Khuutra said:
You are wrong. In the case of the arts, the only way you can apply "objective" to the majority opinion is that saying that the opinion of the majority, objectively speaking, is this. Now, you would need to make a formal poll and tally the answers and go through all that nice bit of screening and sampling to make sure your sample is representative of the population. Then you could say, "Objectively, the opinion of the majority is this:" But that is only the fact of the opinion that is objective, which is say that you can objectively say their opinion is [blank]. The opinion itself is still subjective, not objective. There is no objectivity when it comes to determining the merits of art. |
Looking at something objectively in the arts means looking at it from a more technical nature. You take your personal reaction out of the equation. With more traditional art forms, it's relatively simple. For example, with a piece of literature, you can look at the prose, symbolism, diction, etc. The abilities of the writer and how well they accomplish whatever goals the author has for that piece of literature. The same thing can be done with paintings, sculptures, movies, etc. However, the problem with video games is that their fire and foremost goal is to entertain. Thus, while we can look at things like level design, controls, art design, etc., it's very hard to analyze how well they accomplish the main goal because it's all about entertaining, and that's inherently a personal reaction. Thus, in a sense, you really do have to look at how the majority of players enjoyed the game (although these people must be within the target audience). It's not really relevant that some FPS junkie hates Zelda because it lacks guns.
