we are still arguing whether "good" is subjective?
Obviously it is. Otherwise, why would some here say UO is a "good" game, and I think it is terrible?
Nope, according to Gdemami there's nothing subjective about "good", because a game cannot be "good" if it doesn't earn a lot of money. If it makes heaps of money, it is automatically a "good" game.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
lol ... and you said all that with a straight face. Priceless!
Nope, according to Gdemami there's nothing subjective about "good", because a game cannot be "good" if it doesn't earn a lot of money. If it makes heaps of money, it is automatically a "good" game.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
Would be great if people stopped for a moment putting their very own, flawed conclusion into my mouth...
I never, ever said that "good" isn't subjective.
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
This gives you a objective measure and scale to compare products - people voting with their wallets for what products they find "good".
Not really. Just look at the format wars. VHS vs BETA is a good example.
Base technology behind the two placed Beta far ahead of VHS. Due to other reasons/marketing VHS eventually won out.
Tesla vs Edison, Edison was a genius at marketing, but Tesla's ideas are way better. (AC vs DC for example) Tesla died penniless, Edison is a "household" name
That actually supports the statement that money is good measure for success.
The problem is your inductive reasoning - you set a premise using use your own arbitrary qualifiers for "good" and then look for correlation with market performance to support it. Such reasoning is falacious tho...
1) Money is only a good measure for success if profit was the goal. See my remark about Browser Quest earlier. 2) Everyone uses their own arbitrary values for "good" because the word is subjective, dependent on the subject. 3) You then arbitrarily value success. Saying that success and good are literally the same thing. 4) He didn't look for market correlation to support his opinion, he saw that a product he subjectively thought was better under-preformed next to an inferior product. You then say that VHS must be good because it was a success.
This whole conversation is probably one of the dumbest things I have had the displeasure of ever reading on these boards. Also, Gdemami did prove his point. You're just narrow sighted and wanted to knit pick what was said. Here, lets rephrase for you.
Consumers will buy all sorts of products. However, only the best products gain huge financial success. Therefore, if you look at it from the perspective of best product will make more money then the lessor product.
With this in mind the product making more money can then spend more money on said product continuing to improve it even further. Where as the product making less money will continue without improvement.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
You are beating a dead horse...the scary part is that he isn't even trolling...
Nope, according to Gdemami there's nothing subjective about "good", because a game cannot be "good" if it doesn't earn a lot of money. If it makes heaps of money, it is automatically a "good" game.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
Would be great if people stopped for a moment putting their very own, flawed conclusion into my mouth...
I never, ever said that "good" isn't subjective.
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
This gives you a objective measure and scale to compare products - people voting with their wallets for what products they find "good".
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
That is why when you replied to me the first time it was not coherent. You where both agreeing and disagreeing with the point of my argument.
Revenue may indicate that many find a product good. But it was not good because it was a success.
Its desirable qualities made it into a game that achieved its intended goals.
But good and success are not the same thing like you claimed over and over again.
I never, ever said that "good" isn't subjective.
But when spotty and I said that a revenue did not mean a game was good you mocked us saying that of course the game is good if it is popular or successful. Meaning you put a objective metric that if a game met it must be good, by definition, because successful = good.
So while you never said good was not subjective, your use of language, continually meant that if I did not agree with you that I was wrong because of these "success" metrics, like money earned and popularity made the game good.
we are still arguing whether "good" is subjective?
Obviously it is. Otherwise, why would some here say UO is a "good" game, and I think it is terrible?
Nope, according to Gdemami there's nothing subjective about "good", because a game cannot be "good" if it doesn't earn a lot of money. If it makes heaps of money, it is automatically a "good" game.
So, by that definition, UO would only qualify as "good" because the money it made in it's day was quite reasonable, but by modern revenue levels (even after adjusting for inflation), it's obvious that UO wasn't actually as "good" as our modern MMO's...
lol ... and you said all that with a straight face. Priceless!
This is Gde's (current) expressed opinion.
Good is a subjective word. If a game is successful it is good. A game's goal is to be profitable. A game is profitable, so it is a success (it met its goal) Therefore, the game must be good. But good is still subjective.
He can say good is subjective; however, if it must become true that a game becomes good once it meets a goal (becomes successful, in this case profitable) then good is no longer subjective because it must become good once an objective criteria can be met, by definition.
Success = good, they are the same thing to him anywhere you use the word good, it can be replaced with the word successful.
So if he thinks a game is good if it is successful then he can say good is subjective all he wants but he is not being consistent.
In the case of video games, there's no independantly defined set of criteria that can be used to determine if a game is "good" or "bad". Judgements of quality in games are purely subjective.
However, "popularity" is much easier to determine. If a game makes large amounts of money, it usually means that there's a large amount of people playing it. Revenue and active logins are not subjective.
Nobody can seriously argue that WoW is not popular and makes tons of money. But many will argue that it's not actually a "good" game, because they don't enjoy playing it.
Popularity is an indication of how many people feel that game X is a "good" game. My opinion of game X may be quite different, but that's not going to change the opinions of the 5M players of that game...
The game can't be good, because I do not like it, therefore it must be popular!
Seriously....
Would it help if the player said instead, "The game is not good for me."? Generally speaking, the game may great, as the sub count or monthly income may show. But individually, it may not be good, for that player.
What muddies the water even further today are the F2P games where no subs can be counted and income made is not usually across a broad spectrum of players, but instead gathered from a few players spending a large amount of money.
People can tell me all day that Call of Duty is a great game. They can show me the money it takes in with every iteration. Does that make it a "good game" for me? No. I do not enjoy first person shooters.
MMOs today make money. They attract players who play the games and even some who spend money in them. Generally speaking, yes, they are good games, as players enjoy them. But, that does not make them "good" for everyone.
Narwrynn said: That WE made. We are in this together you and I.
Yeah, my mistake was engaging in a discussion with you since you are not capable of any...
We're not capable. Both of us. Together. Forever.
This whole conversation is probably one of the dumbest things I have had the displeasure of ever reading on these boards. Also, Gdemami did prove his point. You're just narrow sighted and wanted to knit pick what was said. Here, lets rephrase for you.
Consumers will buy all sorts of products. However, only the best products gain huge financial success. Therefore, if you look at it from the perspective of best product will make more money then the lessor product.
With this in mind the product making more money can then spend more money on said product continuing to improve it even further. Where as the product making less money will continue without improvement.
Hence more money equates to better product. It's pretty cut and dry really.
Actually, Gdemami did not "prove" anything. All they did was state over and over and over and over yet again that is, "I said so." Where are the dictionary definitions? Where are quotes from knowledgeable sources? "Gdemami says" does not equate proof of any kind.
In the case of video games, there's no independantly defined set of criteria that can be used to determine if a game is "good" or "bad". Judgements of quality in games are purely subjective.
However, "popularity" is much easier to determine. If a game makes large amounts of money, it usually means that there's a large amount of people playing it. Revenue and active logins are not subjective.
Nobody can seriously argue that WoW is not popular and makes tons of money. But many will argue that it's not actually a "good" game, because they don't enjoy playing it.
Popularity is an indication of how many people feel that game X is a "good" game. My opinion of game X may be quite different, but that's not going to change the opinions of the 5M players of that game...
The game can't be good, because I do not like it, therefore it must be popular!
Seriously....
Would it help if the player said instead, "The game is not good for me."? Generally speaking, the game may great, as the sub count or monthly income may show. But individually, it may not be good, for that player.
What muddies the water even further today are the F2P games where no subs can be counted and income made is not usually across a broad spectrum of players, but instead gathered from a few players spending a large amount of money.
People can tell me all day that Call of Duty is a great game. They can show me the money it takes in with every iteration. Does that make it a "good game" for me? No. I do not enjoy first person shooters.
MMOs today make money. They attract players who play the games and even some who spend money in them. Generally speaking, yes, they are good games, as players enjoy them. But, that does not make them "good" for everyone.
Thank you for understanding !
There's no way I could say: "Game X is a really good game" when I in fact think it is a load of utter rubbish. That would just be hypocritical.
To me, "good" implies approval (amongst a host of other things). I would not use a term that implies approval if I don't approve of the game.
If I like a game, it is automatically a "good" game. The opposite applies too.
There's no objective independent measure for "fun" or "enjoyment". Entertainment products are always judged subjectively, regardless of what the critics, social media or sales figures may say about them.
There's no way I could say: "Game X is a really good game" when I in fact think it is a load of utter rubbish. That would just be hypocritical.
No, it is the other way round.
It would be hypocritical to pretend WoW is a bad game because you do not like it personally...
So he can not subjectively hold the opinion that a game is bad? Because a lot of other people like it. This is argumentum ad populum.
Also just because a game is not good it does not mean it is bad. He may be indifferent to the game, unsure of the games quality, or may actually think the game is actually bad.
All of those a valid opinions and the fact that many would disagree does not make his opinion invalid. It just means a lot of people do not feel the same way.
If a games quality is outside the realm of what one personal likes than it is not subjective because it is not dependent on the subject. So is the quality of a game subjective, dependent on the subject?
There's no objective independent measure for "fun" or "enjoyment".
Of course there is. Brain imaging technology like fMRI can measure if you feel enjoyment.
However, it does not mean that "fun" or "enjoyment" is the same for everyone. In fact, obviously different people enjoy different things.
Prove it. The fMRI measures blood flow in the brain. It is used to tell if a brain is functioning correctly. Cite a signal study where an fMRI was used to measure fun.
There's no way I could say: "Game X is a really good game" when I in fact think it is a load of utter rubbish. That would just be hypocritical.
No, it is the other way round.
It would be hypocritical to pretend WoW is a bad game because you do not like it personally...
So he can not subjectively hold the opinion that a game is bad? Because a lot of other people like it. This is argumentum ad populum.
He obvious can. The best way to resolve this is to say:
a) A lot of people think that WOW is a "good" game. b) He (or whoever) think that WOW is a "bad" game.
The two statements has no conflict. The first statement is consistent with the fact that WOW has sold a ton.
I agree. It is Gde that disagrees, he said you are "pretending" WoW is a bad game. That you don't actually hold that opinion. That you are being hypocritical for not calling a game you do not enjoy "good." Why? Well because a lot of others like WoW so it must be good.
The problem is when people explain the reason for it being bad is they don't like it.
That doesn't make it bad.
People don't like going to the dentist, does that mean it's bad?
Fixed:
The problem is when people explain the reason for it being good is they like it.
That doesn't make it good.
People like smoking does that mean it's good?
Edit:
Nothing makes media objectively good or bad. Not sales, not popularity, not incredible graphics, not usability, replay-ability, not a rich and interesting cast, not an incredible story.
It is all dependent on the person playing the game.
There's no objective independent measure for "fun" or "enjoyment".
Of course there is. Brain imaging technology like fMRI can measure if you feel enjoyment.
However, it does not mean that "fun" or "enjoyment" is the same for everyone. In fact, obviously different people enjoy different things.
Prove it. The fMRI measures blood flow in the brain. It is used to tell if a brain is functioning correctly. Cite a signal study where an fMRI was used to measure fun.
sure ...
"Measuring the Experience of Digital Game Enjoyment"
The problem is when people explain the reason for it being bad is they don't like it.
That doesn't make it bad.
People don't like going to the dentist, does that mean it's bad?
Fixed:
The problem is when people explain the reason for it being good is they like it.
That doesn't make it good.
People like smoking does that mean it's good?
Edit:
Nothing makes media objectively good or bad. Not sales, not popularity, not incredible graphics, not usability, replay-ability, not a rich and interesting cast, not an incredible story.
It is all dependent on the person playing the game.
There's definitley objective good and bad ways to design a game/write a book/develop a film/compose music.
People thinking WoW is a bad has nothing to do with it being a bad game, they don't like it.
I've never heard an opinion that warrants attention to think it was a bad game.
There's no objective independent measure for "fun" or "enjoyment".
Of course there is. Brain imaging technology like fMRI can measure if you feel enjoyment.
However, it does not mean that "fun" or "enjoyment" is the same for everyone. In fact, obviously different people enjoy different things.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing ?
Perhaps we should measure the pleasure responses of 1 or 2 million gamers and then design an MMO accordingly ? Should be a smash hit, yeah ?
I did not say it is cheap enough to use to measure every gamer (although I do know of neuro marketing companies that uses physiological response to study product design ... including games).
But you cannot say brain imaging (and other measures like EEG) is not objective.
There's no way I could say: "Game X is a really good game" when I in fact think it is a load of utter rubbish. That would just be hypocritical.
No, it is the other way round.
It would be hypocritical to pretend WoW is a bad game because you do not like it personally...
So he can not subjectively hold the opinion that a game is bad? Because a lot of other people like it. This is argumentum ad populum.
He obvious can. The best way to resolve this is to say:
a) A lot of people think that WOW is a "good" game. b) He (or whoever) think that WOW is a "bad" game.
The two statements has no conflict. The first statement is consistent with the fact that WOW has sold a ton.
I agree. It is Gde that disagrees, he said you are "pretending" WoW is a bad game. That you don't actually hold that opinion. That you are being hypocritical for not calling a game you do not enjoy "good." Why? Well because a lot of others like WoW so it must be good.
Just because someone doesn't like a game, does not mean it is bad, likewise, just because someone likes a game does not necessarily mean it is good, the problem is that some people can't differentiate between a game being bad, and not liking a game, and a game being good and not liking it. WoW is a good game, whether you like it or not, is personal preference. Perhaps the largest testament to whether WoW is a good game, is the fact its been successful for the last decade.
Comments
I never, ever said that "good" isn't subjective.
If the game makes lots of money, it means there is lots of people who think the game is good.
This gives you a objective measure and scale to compare products - people voting with their wallets for what products they find "good".
2) Everyone uses their own arbitrary values for "good" because the word is subjective, dependent on the subject.
3) You then arbitrarily value success. Saying that success and good are literally the same thing.
4) He didn't look for market correlation to support his opinion, he saw that a product he subjectively thought was better under-preformed next to an inferior product. You then say that VHS must be good because it was a success.
That is why when you replied to me the first time it was not coherent. You where both agreeing and disagreeing with the point of my argument.
Revenue may indicate that many find a product good. But it was not good because it was a success.
Its desirable qualities made it into a game that achieved its intended goals.
But good and success are not the same thing like you claimed over and over again.
But when spotty and I said that a revenue did not mean a game was good you mocked us saying that of course the game is good if it is popular or successful. Meaning you put a objective metric that if a game met it must be good, by definition, because successful = good.
So while you never said good was not subjective, your use of language, continually meant that if I did not agree with you that I was wrong because of these "success" metrics, like money earned and popularity made the game good.
Good is a subjective word.
If a game is successful it is good.
A game's goal is to be profitable.
A game is profitable, so it is a success (it met its goal)
Therefore, the game must be good.
But good is still subjective.
He can say good is subjective; however, if it must become true that a game becomes good once it meets a goal (becomes successful, in this case profitable) then good is no longer subjective because it must become good once an objective criteria can be met, by definition.
Success = good, they are the same thing to him anywhere you use the word good, it can be replaced with the word successful.
So if he thinks a game is good if it is successful then he can say good is subjective all he wants but he is not being consistent.
What muddies the water even further today are the F2P games where no subs can be counted and income made is not usually across a broad spectrum of players, but instead gathered from a few players spending a large amount of money.
People can tell me all day that Call of Duty is a great game. They can show me the money it takes in with every iteration. Does that make it a "good game" for me? No. I do not enjoy first person shooters.
MMOs today make money. They attract players who play the games and even some who spend money in them. Generally speaking, yes, they are good games, as players enjoy them. But, that does not make them "good" for everyone.
VG
VG
There's no way I could say: "Game X is a really good game" when I in fact think it is a load of utter rubbish. That would just be hypocritical.
To me, "good" implies approval (amongst a host of other things). I would not use a term that implies approval if I don't approve of the game.
If I like a game, it is automatically a "good" game. The opposite applies too.
There's no objective independent measure for "fun" or "enjoyment". Entertainment products are always judged subjectively, regardless of what the critics, social media or sales figures may say about them.
You said it yourself - good implies approval, measured by money spent. That does not imply that YOU have to approve the game to be considered good.
When you approve the game, it implies YOU LIKE it, nothing to do with "good".
However, it does not mean that "fun" or "enjoyment" is the same for everyone. In fact, obviously different people enjoy different things.
This is argumentum ad populum.
Also just because a game is not good it does not mean it is bad. He may be indifferent to the game, unsure of the games quality, or may actually think the game is actually bad.
All of those a valid opinions and the fact that many would disagree does not make his opinion invalid. It just means a lot of people do not feel the same way.
If a games quality is outside the realm of what one personal likes than it is not subjective because it is not dependent on the subject. So is the quality of a game subjective, dependent on the subject?
a) A lot of people think that WOW is a "good" game.
b) He (or whoever) think that WOW is a "bad" game.
The two statements has no conflict. The first statement is consistent with the fact that WOW has sold a ton.
The fMRI measures blood flow in the brain. It is used to tell if a brain is functioning correctly. Cite a signal study where an fMRI was used to measure fun.
Perhaps we should measure the pleasure responses of 1 or 2 million gamers and then design an MMO accordingly ? Should be a smash hit, yeah ?
That you don't actually hold that opinion.
That you are being hypocritical for not calling a game you do not enjoy "good."
Why? Well because a lot of others like WoW so it must be good.
That doesn't make it bad.
People don't like going to the dentist, does that mean it's bad?
The problem is when people explain the reason for it being good is they like it.
That doesn't make it good.
People like smoking does that mean it's good?
Edit:
Nothing makes media objectively good or bad. Not sales, not popularity, not incredible graphics, not usability, replay-ability, not a rich and interesting cast, not an incredible story.
It is all dependent on the person playing the game.
I have never heard anyone say: "I bought this particular toaster because it's fun !"
"Measuring the Experience of Digital Game Enjoyment"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30223197/10.1.1.146.4186.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1449945784&Signature=xqgfp6ME6AMz5pQRib2lbttb7NQ=&response-content-disposition=inline; filename=Detailed_automated_visual_tracking_of_bi.pdf#page=106
"Measuring Enjoyment in Games Through Electroencephalogram (EEG) Signal Analys"
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L5B9MJjHXQYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA393&dq=fmri+measure+enjoyment&ots=mHzbbhA9mG&sig=cLteKAcYeqzCoc_B-7tnKmwLx_E#v=onepage&q=fmri measure enjoyment&f=false
"Think Aloud during fMRI: Neuronal Correlates of Subjective Experience in Video Games"
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-88322-7_13
People thinking WoW is a bad has nothing to do with it being a bad game, they don't like it.
I've never heard an opinion that warrants attention to think it was a bad game.
But you cannot say brain imaging (and other measures like EEG) is not objective.
How to use it .. that is another story.