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

[FavouriteDream]

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".

Incorrect, if you define what flawed is you can objectively assess if something is flawed.

"Objective" merely defines an unbiased statement.

You cannot correctly define a subjective word (flawed) without using fellow subjective words to define it. For example, I just found three definitions of the word flawed and they call mention the word "fault".

Fault is a subjective word, let's define fault. Most definitions use words like "unattractive", "unsatisfactory" and "imperfect" - three more subjective words.

The definition of those words also involve subjective words.

And so on and so on.

So no, even with the definition of flawed next to me - I cannot objectively asses if a game is flawed. If I were to make up my own definition of the word flawed and used that (for example any game with the letter M in the title is flawed) I still cannot call a game flawed because my definition is subjective. Technically, all definitions are subjective to a degree - but a definition that only yourself adheres to (such as the letter m definition I made up) is considered to be even more subjective that official dictionary's definitions.

I could go on all day; in short - you're wrong.

 

[wulf3n]

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".

Incorrect, if you define what flawed is you can objectively assess if something is flawed.

"Objective" merely defines an unbiased statement.

You cannot correctly define a subjective word (flawed) without using fellow subjective words to define it. For example, I just found three definitions of the word flawed and they call mention the word "fault".

Fault is a subjective word, let's define fault. Most definitions use words like "unattractive", "unsatisfactory" and "imperfect" - three more subjective words.

The definition of those words also involve subjective words.

And so on and so on.

So no, even with the definition of flawed next to me - I cannot objectively asses if a game is flawed. If I were to make up my own definition of the word flawed and used that (for example any game with the letter M in the title is flawed) I still cannot call a game flawed because my definition is subjective. Technically, all definitions are subjective to a degree - but a definition that only yourself adheres to (such as the letter m definition I made up) is considered to be even more subjective that official dictionary's definitions.

I could go on all day; in short - you're wrong.

I see what you're trying to explain, but you're wrong.

I'll use a simple example.

I write a program that calculates A + B and define that it must always = C. I define "flawed" as any result != C. I run the program and get the result D. The program can now objectively be called flawed.

 

[Strazdas]

no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad, because good and bad is subjective.

I write a program that calculates A + B and define that it must always = C. I define "flawed" as any result != C. I run the program and get the result D. The program can now objectively be called flawed.

then you simply need to learn what "flawed" is, because you are using it incorrectly.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

i find objectivity is a noble goal, though unreachable objectivity is stopping and thinking about something in a very academic sense.

subjectivity is comitting to an opinion without any thought, simply thinking with your gut.

 

[wulf3n]

no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad, because good and bad is subjective.

I write a program that calculates A + B and define that it must always = C. I define "flawed" as any result != C. I run the program and get the result D. The program can now objectively be called flawed.

then you simply need to learn what "flawed" is, because you are using it incorrectly.

Really?

)A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object.

Synonyms
noun. fault - defect - blemish - shortcoming - imperfection
verb. crack - damage - split

As the creator of said program I define what its correct behaviour is. Any result that falls outside of that correct behaviour is considered incorrect behaviour also known as fault, defect, shortcoming or imperfection.

Therefore I can say it has a flaw, and can be considered objectively flawed.

 

[Spinozaad]

"Good" and "bad" are inherently normative terms, so these terms can never ever be used in an objective manner. Pure objectivity is unattainable in human affairs.

This isn't a problem when it comes to reviews, though. Because as long as the reviewer uses reasoned arguments (that is, he/she explicates his/her implicit assumptions as to what makes a game good), it's up to the reader/viewer to decide the validity of the argument.

 

[barbzilla]

Or, what exactly is the difference between "liking a game" or "thinking it's good".

I've been reading up on a discussion on this thread:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.401346-I-like-Aliens-Colonial-Marines

And some people talk about how just because some people happen to like a certain game, does not change the fact that it is bad.

Part of me is sorta torn on this kind of thinking.

On one hand, with games like Sonic 06, I found the game to be horrible due to it's bugginess, it's bad game design choices, and it's bad story. So yes, I definitely consider the game "bad". And I'm not sure how some people would like the game.

Then there's games like Mirror's Edge, a game that I also dislike, but by contrast is much more functional than Sonic 06. I hated how half the time I wasn't sure where to go, and during those times I was often being chased by the cops, resulting in many a frustrating death. It didn't help that I wasn't overall invested into the game's story. And yet despite that, the game still has a bunch of people who are able to look past these issues and enjoy the game overall and wish for a sequel.

So, even if I dislike said game, it is still considered a good game by other people. I can't find myself believing that it's a good game, because I personally didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying the people who do like it are wrong, I'm just saying I don't think it's a good game.

Then there's games like Skullgirls. A game I sorta have a love/hate relationship. I love the art style and characters in the game. But I can't get my head completely around the fighting mechanics. Maybe it's because the game was intended for those who actually had a deep history with fighting games, games that I had little experience with. So overall, I would consider it a good game, but others hate it for the reasons I mentioned.

I don't know, this whole thing seems very confusing to me. I'm not really sure what would constitute as "objective" or "subjective" when it comes to the games like Mirror's Edge or Skullgirls. Because some people may have a particular mindset that works better for those kinds of games.

So anyone here able to make heads or tails about this kind of thing? And, please, let's be civil about this.

I am sure that someone has given you a solid answer by now, but I will go ahead and give it again. An objectively bad game is a game that has technical issues/bugs/crashing/other tangible issues the prevent it from being played the way it was intended to be played. This game (an objectively bad one) has failed at the most basic of design functions, and that is to allow the game to function in such a way that the game is able to be played without frustrating technical errors. The reverse being true for objectively good. Meanwhile a subjectively bad game is a game that you don't like (or someone doesn't like) because of design/artistic/intangible choices.

For example Halo 4 was subjectively bad to me, I think the game's core game play works from a technical standpoint, but I do not enjoy the story or the game play.

Hellogate: London was an objectively bad game. I enjoyed the game immensely, only I was unable to play it properly because of all the bugs that prevented proper play.

Keeping in mind that good/bad are both morality based terms technically, so some people are going to nitpick. It doesn't change the fact that things can be good and bad no relating to morality because we have progressed to using the words good and bad in a none morality construct.

 

[StriderShinryu]

As a couple of other posters have said, I think a lot of it depends on personal experience and shared experience. It's usually pretty easy to tell when you're playing something "bad" where the badness extends beyond you just not liking the game. It's not, however, always so easy to describe that "badness" in proper terms. Once you've played enough games, you start to develop your own sort of vocabulary for what's bad and what's good. You can also more clearly define when your personal taste is perhaps obscuring some pointedly "bad" aspects of a game. It's easiest to then corroborate your own findings by comparing them to those of others. For as much flak as something like metacritic gets, it's usually still a decent enough sign that a game is bad if the vast majority of reviews come up very negative.

 

[deathbydeath]

Oh gawd, this argument again. Short answer: yes, to an extent.

Long Answer: Let's start with an example.

Mass Effect 2 was an interesting combination of games at both their best and worst. It has an absolutely terrible main story, relatively dull shooting, an obscene amount of brown/grey/boring set design, far too much faffing about, and some terrible design choices/planet scanning. It also has examples of some of the best things in gaming, with a few wonderful missions, a handful of pretty good characters, a few aesthetically pleasing environments, and some very well-writting and touching character moments.

Now, where does this leave us? For me, I give it a "Bad" score, clocking in at 2/5, as I feel that while the high points keep it from being an absolute waste of time, it doesn't justify or redeem the game as a whole. However, some people are willing to swear by this game until they asphyxiate themselves. And despite all of the (justified) criticisms I levy against the game, I still don't regret my purchase. I got it on Steam for $20 USD (I haven't bought any DLC), and have clocked 76.6 hours on it over three playthroughs. On the other end of the spectrum is VVVVVV, which is short, sweet, and an example of a fantastic game boiled down to its "purest" form. Yet I paid $4.50 (I think) for it, and I don't feel like it would be worth a price over $10.

This is a solution I propose: keep review scores for measuring the general quality and design of a game (a 1-5 scale work best in my experience), but don't discount pricing as a "subjective" measurement for what it will take for a purchase to feel justified.

Addendum: Saying "everything is subjective all day erry day" is for people who are either too afraid to defend/justify their perspective, or can't be arsed to.

 

[King Billi]

Everything is going to have faults, be they technical, ethical or asthetic. They may be large or small but they're always going to be there and alot of them are likely going to be based on personal predilection.

For some people any of these faults could be inexcusable so the only way you can subjectively judge something to be good or bad is based soley on whether or not you notice the issues or simply if you care or not that they are there.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

First off it depends on what your definition of "good" and "bad" are.
Secondly it depends on what your definition of "objective" and "subjective" are.

Now you might be thinking that "objective" and "subjective" have inarguable definitions set in stone. but do you differentiate between the words "best" and "favorite"

If someone asked what your favorite game is would you have a different answer if they asked what the best game you've played is?


"best" is an objective superlative of "good" while "favorite" is a subjective superlative of "good"

You basically need to start with what exactly you're judging. "Quality" is way to broad to judge all in one go. The more specific you can be with your reasoning the more objective you're being with your judgements.

 

[rob_simple]

My understanding is that objective can be proven as fact; good and bad doesn't come into it, (A car without wheels is not a good car), whereas subjective relies more on personal preferences and user experience (A lemon-yellow car with black leather interior looks great).

As I pointed out, I think in the thread you link to OP, though: what is objective in art and entertainment is usually born of popular opinion; i.e. the majority's subjective preference, and that is what creates problems.

In video games, there are so many variables to take into account that even if some are objectively bad (glitches, lag, controls that don't always work) there may still be elements the player enjoys enough to look past the flaws, which means that when it comes to reviewing games the only way a journalist could be completely objective is to say 'the game works in so much as it didn't crash or break my PS3'.

 

[Loonyyy]

Anything which can measured independant of the viewer.

Technical issues, graphical fidelity, physics quality etc, all are capable of being measured objectively. If a game doesn't work, or crashes at a certain frequency, these are objective issues which can be measured. Shame you can't measure anything that really matters about a game's experience that way. Objective issues are really the bare minimum required for the game to be playable: The graphics must convey the visual art, the game must run, the physics must convey the mechanics etc. But how they do these things gets into the subjective again: Are physics glitches or unrealistic physics problems? In the end, most of these things you can just get as raw numbers. CryEngine 3 can render this. Frostbite 2 can render this. Unreal 4 can do this. Which doesn't tell you at all whether you'd like the things done with those engines. Most of what you'd measure objectively is out of the way and under the hood.

You can't measure objectively how fun a game is, whether people will like it or not, you can just judge who might like it, or who will find it engaging.

When people say something is "Objectively good/bad", it's because they have no argument or case. They want to say it's a fact, and you're wrong for not having the same opinion as them.

Addendum:

Addendum: Saying "everything is subjective all day erry day" is for people who are either too afraid to defend/justify their perspective, or can't be arsed to.

Or it's by people with a little more understanding of epistomology and the use of language who know what objective vs. subjective means. Whether you like a game is entirely subjective. Deal with it. Your opinion is just that: an opinion. That it is not universal does not make it any less valid. Calling out those pointing out quite rightly the definition is for people who can't be arsed to accept that their personal preference is that: personal.

 

[Jayemsal]

The level of effort that the developer exerted shows, 100% of the time.

It also is very easy to tell when people actually cared about the game they are producing.

In short: Good games have telltale signs of TLC.

 

[Callate]

Objectivity may be more of a lofty goal than an achievable perfection. But it's still something reviewers should aspire to achieve. If you appeared in a YouTube video wearing Spider-Man pajamas with a book shelf full of Spider-Man action figures, Spider-Man drinking glasses, Spider-Man DVDs, and Spider-Man comic collections, holding your mylar-protected Spider-Man #1 in your hands as you record, and tell me that the new Spider-Man video game is the best thing ever, I'm probably going to take your opinion with a large grain of salt, so to speak.

Now, it may be that I have a fondness for cartoon-cute characters, or despise RPGs with lengthy in-game text narratives. I may not be able to overcome those particular preferences, but I can be aware of them, and in reporting my feelings about a game I can try to work around them or at least make the audience for my opinion aware of those preferences.

There are things that it is possible to be subjective about; if a game clearly uses low-fidelity textures while all its contemporaries in the same genre have long since moved on, that's something one could presumably point out as a negative. Likewise unwieldy or inelegant controls- some pointed out that "clunky" controls may be a part of certain survival-horror experiences, but arguably one can feel a certain difference between "I'm controlling someone who isn't a natural badass" and "the developers simply didn't care that I have to push three buttons in a particular order to turn around and start running away."

It's also worth pointing out that a "subjective" opinion isn't necessarily a worthless. If I like comic book superheroes and you like comic book superheroes and your opinions of good comics have led me to good finds in the past, your opinion will probably have some value to me despite its subjectivity- because your particular "lens" for viewing media has similarities to my own.

 

[veloper]

Or, what exactly is the difference between "liking a game" or "thinking it's good".

Atleast the question in your OP is better worded than the question in the title. We can work with that.
There is little or no "objective" in good or bad games, but still there's a big difference between a (subjectively) good game and liking a game.

1 Let's start with the most obvious example: genres and how some people don't like certain genres.
Bob may not LIKE racing games, but he if he's got any sense he won't go around slamming popular racing titles, because Bob's no judge here. So Gran Tourismo may be GOOD, but Bob still doesn't LIKE it.

2 One more example: a kid who's played a couple crappy games is more likely to be impressed with a mediocre game than a jaded old gamer, who's played many more titles to compare the game to. Experience may be a big factor.

3 Liking something barely even counts as an opinion, while "game is good" is a bolder statement that approaches a recommendation. "Like" is never wrong; nobody can contest it, so it doesn't hold any value. Only in an aggregate form may "likes" have some weight begind them. Going against the general opinion and claiming something is the opposite, is more interesting: it's an invitation for a discussion.
There comes your chance to qualify your opinion, to compare the title to other games and to display your knowledge and experience. A good discussion can be more insightful than a review. Make a good argument and your opinion is nolonger any asshole, but a qualified opinion that holds some weight.

 

[scorptatious]

The level of effort that the developer exerted shows, 100% of the time.

It also is very easy to tell when people actually cared about the game they are producing.

In short: Good games have telltale signs of TLC.

What's TLC?

Liking something barely even counts as an opinion, while "game is good" is a bolder statement that approaches a recommendation. "Like" is never wrong; nobody can contest it, so it doesn't hold any value. Only in an aggregate form may "likes" have some weight begind them. Going against the general opinion and claiming something is the opposite, is more interesting: it's an invitation for a discussion.
There comes your chance to qualify your opinion, to compare the title to other games and to display your knowledge and experience. A good discussion can be more insightful than a review. Make a good argument and your opinion is nolonger any asshole, but a qualified opinion that holds some weight.

Hmm. That makes sense. It sorta explains why a lot of people would post threads that are often against popular opinion of something. Like the Aliens thread I linked.

Anywho, thanks for the input guys. Very insightful and informative.

 

[Jayemsal]

The level of effort that the developer exerted shows, 100% of the time.

It also is very easy to tell when people actually cared about the game they are producing.

In short: Good games have telltale signs of TLC.

What's TLC?

Liking something barely even counts as an opinion, while "game is good" is a bolder statement that approaches a recommendation. "Like" is never wrong; nobody can contest it, so it doesn't hold any value. Only in an aggregate form may "likes" have some weight begind them. Going against the general opinion and claiming something is the opposite, is more interesting: it's an invitation for a discussion.
There comes your chance to qualify your opinion, to compare the title to other games and to display your knowledge and experience. A good discussion can be more insightful than a review. Make a good argument and your opinion is nolonger any asshole, but a qualified opinion that holds some weight.

Hmm. That makes sense. It sorta explains why a lot of people would post threads that are often against popular opinion of something. Like the Aliens thread I linked.

Anywho, thanks for the input guys. Very insightful and informative.

TLC is an American trio whose repertoire spanned R&B, hip hop, soul, funk, and new jack swing. Originally consisting of singer Tionne "T-Boz" Watkins, rapper Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes and singer Rozonda "Chilli" Thomas, the group found success in the 1990s while also enduring a series of spats with the law, each other, and the group's record label.

Oh wait, not THAT TLC.

TLC means Tender, Loving Care.