By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 01 April 2011
Edit Thread
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:

Because it is a better game. The Hurt Locker is a much better movie than Twilight, and Twilight made tons more money. That doesn't mean that Twilight wasn't worth less than a bucket of shit.

Edit: Changed the example to something more recent.

You realize thats completely subjective right? 

No, it really isn't. The same way you can have bad/good movies, bad/good books, bad/good songs, etc. you can have bad/good games.

No it really is. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of other people that actually do are wrong.

I think games with healthpacks aren't as fun as games without (hence not as good as games with regenitive health)

False. Things such as level design, game mechanics, depth of story, character development, etc. etc. are objective, which measure gameplay objectively.

Furthermore, the whoel argument "millions of other people like it" is a shit argument. Do you know that in 1969, when The Beatles released Abbey Road, and Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix were in their prime, the number one song was "Sugar, Sugar", by The Archies. Just think of how retarded it is to say "yeah millions of others obviously liked  Sugar Sugar therefore The Archies were the best in 1969."

Basically, it served the lowest common denominator. Ehen you serve the lowest common denominator, you get the broadest audience and therefore biggest numbers. However to get that you have to have the blandest and dumbest aspects of the medium. For video games, that aspect is making sure the game is friendly for newbies/noobs/scrubs/chobs/etc. and so regenerative health ( and while I'm at it, third-person viewpoint too)  Therefore your argument of "millions like it too"  is absolutely worthless.

Nope its subjective dude no matter what you say. I don't care if you think health packs make a better game cause I think they don't....and now its subjective.

I have presented you with overwhelming evidence that just because people like it (it's entertaining) does not mean that that it is of high quality. It being an item from any entertainment media such as video games, movies, books, music, etc.

So I will ask you again, will you come out and admit that Twlight are the best movise that have come out recentlys, or the best bbooks aronud the time they came out?

I think your trying to put words on yo_johns mouth. I have not seen him explicitly state that argument at any point. The closest statement is, "Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of other people that actually do are wrong." That is a lot different from saying millions of people like it, therefore it is a quality product. That statement is just saying that your opinion is not objective just because you claim it is.

Just to point out as welll, the standards we set for movies are subjective as well. I tend to agree with these standards, but they are still subjective. I also agree that The Hurt Locker is a better movie than Twilight, but this is just taking movies on the complete opposite end of the spectrum (one being universally acclaimed, the other being universally criticized). To make the subjective nature of movie reviews clearer, we could take recent movies that are critically acclaimed and debate which represents the objective standard by which all other movies should be judged. I guarantee you this debate will not reach any clear conclusion, and I would hardly call someone uneducated or irrational if they thought The Hurt Locker was a better movie than No Country for Old Men.

Just transplant this debate into arguments over gameplay mechanics, and games confront this same problem. There is no objective standard that judges the value of gameplay mechanics. It is easy to sit on the polar extremes and contrast the best games with the worst games  and use this to argue that there is an objective standard for video games. Once you decend into the specifics, this objectivity begins to vanish. For example, I consider the battle system in Devil May Cry 3 to be the best combat system in action games. However, someone else can make a very good case for Ninja Gaiden I/II being the best, and I would hardly say one of us is more right than the other. It really comes down to what type of combat the user prefers and what they expect from a game rather than there being some Platonic form of gameplay mechanics by which all other games should be judged. This also applies to health regeneration v. health packs. Both sides could make good arguments, and I would hardly say one side of the debate holds the objective view on what makes a good video game.