Both boil down to the same subjective evaluation. There are very, very few things universally agreed on as objective quality. Of course, you could still criticize opinion on the grounds one doesn't have what it takes to judge a certain work of art, or a game, because of ignorance, fallacious or biased assumptions, lack of knowledge of similar works etc.
| Akvod said:
If you're comparing a game relative to another game, how much do you ding one game for having a bug? If you're looking at a game in isolation, you could say that the game has "less quality" by saying it has a bug, but how much "less"? And again, when you're looking at a game in isolation (as opposed to say comparing two versions of the same game), you have the subjective stuff to worry about to assess overall quality. Basically, the whole idea of an whole objective basis for quality, which suggest the ability to have some kind of objective assessment (i.e. a number score) for a game is just kind of silly. |
if im comparing more than one game, the game that performs the worst (bugs etc.) is going to get more dings, thats only fair IMHO. Despite if i have more fun playing the one with things. I had more fun playing GE(recent) than Black Ops, now if you were to ask me whihc is the better game. Black Ops by a long shot for various reasons, better performance being one of them. Thats just me. IMHO if you're reviewing in that light one has the responsibility to inform the reader which is the better product, but even then thats still subjective.
Isolation is even trickier cause their is nothing ot compare it to. I dont think its about numbers you dont have to put a number on it, just write a good review explain stuff like bugs and judge accordingly. IMHO Really broken games shouldnt get a pass, its flawed on a fundamental level that leans more toward the objective.
gergroy said:
|
No on the contrary, people tell themselves that because it's convinient and confortable. Every single thing can be criticised objectively, it's just dificult not impossible. In fact the only exception is taste, because you don't choose what you like.
| haxxiy said: Both boil down to the same subjective evaluation. There are very, very few things universally agreed on as objective quality. Of course, you could still criticize opinion on the grounds one doesn't have what it takes to judge a certain work of art, or a game, because of ignorance, fallacious or biased assumptions, lack of knowledge of similar works etc. |
The big problem is that humans think that what they're not aware of doesn't exist, and because they don't see it, it's must not be there. Normally the big argument against this is "art". But isn't art just something that shows amazing skill by the author?
| arcelonious said: I think it's simply that many people do not know how to present their opinions in an accurate, mature, and less combative manner. When presenting an opinion, it is important to reinforce its subjectivity through your sentence structure, such as "I did not like the game because I struggled with the camera angles and controls", because using the pronoun "I", owning up to why you couldn't enjoy the game, and offering more specific examples will usually make other people accept your opinion, even if they don't agree with it. |
This 100%.
| gta4ever said: It's common problem. Emotions against thinking. |
Sad but true.
| RCTjunkie said: Let's start with this: What exactly defines "quality"? Many features that people say make a "quality" game are actually subjective, so the question in itself is actually kinda meaningless IMO. |
That only means they're wrong.
| stlwtng4Dmdrxip said: ... ... Thoughts please. |
Because many lack empathy and self awareness. They have a myopic view of the world and have trouble understanding that others might see things differnetly.
I think that is part of the reason many want to play games on a machine by themselves. They are avoiding interactions with others.
You see it all the time. They confuse 'my experience with this game sucks' as 'this game sucks.'
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
| ICStats said: Please define quality in a non-subjective way. Objective would be for example "realistic", or "high production value", which I'm guessing is not what this thread had in mind. If you don't have personal taste, you don't have any taste. With reviewers, you should read the ones that have similar taste to you. |
That's a great question. Quality in itself is just a bit of information that defines something, we normally say "quality" when we mean "good" quality, and normally that's the problem. So isn't good quality of a game or any thing else the combination of rarety and sheer dificulty of process in making that object etc.
With this thought a "good" game or a quality game can't be something that any studio could do in 3 months in a crappy basement with a team of 5.
| Jon-Erich said: I've always viewed quality as the overall functionality of a game. Does it do what it was intended/promised to do? Does the game work? I tend to to look at a game that's very buggy and has terrible controls as a game of lower quality. I also tend to look as things like graphics, cutscene editing , music, and voice acting more as the aesthetics of a game and not something that's as important as functionality as long as it does not intrude onto the gameplay. I look at game design as a combination of functionality and aesthetics, something that in my opinion is about as important as gameplay. |
That's a very healty way of behaving imo.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
