Do you believe a game's quality is always subjective, or can games be objectively good or bad?
>>12019037Quality is objective Aesthetics, fun factor, enjoyment, etc is subjective.
I don't care.
Not going to help you learn how to form opinions, bot-kun.
>>12019037If I like it, the game is good. If I don't like it, the game is bad. No exceptions.
>>12019037The quality of things is objective, but your personal preferences are subjective
>>12019038>>12019048>quality is objective Elaborate
>>12019037I believe games can be objectively good or bad, I do not believe Z1 is objectively bad./thread
>>12019053You may not like SM64 but it's objectively a great game that revolutionized 3d gaming
>>12019071Then what is the objective measurement for its greatness?
>>12019094It changed gaming and the vast majority of people agrees its a great game
>>12019037quality is objective, but context can change. "good at the time" does not mean that it will always be good. "cutting edge at the time" does not mean that it cant be surpassed.
>>12019115>It changed gamingIf changing gaming is an objective measure of greatness, then MapleStory should be considered great just for introducing paid loot-boxes.>the vast majority of people agrees its a great gameAll subjective opinions.
>>12019178A collection of subjective opinion is an objective consensus
>>12019279Total contrarian bitch death
>>12019279pretty worthless. only worth noting in regards to "commercial success", which is but a footnote and mere aspect, largely unrelated to actual quality. plenty of people gobble up objective slop. just look at shit like one piece, skibidi toilet, and lolcows in general.
>>12019279Saying that won't make it true. Words have meanings.
>>12019284If a lot of people like it then they are objectively doing something right
>>12019037I think a game can be objectively bad, or really poor quality, but objectively good is harder because it depends on what you mean by good. A game can be well-made and high quality but you can still not enjoy it and therefore think it's bad. I suppose you could alternatively enjoy a poorly made game but I don't know if you'd still consider it good even if you enjoyed playing it somewhat since bad qualities are usually easier to identify as bad than good qualities are to identify as good.
>>12019037A game's quality is tangible in it's coding. Something that can actually be measured to see if things were done efficiently, if a programmer reached his goal properly, without bugs, etc. Its similar to the same objective quality that is tangible in all crafts, because mathematical fundamentals are established and by how those standards are met is the objective quality of a product.However, everything else is subjective. There can exist a perfect car, objectively built to mathematical perfect precision with the highest craftsmanship and materials. But someone like Jeremy Clarkson will subjectively not like it.
>>12019294liking something doesnt make it right or good. some people literally like eating shit. coprophagia and coprophilia. that doesnt make it right or good.
>>12020007I assure scatfags are a minority, you are just proving me right because the majority do not like eating shit.
>>12020008a majority of people can be objectively incorrect. appealing to "but the majority" is useless and retarded. "the majority" of people have never even played a video game and couldnt even give a shit.
>>12020008also, you didnt say majority, you said "a lot". there are still "a lot" of scatfags.
>>12019037>>>/phil/oh wait that board doesn't exist even though it should
>>12019406>It depends on what you mean by goodLol so many people here are describing subjectivity, and not realizing it. "Objective" just means that there are definite measurable qualities that can be observed and quantified. Everything that speaks to the human experience with a game is subjective, even if that subjective experience achieves some sort of consensus perspective.
>>12019037Objective, if all reviews says it's a good and everyone says it's a good then it's a good game
>>12020815then slop like fortnite is objectively good
>>12021028Yes it's a fun game, did you play it?
>>12019115>the vast majority of people agrees its a great gameArgumentum ad populum. Though, it is a great game, IMHO.
>>12020815Then there is a general consensus that it is good, but that doesn't make it objective. That isn't a bad thing! Sometimes people take "objective" to mean "this is actually, officially, good", but it doesn't mean that at all.
>>12020815>>12021221>>12021250it just means that it has general public appeal. appeal is only one aspect of a game.
>>12019037imo games can be objectively bad but can't be objectively good, because the latter implies some sort of universal standard beyond the basic stuff like "no bugs, runs properly, doesn't give me a migraine or a seizure by playing it"if a game doesn't meet those basic standards, though, i reckon it can be determined objectively bad (because it's literally bad at being a functional video game)the issue is that when comparing stuff beyond that point there's really no way you can objectively determine if, like, halo is better than tetris, because they're fundamentally doing different things
>>12019037of course its subjective. someone could enjoy playing the worst possible games (to them) for the novelty of it.
>>12019037I believe it's mostly subjective, BUT you can evaluate certain elements of games with some degree of objectivity or at least in a way that approximates that. And you can do this mainly by comparing games with similar characteristics or that are placed within the same game genre of subgenre for your evaluation to have any practical value to whoever reads or hears it (otherwise you'd be comparing apples to oranges).E.g. You can take a game and evaluate its overall difficulty compared to others games like it. Or if their core mechanical systems are more or less complex than the other/s, their stories are more or less developed, how long they are, etc.This information could be useful to someone else, for example when recommending a game or ranking games within a subgenre. However, since a big degree of subjectivity will always influence your overall judgement/score of a game, it's IMO better if whoever the person you're reading a recommendation or a review from more of less shares your taste in videogames (or at least games of that genre/subgenre) to begin with.What I personally do when I'm looking for reviews is look in the channels of youtubers that I know share most of my tastes and opinions on games. And since everyone's taste is different, there is no ultimate word or universally recommendable channel or critic.
>>12021989P.S. That said, even if a game were objectively worse or is worse than others by your own standards, what matters the most IMO is how much entertaining that game is for YOU.Even games that you yourself recognize as lesser can still be a lot of fun and something you'd prefer to play at a given time over a title you'd regard as superior for whatever reason.
>>12022000E.g. Maybe you want mechanical variety, or want to play something with a certain visual aesthetic or a certain style, etc or maybe you're simply tired of playing the same old games and want to play something new for a change even if it's worse than the classics.
>>12022012Besides, if you only play the best games and never bad or mediocre ones you won't appreciate as much the former.
>>12019037"It's good because I like it" isn't a valid argument. You have to be able to explain what generates quality and what takes it away.
>>12019279>subjective is objectiveilliterate animal
>>12019053Quality is objective. But since it's judged by human, not anyone can do it, there is a requirement to be able to distinguish between 'good' and 'i like' or 'bad' and 'i dont like'. Ability to judge objectively means to judge yourself, such as 'i like this thing very much, but it's really peace of shit because of this and that objective reason and this and that my own issues, my defects, my imperfections'.Can you do it? No you can't, that's why you don't qualify to judge anything. I can btw, but my true judgement is useless for sub-humans, they just cannot see it even if i tell.
>>12022910This
>>12019037It's hard to say, on one hand I find that "objective" isn't really a thing, on the other hand if people had to taste their mom's food on one plate and a literal pile of shit on another, they'd pretty much all say that one is good and the other is bad, in more exaggerated scenarios objectivetivity seems to exist, but it's hard to define it the more subjective aspects there are to judge. In general I try to go for what the majority says, like (>>12019279) mentioned. A lot of titles I like are hated, and I'm not going to argue they're actually objectively good, while other I dislike are loved, so I don't try to argue they're bad at all.
>>12022910Enlighten us.
>>12019037If subjectivity is the only truth that means nothing is good and nothing is bad which is poison for discourse.Objective truths need to exist in art so we need a mechanism to determine objectivity and this >>12019279 anon said it perfectly. Outliers can be discarded in the world of criticism and remember that language is a tool for humanity, we are not slaves to it.
>>12021989>>12022000>go into thread>crash avi fag posterHmmm
>>12019037I don't think anyone can dislike zelda 1 unless they just suck at videogames
>>12022846Fidelity
