Why can't gamers diferentiate between their personal taste and quality.

[oniyide]

Akvod said:

oniyide said:

Akvod said:

oniyide said:

Akvod said:

stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:

It seems that in every game site, in every comment section/forum there's people saying that this game is good or bad depending if they liked the game or not.

I hate many above average games, and i love many average games.

Just because you like a game, that doesn't make the game good and vice versa. How isn't this clear for most gamers?

Even" professional" reviewers make this mistake all the time.

 

Thoughts please.

So are you saying there is an objective basis for quality?

there are some aspects that are objective, for example frame rate, screen tearing, controls, etc.

The importance one puts on those attributes vary from person to person. And again, there are the non-objective attributes that probably make way more of a difference than a technical attribute like frame rate.

of course, im just stating their are some aspects of a game that IMHO are objective. For instance if a game simply doesnt work (Steel Battalion). But those are extreme cases.  

No, what you described are things that are measurable. That still doesn't address how much value (if any) to give to that attribute.

For example, would you argue that having a higher player count is a good thing, all else held equal? Say for Battlefield 4, 24 players on the current gen consoles and 64 players on the next gen.

If you say yes, have you considered things like how big the maps are or how the game will play out?

And again, a lot of the measurable things you mentioned come with a trade off. Pixels for framerate for example. How much weight do you give to each of those things?

While if you have the same exact game (all else held equal) then it'll be easy to assess the "quality" of a game with the objective measurments you gave. So that might work for something like multiplats (and it has been going on). But when we try to assess quality for the game itself, or the game relative to other games, then those measurable attributes just fall into something subjective again.

i havent played BF and to be honest i dont plan too so im the wrong person to ask for that. I was talking basic mechanical things that are apparent in games across th board. For example controls. Would you argue that if the controls of a game flat out suck and therefore bring the quality of the game down? I mean a video game MUST control well or it becomes unplayable, but what the hell Just dance doesnt even work really but people love it so you're probably right in the end.