Mummelmann said:
Well, for instance, if we use music as an example, I could make a fairly good case for why Michael Jackson is the greatest artist who ever lived. He had an amazing voice, wrote his own awesome lyrics, he did coreography and danced like a god, produced and sold tens of millions of albums. Yet, he's not my favorite artist, not even close. Other example; Steve Jobs, I never liked and I never liked Apple products, objectively though, I still respect his salesmanship even if he could never sell anything to me, his merits speak for himself. Civilization games, loved them since childhood but they have taken a turn for the worse for me since they've been diluted and simplified a couple of times now and I find myself no longer wanting to play them. As an easier introduction into a heavy and complicated genre though, it's still a good series objectively speaking and the gameplay is still good even if some of the mechanics I enjoyed are gone or simplified. I really don't enjoy the Harry Potter books, tried reading three, found them childish and whacky compared to the more focused fantasy I'm used to since childhood, but I still recognize the series' objective worth by appreciating the prose and seeing its impact on culture and a whole generation of people. I see some things as objectively good, even though I don't personally find them highly entertaining. I remember working at a Rihanna concert, I can't stand her music, but the show was spectacular and she had an amazing voice live, so I still appreciate that she's objectively a good performer. Does it make any sense to you? I find myself thinking more and more like this and it's making my whole life easier, it's especially important that I learn how to think this way through my current job, where being objective is extremely important in most situations. |
Thanks! And I definitely see what you're saying. But I'm still unsure. It's possible to objectively measure things like concert tickets sold or cultural impact, but I still think game design or artistic design falls outside those empirical data points. I think we can call games objectively popular or successful but I don't think we can ever call them objectively "good." That beauty, or lack thereof, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Even if we note that game A conforms to established norms of game design greatness, we have to look at who set those norms: a collection of people with specific tastes and priorities.
