After reading this thread, I can only come to one conclusion.
The only measure of a game is the money that it makes. The more it makes the higher the value (literally).
The only OBJECTIVE measure of a game is the money that it makes.
There are SUBJECT measures.
I measure game everyday by determining if i have fun in them. Fun, clearly, is a measure, just not an objective one.
I dont agree and in fact I think that mind set is somewhat pre-engineered.
The 'object' of a game for those who own the IP is to make money The 'object' of a game for those making it can vary from personal satisfaction to good personal income The 'object' of a game for the players is completely different than that from its owners.
See what the 'property class' has managed to do if make everyone think there is only one objective to a project and that the center of the universe on those objectives revolves around them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I dont agree and in fact I think that mind set is somewhat pre-engineered.
The 'object' of a game for those who own the IP is to make money The 'object' of a game for those making it can vary from personal satisfaction to good personal income The 'object' of a game for the players is completely different than that from its owners.
See what the 'property class' has managed to do if make everyone think there is only one objective to a project and that the center of the universe on those objectives revolves around them
I think you're close here but if I'm playing a game and having fun with it I do want it to make a profit. This'll hopefully lead to expansions and the game not shutting down for a long time. So in that way financial success does matter to players. But I *hate* when people argue that you should enjoy a game because it's financially successful. I mean FarmVille is a totally shit unfun game that somehow made a ton of money. On the other hand, Distant Worlds has had a ton of effort and time put into it and is almost objectively a higher quality game than FarmVille yet has only made a small fraction of the money. Financial success alone doesn't say anything about the actual quality of a game.
I dont agree and in fact I think that mind set is somewhat pre-engineered.
The 'object' of a game for those who own the IP is to make money The 'object' of a game for those making it can vary from personal satisfaction to good personal income The 'object' of a game for the players is completely different than that from its owners.
See what the 'property class' has managed to do if make everyone think there is only one objective to a project and that the center of the universe on those objectives revolves around them
I think you're close here but if I'm playing a game and having fun with it I do want it to make a profit. This'll hopefully lead to expansions and the game not shutting down for a long time. So in that way financial success does matter to players. But I *hate* when people argue that you should enjoy a game because it's financially successful. I mean FarmVille is a totally shit unfun game that somehow made a ton of money. On the other hand, Distant Worlds has had a ton of effort and time put into it and is almost objectively a higher quality game than FarmVille yet has only made a small fraction of the money. Financial success alone doesn't say anything about the actual quality of a game.
That last line is what the thread was about, really. It fell apart when people could not add the words "for me" in a post and instead assumed "overall" fit their agendas better. At least that was what I got from that linked video.
Financial success alone doesn't say anything about the actual quality of a game.
Quality is subjective.
Don't forget that part. LoL is a huge financial success but i do not like it, hence i do not play. The ROOM is a puzzle game that i think has really high quality puzzles & production values, but obviously only makes a small fraction of LoL.
I dont agree and in fact I think that mind set is somewhat pre-engineered.
The 'object' of a game for those who own the IP is to make money The 'object' of a game for those making it can vary from personal satisfaction to good personal income The 'object' of a game for the players is completely different than that from its owners.
See what the 'property class' has managed to do if make everyone think there is only one objective to a project and that the center of the universe on those objectives revolves around them
I think you're close here but if I'm playing a game and having fun with it I do want it to make a profit. This'll hopefully lead to expansions and the game not shutting down for a long time. So in that way financial success does matter to players. But I *hate* when people argue that you should enjoy a game because it's financially successful. I mean FarmVille is a totally shit unfun game that somehow made a ton of money. On the other hand, Distant Worlds has had a ton of effort and time put into it and is almost objectively a higher quality game than FarmVille yet has only made a small fraction of the money. Financial success alone doesn't say anything about the actual quality of a game.
those are basically lies set in peoples mind at a very young age in lessons of economics.
The truth isnt always as such.
You have to keep in mind the objective of a company is to make money and one of the ways to do that is to actually RESTRICT your life rather than providing you more because they know expectations will rise when you offer more.
Here are some examples: Are Apple phones better than Samsung phones despite having less technology, less user experience and more paywalls?
well? Apple makes more money than Samsung...so?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
After reading this thread, I can only come to one conclusion.
The only measure of a game is the money that it makes. The more it makes the higher the value (literally).
The only OBJECTIVE measure of a game is the money that it makes.
There are SUBJECT measures.
I measure game everyday by determining if i have fun in them. Fun, clearly, is a measure, just not an objective one.
Yes... but from this thread, it does not appear that there are common subjective measures. It also appears that this discussion is about the end result of a business.
Artist may strive for subjective success, but business do not. As we are talking about commercial products, it seems reasonable to use business measurements for success.
After reading this thread, I can only come to one conclusion.
The only measure of a game is the money that it makes. The more it makes the higher the value (literally).
The only OBJECTIVE measure of a game is the money that it makes.
There are SUBJECT measures.
I measure game everyday by determining if i have fun in them. Fun, clearly, is a measure, just not an objective one.
Yes... but from this thread, it does not appear that there are common subjective measures. It also appears that this discussion is about the end result of a business.
Artist may strive for subjective success, but business do not. As we are talking about commercial products, it seems reasonable to use business measurements for success.
its exceedly common for people to measure how much fun they are having with how much money a company makes. Speaking personally I could not ask for a better brainwashing position to be in if I was a company owener
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yes... but from this thread, it does not appear that there are common subjective measures. It also appears that this discussion is about the end result of a business.
Well, isn't it pretty common on this forum that someone says something is fun or not fun to them?
Well the habit of correlating numbers and statistics over things in game development is something that's more of a modern trend in game design, and it does have it's drawbacks. It has strength when talking about getting a player to pay into a title, but the meaning of paying into a title has become a lot more varied than simply tracking or relating how "fun" a game or it's mechanics is as the means to monetizing it varies greatly enough and influences players in roundabout ways. It's considerably more muddied of a value than it's ever been.
EDIT: Point of this statement being, the amount of money a title makes has many factors driving it and is result of considerably more data gathering and assessment than has ever been done before. How players are targeted and convinced to pay for games has grown so dramatically that measuring the income of modern titles to confirm a single statistic simply doesn't work.
As such, to use income as the measure of a game's quality is very specious.
EDIT2: Also I know two of those articles harp on F2P. I'm not saying F2P is "teh evil", it's just that those articles illustrate issues that have grown in game development and can be seen as present in many modern models.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Yes... but from this thread, it does not appear that there are common subjective measures. It also appears that this discussion is about the end result of a business.
Well, isn't it pretty common on this forum that someone says something is fun or not fun to them?
This is why subjective opinions dont matter. Someone may like it, or not like it. Someone else's opinion does not prevent you from forming your own. Your opinion is only really valid for you, and on forums like these, there are often people that both share, and disagree with it.
The bottom line is that there is value in consensus, but not much value in disagreement.
This is why subjective opinions dont matter. Someone may like it, or not like it. Someone else's opinion does not prevent you from forming your own. Your opinion is only really valid for you, and on forums like these, there are often people that both share, and disagree with it.
The bottom line is that there is value in consensus, but not much value in disagreement.
I disagree.
If there is no disagreement, this place won't have so much traffic. That is value to the website.
If there is no disagreement, there is less fun for discussion. That is value for some who visit the forum.
This is why subjective opinions dont matter. Someone may like it, or not like it. Someone else's opinion does not prevent you from forming your own. Your opinion is only really valid for you, and on forums like these, there are often people that both share, and disagree with it.
The bottom line is that there is value in consensus, but not much value in disagreement.
I disagree.
If there is no disagreement, this place won't have so much traffic. That is value to the website.
If there is no disagreement, there is less fun for discussion. That is value for some who visit the forum.
Consensus in gaming ... that is a pipe dream.
Here is the beauty, you dont have to agree. It is my subjective belief, and independant of yours. However, if you (and others) did agree, then it would form a shared commonality, or consensus.
This is why subjective opinions dont matter. Someone may like it, or not like it. Someone else's opinion does not prevent you from forming your own. Your opinion is only really valid for you, and on forums like these, there are often people that both share, and disagree with it.
The bottom line is that there is value in consensus, but not much value in disagreement.
I disagree.
If there is no disagreement, this place won't have so much traffic. That is value to the website.
If there is no disagreement, there is less fun for discussion. That is value for some who visit the forum.
Consensus in gaming ... that is a pipe dream.
Here is the beauty, you dont have to agree. It is my subjective belief, and independant of yours. However, if you (and others) did agree, then it would form a shared commonality, or consensus.
Hmm.. I guess that supports my point, fancy that.
Which point? You agree that disagreement has value? Isn't that the flip side of your point?
Comments
There are SUBJECT measures.
I measure game everyday by determining if i have fun in them. Fun, clearly, is a measure, just not an objective one.
The 'object' of a game for those who own the IP is to make money
The 'object' of a game for those making it can vary from personal satisfaction to good personal income
The 'object' of a game for the players is completely different than that from its owners.
See what the 'property class' has managed to do if make everyone think there is only one objective to a project and that the center of the universe on those objectives revolves around them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
VG
Don't forget that part. LoL is a huge financial success but i do not like it, hence i do not play. The ROOM is a puzzle game that i think has really high quality puzzles & production values, but obviously only makes a small fraction of LoL.
Here are some examples:
Are Apple phones better than Samsung phones despite having less technology, less user experience and more paywalls?
well? Apple makes more money than Samsung...so?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Artist may strive for subjective success, but business do not. As we are talking about commercial products, it seems reasonable to use business measurements for success.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EDIT: Point of this statement being, the amount of money a title makes has many factors driving it and is result of considerably more data gathering and assessment than has ever been done before. How players are targeted and convinced to pay for games has grown so dramatically that measuring the income of modern titles to confirm a single statistic simply doesn't work.
As such, to use income as the measure of a game's quality is very specious.
EDIT2: Also I know two of those articles harp on F2P. I'm not saying F2P is "teh evil", it's just that those articles illustrate issues that have grown in game development and can be seen as present in many modern models.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The bottom line is that there is value in consensus, but not much value in disagreement.
If there is no disagreement, this place won't have so much traffic. That is value to the website.
If there is no disagreement, there is less fun for discussion. That is value for some who visit the forum.
Consensus in gaming ... that is a pipe dream.
Hmm.. I guess that supports my point, fancy that.