Personal biases when judging the quality of a game

Hmm, I'd say there are some things which can absolutely be spoken about objectively, but some cannot.

Is Portal extremely popular with its demographic? Certainly. Does it have a decent budget, and clean graphics appropriate to the kind of game it is? Does it stand out as something a little more creative than usual? I can't disagree with claims like those, and won't try to. Is it good? That's entirely down to a person's opinion, and discounting a negative opinion as being biased without being able to see a positive one is likewise biased must surely be folly. That a lot of people in a particular and extremely narrow demographic happen to share that opinion at this time doesn't feel terribly important.

It doesn't feel possible to have a general expert on something as broad a topic as gaming, who can set aside their prejudices and objectively declare a game universally better than others.

I'd understand the opinion more if it was limited by a defined genre. I don't consider Tupac Shakur one of the greatest musicians of all time. But if (for the purpose of this example) a narrow group such as the gangster rap community consider him so, I wouldn't expect them to try to convince the jazz community that it was true. In joining the gangster rap or jazz camps, they have already acknowledged their individual biases, so I can accept that someone who likes that type of rap is likely to like Tupac. I cannot accept that someone who likes games is likely to adore Portal. It covers far too large a group.

I'm willing to accept that Portal is probably the best puzzle-themed-FPS around, if that helps. It's not a crowded genre...

I don't think a bias disappears, just because it is shared by a vocal majority in any given place.

Anyway, following your example now and splitting this off properly as the derailment is my fault entirely.

R
 
Wow! Have you seen the price of... *notices thread name change*

"Personal biases when judging the quality of a game"

O_O

Never mind... ¬_¬
 
The Steam thread is still around and ready for Christmas specials, it just fell down the list a little bit :)

R
 
Bascally find anything with this logo on it

bethesda-softworks-1.jpg


you've got a keeper
 
ilmaestro said:
You can demonstrate that people have different subjective opinions, you can not demonstrate that they are of equal worth and validity. I am saying that they aren't, based on thousands of years of evidence that some humans excel more than others in pretty much every skill and discipline ever devised. Whereas, to me, you are essentially saying that they are "because we don't know 100% for sure whether they are or not so let's not be too committal until someone else invents a measuring device for me".
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that said measuring device cannot exist, because it would be trying to measure the validity of human emotion. The only things we can be truly objective about are the physical laws of the universe which have been discovered and proven. Only unemotional scientific fact can be judged objectively. Drop an apple and you prove gravity to be true. Someone might get angry or upset because that goes against their belief that the apple should go up, but at that point they can be classed as lying or deluded - allowing their emotions to overrule rational thought.

Anything which stimulates opposing emotional responses in different people cannot be judged objectively like that. There are no rational reasons which can be used to define why a game, film or piece of artwork is good. All art and entertainment is created to provoke emotion - there is no rational reason for any of it to exist at all! Thereby anything which stimulates emotions you enjoy having is good for you, anything which stimulates emotions you don't enjoy having is bad for you. People enjoy arguing about their opinions of these things because that provokes an emotional response too. No-one tries and convince everybody else that a game is good because that's a fundamental truth. They just want to find other people who share their opinions, or to understand why others hold different opinions (in addition I think it's quite possible humans have an underlying desire to make others more like them - and as a result that may well be the way our future lies, but that's getting even more off topic).

So no, I don't think it's possible to say that even the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci have objective quality. All we have is consensus of opinion, and I don't think anyone's opinion should be considered any less worthy or valid for going against that. I have a feeling that's also the point where we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Portal 2 is actually a little easier because they listened to people being unable to line up themselves with a portal while ariborne, because the person knew what they had to do, they just had trouble physically doing it.

As a result, they made it so you have a tendency to fall toward the portal you've placed on the floor.
 
Oh wow, a new and genuinely interesting thread in Gaming, though I see it was split off from another thread (as all the best ones are).

Anyway, my personal bias for judging the quality of games starts with one simple question "are there any gun turret sections in it"? If not, we're off to a good start!


I am not suggesting you can prove it infallibly to every person or measure it, it is an odd suggestion that you need measurable proof to believe that something exists. That is a very limited way of thinking imo.
Click to expand...

I agree. Tell that to Richard Dawkins and Ben Goldacre, ect! Bloody Twits, init


because I wear myself out arguing with people's personal beliefs
Click to expand...

The Dork v Dawk thread is always there, when your ready :wink:


Anyway, I actually do agree with Ayase in that Art is pretty much by definition subjective. All art is essentially a form of self expression, so how can one be objectively better than another? Hold on a minute...Martial arts can also be a form of self expression and to a considerable degree you can objectively judge if ones form is better than another's (if you have such an eye). Maybe Martial arts are scientific arts, that have more fixed principles that need to be adhered to than say painting does? Or maybe it just comes down to how well the artist is actually expressing them self in the way they actually intend to? But I guess that comes down to being able to interpret what the artist was and wasn't intending. So OK, it boils down to, whether you know what the artist was intending to create or not, and with such knowledge it would be able to judge the skill of the artist. But does the skill of the artist really matter if the art still impacts? So if an artist tries to paint a picture of sorrow to share his inner torment with every observer of it, but the observer thinks the picture is good, happy picture and likes it for making him feel happy, is the picture any less good just because the artist failed in his mission and got the opposite effect? Hmmm, I don't know....


Though I would challenge Ayase over the fact that we can be certain about these supposed 'scientific facts being the only thing's truly 'objective'. In fact I'll be honest, I don't believe it's in any way possible or plausible to truly believe that anyone other than your own self is acting objectively towards a subject. Can you prove it to me? If not, am I just supposed to have 'good faith' in an individual I may not even personally know? Even with these 'scientific facts'- that are supposedly objective just because they are carried out by 'scientists' who have fancy pieces of paper from fancy schools and their sudies are published in famous journals- are not necessarily more believably objective than some geezer's opinion on this forum. Nearly every human bieng has some kind of bias or bent . A lot of these scientists are educated in similar if not the same institutions, and as we already know institutions inevitably carry bias. How do I know the study was really peer reviewed? How do I know there aren't conflict of interests or ulterior motives at play? On the other hand it's not hard to be objective about gravity and say that I whole heartedly believe it's existence, because I experience it! That's not to say that individuals who are fully objective and truly selfless in every action do not exist. They do, the are just very, very rare. For how can one be believed to be objective when he is still a slave to his five senses and innate desires of his mind/ego. The only way to be truly objective is to surpass these and also gain great insight.

This should not be confused with paranoia or over skepticism, this is just being careful not mistake false information as truth and the importance of an open mind, deep analysis and most importantly personal experience!
And when we're living in an age in which the subjective mind is being proven more and more to have an objective (if you will) effect on the human body (ask Ben Goldacre if you don't believe me!) and indeed our very reality. Along with quantum physics providing theories which demonstrate how atoms might not be working in such a simple manner as we thought, I think we need to be careful just what 'objective facts' we are taking to heart.
 
In the case of martial arts, there is a relatively rigid structure to each discipline so you can climb through the ranks and learn specified techniques; I can understand how someone could judge that. Similarly if you make a very rigid brief for artwork (e.g. to draw a photorealistic picture of a prearranged bowl of fruit), it's possible to discern that some people can follow the brief better than others. As soon as you start narrowing the field with rules and set objectives, judging something becomes more relevant.

The problem I have is that having the opinion that Portal isn't a very good game was suggested to be outright wrong, when the definition of a "good game" is so vague and subjective. Even limiting it specifically to video games, it's too huge a category to have any kind of established consensus, other than amongst the various cliques and hardcore genre fans. Who are, just like me, inherently biased by their own interpretation of what gaming is and should be. I can't accept that just because I enjoy playing different types of games, my opinion as a gamer in my own right is inherently wrong, simply by some arbitrary measure decided by a vocal demographic I do not belong to.

R
 
Everyone seems to be saying the same thing but in thier own unique way. Which just supports what you're all saying. One persons like can be anothers dislike. If we all had the same opinion this would be one hell of a boring world. I know many feed off of debate but coming to conclusion that someones perspective is dead wrong is just crazy. I'm talking gathering them all in concentartion camps and gassing them crazy.
I for one am a big fan of "Portal", but I woudln't say it was my favourite by a long shot. I think the idea is genius but the game felt too restrictive. I can completely understand why people wouldn't like it. Much like the Eva and Final-F arguments that raise their ugly heads from time to time *shudders*
I usually tend to stand clear. =P
 
Rui said:
In the case of martial arts, there is a relatively rigid structure to each discipline so you can climb through the ranks and learn specified techniques; I can understand how someone could judge that. Similarly if you make a very rigid brief for artwork (e.g. to draw a photorealistic picture of a prearranged bowl of fruit), it's possible to discern that some people can follow the brief better than others. As soon as you start narrowing the field with rules and set objectives, judging something becomes more relevant.

The problem I have is that having the opinion that Portal isn't a very good game was suggested to be outright wrong, when the definition of a "good game" is so vague and subjective. Even limiting it specifically to video games, it's too huge a category to have any kind of established consensus, other than amongst the various cliques and hardcore genre fans. Who are, just like me, inherently biased by their own interpretation of what gaming is and should be. I can't accept that just because I enjoy playing different types of games, my opinion as a gamer in my own right is inherently wrong, simply by some arbitrary measure decided by a vocal demographic I do not belong to.

R
Click to expand...

Nice post! Good way to sum up in a much less confused manner, what I was trying to get across in the first part of my post (at least I think I was). :thumb:

Yeah, I'd agree that the enjoyment and even quality of games and entertainment in general does completely come down to the individual. For example, my Favorite game of all time is Shenmue, yet I can campletely(that was a genuine spelling mistake, but considering how camp the dub of Shenmue is, I thought it was quite fitting) understand how some can hate it. For many it's the most boring game ever, yet for others the most engrossing. It depends what you value in a game.

Speaking of Shenmue, I bought the games and I am now eagerly awaiting their arrival! :)
 
Rui said:
I can't accept that just because I enjoy playing different types of games, my opinion as a gamer in my own right is inherently wrong, simply by some arbitrary measure decided by a vocal demographic I do not belong to.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably a good summation of why I assume people to disagree with me on this topic - people can't accept [the objective fact ;)] that their opinion isn't always the most valid opinion in the world on every topic for which they want to provide it.

But at the same time you have utterly no conviction that your opinion carries any actual weight, since you would value it the equal of someone who knows nothing about the subject, but can declare "that's crap, that is".

Either way, I think posts on both sides have started to go in circles and contain at least three instances of misunderstanding what the other person is saying, so the motion of "agree to disagree" would get my support at this stage.
 
vashdaman said:
Oh wow, a new and genuinely interesting thread in Gaming, though I see it was split off from another thread (as all the best ones are).

Anyway, my personal bias for judging the quality of games starts with one simple question "are there any gun turret sections in it"? If not, we're off to a good start!
Click to expand...

Hear hear! I can't remember the last turret section which made me go "yes this is actually pretty fun" It had to be either a really interesting turret section or a really badass turret to grab my attention these days, but so many turrets are just miniguns. Yeah that was all well and good when miniguns weren't mandatory in every game, but now that they're portable, what reason is there for turrets?
 
Back
Top