If everyone had the opinion that Nirvana are better than Beatles than that would be the case. Because better refers to the quality opinion held by the majority of people. There is no magical thing called quality - it's the common shared perception. It's not a measurable quality like length but a subjetive evaluation of the masses.

Ergo MGSIV > everything. Because I think so. And many people think likewise.

:)

*Tagged for later.

Ok, so if I read that correctly, you're once again basically ranting about how the mainstream are ignorant, because they don't play many video games.

As much as I agree with you, I just ignore it. Times change, unfortunately.

There is no inherent quality in X that makes X better than Y. You can't say The Godfather is a better movie than Avatar just because you think it is, regardless of which movie you enjoyed more. Part of the problem is there are many ways to rate/view something. So not only can you rate something differently, but very rarely can you actually rate them in a quantitative fashion. Even with visuals, when the quality of the visuals are close, it comes down to preference. Some people talk about KZ2 having amazing visuals, but I find it very dreary and gloomy and lacks the vibrancy that plenty of other games have. Thats my opinion, to say I'm wrong is just silly. Just because I rate it from a different perspective does not make me wrong, nor does it make me right, but it's my opinion.

There's no inherent quality in The Beatles or Queen that makes them better bands than Nirvana, that's just your opinion. Personally, I love The Beatles and all, but I find Nirvana's music to be deeper and more meaningful (and I'm not just talking lyrics). To me, Nirvana's music is superior to The Beatles. I could tell you how I'm a musician, and have heard/studied more music than you ever will in your lifetime. Does that mean my perspective is right or better than yours? No. 

The concept of X being better than Y can only be derived from mass opinion (like Fufinu was getting at). "There is no magical thing called quality - it's the common shared perception." In the end, it's still about opinion and perspective. There's a difference between measuring something qualitatively and measuring something quantitatively. You can measure the resolution of a game quantitatively very easily, or other visual aspects. But to say which is more beautiful, that's a qualitative measurement, and is not rooted in logic or math, and thus is far more open to subjective perspective. 

You are trying to take previously qualitative measurements and just make them appear quantitative for the sake of argument. Judgment is subjective and since discussing things as being "good" or "better" or "the best" is a judgment, no one can be wrong. Here's some metaphysical thought for you too, there are no facts, only perception (or perceived opinion) of facts.

I think that says all that needs to be said. Ad hominem it may be, but as the violent and spiteful troglodyte - seemingly lacking any concept of irony or grasp of the subjective nature of value-judgements - you present yourself as, I feel you are not exactly in the best position to tell me about art.

I think what you are talking about happens all the time in movies and music and art.

Except that your wrong, even true art is subjective.

A Picasso painting just sold for over 100 million dollars, the most expensive transaction in art history. I think Picasso's paintings are horrible and I absolutely hate his art style, does that make me an idiot?

Your problem is, and it has become very evident, that you can only see things from one angle. The second someone presents you with something new you don't know how to react and lash out.

I'm just hoping the punching part was an exaggeration. Because that would be too extreme.

Yes and no. There was a lot of alcohol involved in that get together and I know for a fact I woke up with a bruise on my shoulder in the morning.It was an all around weird night.

As for everyone else, I like how everyone is already getting defensive.

To take the Picasso example, it sold so much because Picasso is a better artist and one of the best, and yes if you think otherwise are an idiot. I myself like Dali, however I have not even begin to think that Dali is better than Picasso.

Same goes for books, I have read a bunch of RA Salvatore's books gladly, and reading through to the end of Heart of Darkness was just short of being physically painful. However you will never see me ty to pass off the Drizzt series as a better book than Marlow's adventure because that would simply mean I'm ignorant, uneducated, or an idiot.

Same principles apply to video games too. For instance I love Requiem Avenging Angel, I love it a whole ton actually and still have the CD somewhere, yet you will never in your life see me try to push it off as anything other than just a mediocre game. Because that's exactly what it was, no matter how I saw and and from what "agle" I looked at it from.

Edit: Basically, any media that is considered as art has fairly clean cut lines about what is actually of good quality and what is just entertaining trash. Video games just do not have this.

Well that explains it.

Oh god games as art again. For all of the screaming and monkey shit throwing I've seen over this topic I've seen a shocking lack of any real structure to any of the arguments. Thankfully it's not a hopeless argument because there's at least 2,500 years of writing on this topic. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered and established before you can go calling games art.

The most important question, obviously:
What is art?

I've yet to see this answered in a satisfactory way by anyone arguing about games being art, and probably why Ebert intellectually curbstomps the video game camp soundly every time it's brought up to him.

For the record I agree with Ebert, games are not art. I just disagree with the rest of his argument. I think games are technique in the same way being a chef is technique. Again, this boils down to how I define art and a major element of it is that art doesn't appeal to our appetites, it's an aesthetic appeal to our uniquely human nature.

So again, before you can get ANYWHERE in this argument besides monkey shit throwing you have to answer the question "What is art?" or it's completely pointless to even bother with the topic.