as much but when taken in the context of their time, they're groundbreaking. Same goes for stuff like Shakespeare, early black and white films, and so on.
By that same measure, people can also really like something that is absolutely terrible. Justin Bieber, Transformers, The Expendables, Call of Duty, take your pick. If simply liking something was enough to classify it as good, all of the above are the pinnacle of their respective mediums.
I myself, I really love the movie Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. I don't hesitate in the slightest to say that movie is an abomination that should never be seen by human eyes, let alone compare it to a movie like 2001 or call it a good movie.
A good rule of thumb for figuring out if something is good/bad is by seeing how much you can back up your stance with reasonably objective claims. Why is it good/bad? Saying it's good because I like it isn't enough. Saying it's good because it's graphics are better, the art style is well executed, the gameplay is polished and fun, there are few bugs, it has good pacing, etc. is way more valid. And the more in depth you can get, the more valid your position is. For example, the graphics are good because of XYZ, something hard to do well given the constraints. The art direction works to form a unique and consistent style using cel shading and cartoony outlines. And so on. The more of those kinds of reasons you can give, the more likely it is that it's objectively good.
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.Little Gray said:
I personally think it's better to think of "Objectively good" or "Objectively bad" as "Functional" or "Nonfunctional" based on the technical prowess of the game. Since good and bad are both implying a subjective opinion, it's just not right to put objective right in front of them. I believe that's an oxymoron, can't remember though.
from reading these forums it comes down to
person 1 "I like/hate this game because its objectively good/bad for reason x"
person 2 "Actually i dissagree with you, i found X to be rather bad/good"
person 1 "well thats your subjective opinion"
seriously it is subjective unless the game simply doesnt work, maybe it crashes every 5 seconds etc
person 1 "I like/hate this game because its objectively good/bad for reason x"
person 2 "Actually i dissagree with you, i found X to be rather bad/good"
person 1 "well thats your subjective opinion"
seriously it is subjective unless the game simply doesnt work, maybe it crashes every 5 seconds etc
It's a flawed distinction because the very issue of a flaw is not objective. Even if a game is bug ridden, barely works and insults your beloved grandmother - it may not be "objectively flawed".nykirnsu said:
This is a ridiculous question because objectively good/bad doesn't make sense. Objectivity does not deal with good and bad.
Objective:
This game has unplanned features that prohibit the completion of set tasks within the game (this game has bugs).
Any talk about whether these bugs are negative or positive is then into the world of subjectivity.
I am mostly in agreement with you that the quality of writing is subjective. I've seen people make the case before for "OH X is objectively poorly written and Y is objectively well written" and it just doesn't go anywhere. For some reason it always seems to come back to opinions, which kinda defeats the point.Lonewolfm16 said:
The problem is just how subjective writing tends to be. One man's unconvincing and poorly written dialogue is a Tarantino-esque masterpiece of writing to another. What one person finds to be glacial pacing is just the right speed for the next guy. There are very broad rules, such as clarity in your writing, but even those can be successfully subverted. And the person deciding whether the story is successful or not in doing that is the individual viewer/player/reader, which again comes back to those damn things called opinions.
If there's an up, then there must be a down. I think it's just humans haven't evolved to a point where we can objectively assess "good".Vegosiux said:
This is an interesting point, and one a lot don't seem to understand.nykirnsu said:
Just because you "like" something doesn't mean it's not objectively bad, and you know what. that's ok, we all like something that's bad.
Some seemingly subjective things can be objectively bad, plot holes for example. Now whether or not said plot hole affects your enjoyment doesn't change the fact that it's objectively bad.