Fight me.
Videogames are art.
>>731896525fun and art are subjective
Quality is objective to an extent but it turns subjective the moment you try to explain it in concrete terms. Communication is always personal and inherently limited by our biases.
>>731896483While it's true that some aspects of videogames are purely technical and therefore objective, a lot of other aspects depend entirely on individual perception, knowledge and experience and can only evaluated from a subjective point of view.
>>731896574>>731896709>>731896764>Objectivity.Humans all come from the same 2 cells, with the same mathematical propagation, to the same systems. Science solved motivation (fun) in 1985 (pic related: Self Determination Theory). The most motivational (skill expression, roleplay, social identity) moments are the most fun.Thus, devs can design and advertise objective quality, and they should. They would make boat loads of money. Somebody that knows the best design for everything would be priceless. Can you imagine an actual Smash Bros, Spore, or WoW alternative? What would you want?Another way of finding objective quality is thinking in adrenergics. Games that give you the shakes or make you feel in the zone are good games and are optimal ways to spend your time.>Art.Things are art when people would call them art normatively. People would call videogames art.Videogames are combinations of art, reasonably speaking. Things like chess and sports aren't.https://chatgpt.com/s/t_697ac9075c0881919f6e508353314c8e.
Objectively high quality
>>731897141I said subjective you objective retard
>>731896483A quality game/product being fun or even good is subjective.
What is the point of this discussion, when most people are going to keep on enjoying whatever slop they like?
>>731898572>AIslop apologist
>>731898379Is it not clear what I was talking about?>>731898572Read the thread.I would even go as far as to say that Everybody Games are possible. I can help you organize genres by objective quality if you'd like, though I think a lot of genres past the, like, top 3-5 would blend together.>>731898707We can literally talk about any game and how it should be designed and/or advertised.Post your favorite game and how you would change it, /v/.
>>731897141Sounds like bullshit. I don't find relatedness fun at all.
>>731899086Would you rather get the most money in Skyrim that anybody's ever made (but you can't tell anybody), or make the most money in an MMO that any player has (and your success can be found by thousands of players)? It's money, or money and popularity; the choice should be obvious.This discounts any negatives you might think about MMOs. An MMO can be any game with thousands of players simultaneously.
>>731898940>Read the thread.nah, op is a faggot
>>731899782Not an argument.
>>731899547I do not care. I don't like interacting with other people. I do not want to impress them, or beat them, or have anything to do with them. Even in games its better if there are fewer characters and little to no dialog. I don't like people thinking they know me. When I play games I have the most fun being left alone. So your chart is bullshit to me, I do not like that aspect, I prefer the opposite.
Nothing is subjective, there are right and wrong answers to everything, and everything exists within that binary
>>731900039I agree, a human life is valuable no matter what.
>>731900379No, only anime girls and me have value
>>731899972But you like mastery (skill expression) and autonomy (variety:depth of storyworth)? You can see how much more fun than sitting in your room alone, playing guitar, that performing in front of a huge audience is, right?
>>731899547I actively don't want popularity. The prospect of having to deal with people who take my holding such a title as an attack on them, much less any "retaliation", is nauseating.
>>731901169See the post above yours.
If your game lacks a proper story then it's not worth to play through it unless the gameplay is 10/10 perfect.
>>731901224I can't see how much more fun playing in front of an audience is.
>>731896483Quality is the objective but it is subjective.>>731901287You can tell this guy is mad he has to make an exception for the one puzzle game he likes
>>731901373Pretending that an audience doesn't change the experience, from excitement, to memorability, is surely false.
>>731900867Absolutely not and the thought of doing so frankly grosses me out. I have no idea why anyone would want to be stared at by a bunch of strangers. I'd honestly be happier playing for myself, just for my own personal satisfaction. That sounds much nicer and more satisfying.
>>731902007Excitement and memorability are what you want, not me.
>>731896525Art is objective. What people experience is not subjective, a painting always looks the same no matter who is observing it. The only point of failure is that the mind of the observer is not the same, and people with small minds will not observe the full beauty of art, which is their own deficiency.
>>731902547See the post above yours.>>731902616They're objectively linked to better reward systems. "Money" answers everything. Your whole wiring routes amount of people through your dopamine (instant gratification) and serotonin (lasting rewards) systems. Do you not want to make a bunch of people elated?
Fuuark. I remember these threads years ago. Keep making 'em, OP.
>>731903819That pic looks really good. Is it a character creator?
>>731903941It's Garland from Stranger of Paradise: FF.
>>731902547>>731902616Do you not like leaderboards?
>>731904742Fuck no. I don't like competition in general, I do not see the point. I only want to focus on my own experience, not compare myself to others.>>731903634I want a bunch of people to fuck off. Period. That is my happy place. There's a reason I rarely leave my home and virtually all of my interactions are over text on a faceless, nameless, ephemeral message forum. Call me a liar if you want but this seems to me an odd thing to lie about, anonymously or otherwise.
>>731905560You obviously enjoy relatedness. You're on 4chan.
bot thread
>>731905860The nice thing about 4chan is I don't consider any of you to be people. As soon as I stop posting you cease to exist. It's like screaming into a void. The strange thing is I hate social interactions and I despise relationships but I kinda like explaining things. I am aware that it makes little sense. But 4chan takes all the relatedness out of it for me.
>>731896483What makes a game high quality? What makes a game low quality?
>>731897370subjectively shit
Valve could drastically improve the quality of the average game overnight by asking a $10,000 fee to put a game on Steam.
>>731901287 You're acting like gameplay and story are mutually exclusive. Some of the most legendary titles barely have any story at all but are still masterpieces because of mechanics alone. Tetris, Doom (classic), Minecraft - all iconic, all with minimal narrative. If gameplay is peak, it doesn’t need a deep lore dump to be worth it.
>>731906296What do you mean, anon? Use your words.>>731906571>But 4chan takes all the relatedness out of it for me.No, you subconsciously know we're people, and you enjoy the skill and freedom. You can't remove one thing from another when they're intrinsically linked.What else do you like to do socially? Do you get on other boards? Play any instruments? Everything is easier with more people collaborating. Socialization is a whole way to be in the zone.>>731906690It depends on the genre, though I think genres can be compared to each other. One of the best ways to design a game is Self Determination Theory, which sets up extrinsic motivation (getting things) vs. intrinsic motivation (mastery, choice, and social value) -- extrinsic motivation is vastly surpassed by intrinsic motivation. It may not seem obvious when so many games are doing lootboxes, gacha, etc., but I think PvP games being by far the most popular and played games is an example of SDT.What genre?
>>731907181What about artsy games that don't provide extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation? Like killer7 for example
>>731896483If the purpose of a game is to be enjoyed by people, and people enjoy different games from each other, than personal preference MUST play a role.The only objective measure I can think of is: "this is the game the maximum amount of people will enjoy", but that's a lame metric because that literally will only work for one game, and anything that deviates is now a "worse" game than it could have been.
>>731907181>No, you subconsciously know we're peopleI don't think you understood anything I said. You're just dismissing my reasoning without addressing it. Whether you're "people" isn't what you should be fixated on, but rather the social aspects that interacting with you purely anonymously filters out.I do not go on other boards, I do not play an instrument. I avoid the zone, whatever that is. All other social interactions are forced on me, in order to survive. But if I had my way, there would be none. I'm happy when I have the world all to myself.
*fidelity is objectivequality is subjective
>>731897370>Cookie-cutter gameplay that does not contribute to the narrative and actively undermines itHaving good and fitting gameplay is part of having good writing, therefor slop like TloU has objectively SHIT writing, narrative and gameplay. It is impossible for a game to be good and for it to be a cover-based third person shooter with stealth elements.>>731906690Having a good idea that is executed well and in a coherent fashion.This is vague, but needless to say it still disqualifies the majority of modern games, especially Unrealslop.
>>731907850TLOU 2 is a good game if you just focus on its objective parts like performance, graphics, and polish.>Having a good idea that is executed well and in a coherent fashion.Then we need to define:>What is a good or bad idea?>What is a good or bad execution of an idea?>What's more important? A good idea or good execution?
>>731907279>killer7I don't think it's a very varied:deep game.>>731907384>If the purpose of a game is to be enjoyed by people, and people enjoy different games from each other, than personal preference MUST play a role.People being conditioned into different preferences doesn't disprove objectivity. People eat poop or whatever. I'm sure that every design either detracts from or adds to quality. I.e., there are a bunch of different ways to express genes (people obviously vary a lot), but we all have the same genes that structure what *can* be expressed with the most fun, engagement, etc., to be called "whole body". That tends to be comprised of realism (fantasy-meets-reality all things are possible), spaciality, and strategy.>>731907756>Whether you're "people" isn't what you should be fixated on, but rather the social aspects that interacting with you purely anonymously filters out.Why? You're still expressing social enjoyment.>>731907762What's your argument? If everything is fidelity, there's a wrong way and a right way to do everything.>>731907850>It is impossible for a game to be good and for it to be a cover-based third person shooter with stealth elements.I don't believe that.>This is vague, but needless to say it still disqualifies the majority of modern games, especially Unrealslop.UE5 is a good engine.
>>731908270>People eat poopDishonest comparison because poop is physically harmful to eat. Different preferences for video games has no equivalent. Everything else you say is bullshit because it doesn't apply practically. In the real world, people ARE conditioned to prefer certain things. You will never people to create something that everyone truly loves because in reality everyone loves different things due to their conditioning. Your definition of quality is a worthless because in practice it will never actually meet everyone's standards.
>>731908270>You're still expressing social enjoyment.By removing the relatedness aspect of it; zero reputation, zero commitment, zero identity. Pure in-the-moment thought, making it somewhat palatable, as once this interaction is done, it instantly vanishes. 4chan doesn't disprove my assertion that I dislike relatedness - it reinforces it.
>>731907850>Having good and fitting gameplay is part of having good writingThat's one of the most retarded things I've read on /v/ in weeks, which is really something
>>731897370Why did you post a picture of shit?
>Autist #578253 who believes that preferences can be universally solved
>>731908517>Dishonest comparison because poop is physically harmful to eat.Maybe, but you're proving my point: a wrong answer and a right answer.Also, you're avoiding every other practical application of potential objectivity. You would like exercise because being conditioned into increased blood flow, better utility of resources, easier movement and interaction, better self confidence, etc., are objectively more fun/rewarding (extremely), and with the right technology, are easy to do (electrical muscle stimulation is probably 100x more effective for growth because it's 100% contraction, plus all you have to do is sit there; personally, I was getting much bigger, much more quickly than lifting weights; here's probably something possible for cardio too).>>731908946You still are enjoying the skill and realism of actual people. An AI doesn't give you the same reward, and it maybe can't because there's less story / world-building. I think experiencing things with humans has its own feedback loops -- oxytocin, adrenaline, and other resonance.>>731909485Ctrl+F "theory".
>>731909689>I think experiencing things with humans has its own feedback loopsThat doesn't take into account my strong preference for simple, single player games with zero social aspect. I don't like performing or recognition. And I sure as hell don't like connection or belonging, as previously stated (and ignored by you)
>>731897141>Things like chess and sports aren't.The design of games like Physcial Sports and Chess is absolutely an art and if you don't think so you're retarded.
>>731897141>They would make boat loads of moneyBillionaires nowadays think>profitability > progressWhile it's the other way around really. However short term profit stands above long term profit.
>>731909689>Also, you're avoiding every other practical application of potential objectivityAll you are doing is bringing up more bullshit examples that relate to our physical bodies. Thode physical affects we can objectively measure. You're also completely ignoring everything I said about how worthless (and unmeasurable) your philosophy is on a practical level.
This nigga takes too long to respond. I'm going to bed. Night anons
>>731909853I was talking about your preference for 4chan. I don't know why you would choose just money instead of money and popularity besides the games not being well made, you talking yourself into non-social preferences, etc. Again, you like talking to people. They *are* people and do have more rewarding feedback loops than AI. It's full body, and you might as well start now.>>731909915How does that apply to the product though?>>731909920>short term profit stands above long term profit.Studios should be trying to achieve the status of everybody thinking they're the ones making perfect games. Everybody, all day, every day games.>>731910091>All you are doing is bringing up more bullshit examples that relate to our physical bodies.How are they bullshit? Why does it matter if they relate to our physical bodies? Everything is related to our physical bodies.>Thode physical affects we can objectively measure.You can measure happiness. Pic related. Smiling (I think it's receiving smiles, moreso from a loved one) has been measured to be like eating 2k chocolate bars or receiving $25k.>You're also completely ignoring everything I said about how worthless (and unmeasurable) your philosophy is on a practical level.SDT has scholarly material; it's been tested.
>>731910945You're making a very fundamental mistake. No one is saying that games aren't objectively enjoyable. Games are obviously anjoyable, but there's no "one size fits all" that makes everyone equally happy. Sure, we could measure how well a game makes a SINGLE PERSON happy, but you will always find that preferences will change from person to person. If you are saying "objective quality" is measured strictly by HOW MANY people enjoy it, than its a metric that is utterly useless to a lot of people because they won't enjoy the same games as the majority. More importantly, apealing EXCLUSIVELY to the lowest common denominator is a dogshit idea because it leaves a ton of people miserable who don't fit the mold. An ideal world is one where popularity simply determines the number of games that are made of each type. That way popular games get made the most frequently, but there are still niche games for people niche tastes. Because this results in more people being happy, I cannot consider those niche games to be objectively worse games. They are necessary for humanity's maximum enjoyment.
>>731911752>there's no "one size fits all" that makes everyone equally happyYou're not evidencing that. If people knew a game was physiologically more fun, wouldn't they play it?Can you argue against SDT specifically?
>>731896483Your perception of reality is entirely subjective
>>731912082>If people knew a game was physiologically more fun, wouldn't they play it?Lmao no they won't. People play what they know they like. Not what some scientist tells them they're supposed to like. When it comes to enjoyment, everyone's brain works differently, and that's apparent in the world around me. It's up to you to first prove to me that everyone will enjoy these supposedly "high quality" games in an equal way first.
>>731912272>>731912327>>Can you argue against SDT specifically?
>>731896483Quality is objective but subordinate to context of its creation, especially time.
>>731912417Why would I argue against it? I agree that games are objectively enjoyable. You are being so dodgy now it hurts. I want YOU to tell me how SDT can prove that certain video games will be universally enjoyed by everyone.
>>731912497That's true, but we're maxing out on things like graphical quality, and controls (M+KB).>>731912567What am I dodging? Your whole argument has been that no Everybody Game can be created because some people enjoy different things (amongst multiple examples of objectively more enjoyment, like eating healthy, getting swole, and enjoying solved motivation/fun). How do you want me to make it more obvious that skill expression, momentary storyworth (variety:depth), and social relevance are objectively designable -- that the height of intrinsic motivation is the height of fun?
>>731913039>How do you want me to make it more obvious that skill expression, momentary storyworth (variety:depth), and social relevance are objectively designableThe problem is that you think these qualities will be enjoyed by everyone the exact same way wheen they CLEARLY aren't. Skill expression is the most obvious one. I might find a game too easy, but it may meet someone's else's skill level perfectly. Conversely, if a game is too difficult for me, I may fall short of ever finding it enjoyable. Just because people enjoy these qualities, it doesnt mean they will all enjoy it the same way. If they did, why the hell DO people have such varying tastes in video games?
>>731897370The polished turd.
>>731897370Objectively shit, facts say
>>731898572Only in part. Humans share the same type of brain there fore there things that more or less resonate universally. "good" isn't subjective.
>>731913246Challenge isn't something that's hard to gauge. Games like DaS are charged with artificial difficulty, when they could've replaced huge mob damage and similar with deeper combat. People have a fundamental understanding of what makes good quality.You can tell when a game has an average difficulty level. You just have to equalize concentration, energetic effort, and mental quietness.
