By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mysteryman on 28 February 2014
Edit Thread
Zod95 said:
mysteryman said:


@bolded: The foundation of your objective argument is your subjective opinon and your list of objective criteria is subjectively chosen.

@underlined: If we assume the statement to be true, then logically, there exists quality games that don't meet the criteria. In other words, the criteria may filter for quality games, but the games filtered out aren't certain to be poor (see denying the antecedent).

The requirements are objectively chosen (and anyone can freely add more as long as they meet the criteria) but the foundation of the criteria is indeed subjective. Yet, I'm open to other views. And, although other views may be legitimate, mine is too. In other words, they could be different routes to get to different quality games. My route definitely leaves quality games filtered out, you're right. And other routes could catch them. However, I'm not seeing those other routes. Be my guest to show me any.

Nevertheless, it's just odd that Nintendo performs so badly on my criteria. But then, if we start to connect the dots, we realize it's not that odd. The way Nintendo got clinged to old concepts, the way they lagged behind on the generations, the way they shifted their focus to a less demanding audience (kids), the astronomical profits they made and the obscene ROI they got...there are too many facts pointing out to the same conclusion: Nintendo is not committed to quality.


I have previously mentioned using more objective measures of quality (in the UNITY thread, perhaps where your confusion as to my identity lies) such as solid game mechanics, level design, bug-free releases (this shouldn't even be a consideration, but sadly is the case nowadays) etc. but in the end, I'm not here to fix your flawed system, only to point out it's faults. You are searching for a completely objective measure for what constitutes a quality game, while admitting that such a task is inherintly futile due to the subjective nature of the entertainment medium. Perhaps there is no wholly objective measure that will filter all quality games.

It's not odd at all when you realise that your criteria are fundamentally flawed. Not to mention your clear anti-Nintendo bias. There are too many facts pointing out to the same conclusion: Nintendo is not committed to your cherry-picked, incomplete and ultimately flawed definition of quality.