Shouldn't success be measured by the games?

[Erik Aston]

tarheel91 said:

@Naz: If everything opinion related was 100% subjective, how could we differentiate between the good and bad? How could we have masterpieces like those written by Homer and Shakespeare? Bod explained it very well. The idea of complete subjectivity makes any discussion entirely worthless. It is almost impossible to know the complete truth, and until you do, something is subjective.

This means that we must draw a line in terms of subjectivity. If something is generally agreed upon by those with experience in dealing with such things that it is good, then it is good. I dislike horror games, movies, and the like. For this reason, I can't stand Resident Evil 4. However, I think Resident Evil 4 is a great game. A masterpiece, even. Why? Because it is generally agreed upon by experts in the field of video gaming as very, very good. One opinion doesn't matter.

 

Edit: I realize I'm late to the party, but I had to put my two cents in.

Eventually, history comes into play. "Greatness" is a measure of importance, including its cultural relevance and influence among other things, not simply a general agreement on subjective quality. "Importance" does have some subjectivity in it, but less than "quality."

Whether RE4 is remembered as a "great" game remains to be seen. Though the likes of MP or RE4 may have reviewed higher and face less criticism, it is safe to say that the likes of Halo and GTAIII will be remembered as "greater" because of their importance.

 

LOL at Legend. Good discussion in this thread, but he's the one pulling it off path, of course. "Any game with millions of fans isn't overrated." What was your original point again?