I still constantly play morrowind and oblivion, even daggerfall if I'm really bored and still consider them amazing games, i spent sooooo much time as a kid on morrowind, i don't see why people don't like the first person fighting or why people use the third person for anything but to look at their character
You're sayingWithout even suggestion what "best" implies.If the consensus says that Twilight is the best book ever wrote, then they are right? fuck no!
Wheras I provided a possible DEFINITION of what good could mean: "desirable." And since there is clearly a large population of fans who find Twilight desirable, Twilight must be a good series. It makes no difference whether it's cliche, cheesy, unsophisticated, or any other possible "justification" you can give for it being bad because that isn't how "good" was being defined.
I judge games based on how well they fulfilled their end purpose: enjoyment. I subjectively find good games to be ones I enjoyed, and bad ones to be games I didn't. I objectively define good games as games that most people enjoyed playing, and bad games as those most people did not enjoy playing.
- A game with high sales/high enjoyment = good (Call of Duty--don't argue most people don't enjoy it, because if they didn't the sequels wouldn't have sold)
- A game with low sales/high enjoyment = good (Beyond Good and Evil)
- A game with high sales/low enjoyment = bad (not very common, any examples?)
- A game with low sales/low enjoyment = bad (Wii Music--lol)
I can't see how you can classify the objective value of a game any differently than that.
But that logic, Fenn, you are suggesting that people never enjoy bad things. Soulja Boy, by all standards of lyricism, was the shittiest thing to ever exist, but a lot of people enjoyed his songs. In other words, what people like does not always reflect the highest standard of the respective medium. If anything, it reflects high accessibility and popularity (CoD). That's about it.
I guess a more relevant example of this would be the fighting game scene. This is referencing a brotalk I had w/ Jubeh when MvC3 came out. People like unbalanced fighting games. They prefer large tier discrepancies and overpowered characters, possibly for the variety, possibly because they're tier-whores and possibly for the high stakes. Objectively speaking, a game should offer more than one reliable method of success (jetpacking in Reach, camping in CoD, tier-whoring in whatever fighter). Sirlin (fighting game vet) is pretty much the best example of what I'm talking about. When it came to playing, he advocated "playing to win", which meant using the "cheapest" tactics and giving yourself the biggest possible hard advantages like OP characters. When it came time for him to DESIGN a game (Turbo HD Remix), he decided to make it as balanced as possible. Does that mean he didn't enjoy playing unbalanced games? No. He did, despite the fact that it went against his standard for what a fighting game should be. It's just that, when it came down to deciding what was BEST for HD Turbo Remix by the standards of the medium, he decided it should be very balanced.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 09-12-2011 at 01:27 PM.
By that same reasoning, though, I see little reason to value the industry standard over the enjoyment of the consumer(s) when arguing a game's objective value. If the two aren't one in the same, I'd rather argue that a game is good based on people's enjoyment than on the notion of a "standard" which, in truth, is less clear cut than the word suggests since you don't make games with the ultimate goal of reaching the highest industry standard, but with the goal of creating a game to...
...well, the honest answer is profit. But with respect to the gamer, as opposed to the developer, games are meant to provide enjoyment in a number of ways. That is their purpose, their goal. This entertainment is not entirely dependant on the game's value relative to industry standards, as your Souldja Boy example proves.
(Sidenote: enjoyment does not just prove accessibility and popularity. Quite to the contrary, most people who played Beyond Good and Evil enjoyed it, so by the enjoyment standards I've set it is a good game. Yet it's hardly considered mainstream or popular.)
Entertainment is the ultimate goal of a video game for the gamer. Thus enjoyment is the most accurate way to reflect the objective value and/or success of a game.
Fenn, a game has to have a good balance between providing entertainment and meeting the standard for the medium. CoD is good in the sense that people enjoy it. I do not deny that people enjoy it. But because people enjoy it does not make it a good game, just an enjoyable one. That is the distinction I am trying to make. You are talking about success, we are talking about core gaming principles.
I do not deny that people enjoy it. But because people enjoy it does not make it a good game, just an enjoyable one.
Okay, before I go any farther, define what you mean by good. What do you mean by good? I gave you my definition: desireable. And the best way to know if a game is desirable is if people enjoy the game. So what is your definition of an objectively "good" game? What is "good"?
Also, objective here doesn't mean factual, but relating to everyone, as opposed to a spefici individual, a.k.a subjective.
"Good" means it satisfies all the conventions of the genre, is well balanced, offers satisfying gameplay, tight controls, is graphically and audibly appealing and is fun. No matter how much people "like" it, whether or not a game meets these standards if entirely of the game. Even if nobody played a game if it met these standards it would be good. Not successful, but good. Likewise, even if people "liked" a game, if it's entirely unbalanced, slapdash in its genre placement, offers bad player feedback, has laggy controls, nearly inaudible/muddy audio and graphics that made playing the game a hassle due to vision limitations and such, it would be bad. I don't think anyone would LIKE a game like that, but just giving examples of how a game can suffer in each of those categories on a standardized level.
And if games were built around desirability, it would spell the end of gaming forever. Rarely do gamers desire anything outside of the realm of "what needs to be changed to improve my chances of winning? What will help me, as an individual or niche player, succeed and what is impeding my success?" In other words, CoD would degenerate into MW2's multiplayer. Which is why I brought up the example of Sirlin. He "desired" unbalanced gameplay when it was to his advantage but, when it came down to designing a --good-- game, he upheld the conventions of the genre and chose to balance it as well as possible. That is what I'm talking about: the distinction between success/accessibility/desirability, whatever you wanna call it, and just being GOOD.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 09-12-2011 at 06:29 PM.
The game which affected me most, I think, is Nethack. Never used to do anything risky ever, not in games and not in real life. That game pushed me out of the box a bit with its hang-around-and-a-gnome-will-zap-a-wand-of-death, you-are-never-safe mentality. That game taught me to be a go-get-'em pragmatist.
My hyphen key feels like it's recieved an unnecessary amount of lovin' now.