naznatips said:
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. |
If we go down that route, of Homer and Shakespeare and the classics of our time, then I think Frank had the right answer: Take the long route, and let history decide. The problem with that is a lot of amazing things are forgotten by history, and only those truly defining will stand out. Right now, in the present, we don't have the tools to objectively analyze the quality of video games. We can easily subjectively analyze them though. |
I don't see how analysis of Homer or Shakespeare is any less subjective than what we used today. It's still a bunch of expert opinions with the great majority saying it's masterful. That's just how it works today in determining one. History is a very poor decider because of the flaw you pointed out. We lose a lot of stuff along the way. Thus, I don't see why the same process that has taken many years in regards to Homer and Shakespeare can't be applied to work in a few months.
