By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Angelus said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

I think we just have to keep objectivity entirely out of the equation. 

Metacritic is a fine way to measure the critical consensus, but it's a poor way to judge objective greatness. Each individual score carries with it the weight of an individual's gaming predilections.

If we're talking about greatness, sure. That tends to be far more objective. I'm simply talking about quality. It's pretty easy to say whether or not something is quality. At least I tend to think so. There are lots of things I don't like for various reasons, but I can still say with confidence that many of them are quality products.

I sort of see "greatness" and "quality" the same way.

Now, I agree that you can measure certain things scientifically. Digital Foundry makes a living based on that. 

But apart from frame rate and textures and lighting effects, can can you made a convincing case for objective video game quality? Some people like easy games; some prefer difficult ones. Online multiplayer is essential for many reviewers; for others its an afterthought. Complex menus and button inputs are off-putting for some, and immersive for others. Gameplay, by its definition, is a very personal, subjective thing -- it's how we as players interact with the rules of the game.