Someone tell me what the fuck is so special about Daggerfall

[Imbecile]

Now take any truly subjective thing. I can't change your opinion about the taste of Coca-Cola through logic and argumentation. If you like it, you like it. There is no basis for it. Now that's subjective.

If you truly believe that value of games is subjective, then bashing Oblivion is stupid. And praising it too. In fact, that would make any game-related discussion pretty pointless. I don't believe that games are a subjective topic, that's why I discuss them with other people.

Artistic value is pretty subjective – its hard enough to even define. Does a fence have artistic value? A car? Does the item need to be created with art in mind? Does it even need to be an item? How about a song or an idea?

And yes, the value of art is subjective, but that doesn’t mean that a common opinion can’t be reached, or a point of view recommended – and that’s what people argue for. To try and make their views understood, and maybe sway a few people round to their way of thinking.

Is the Mona Lisa better, or Van Goghs Sunflowers? We could argue all day, but that doesn’t mean that there is a definite, objective answer.
It’s the same with games.

 

[onerobot]

Artistic value is pretty subjective – its hard enough to even define. Does a fence have artistic value? A car? Does the item need to be created with art in mind? Does it even need to be an item? How about a song or an idea?

I'd begin his definition of artistic value starting with the qualities of an object that are not directly related to the quality of its fuction - for example, the aethetic value of fence would have nothing to do with its ability to keep kidnapped hobos in a yard, but rather how well the paint matches that of the armed compund it surrounds.

Taking things a step further, the artistic value can be derived from the aesthetics defined above as the quality or depth of knowledge (sensory or otherwise) conveyed. This is separate from enjoyment, where the type of knowledge is the driving factor and the quality can actually be a detriment as it can overwhelm what a mind can absorb at once, especially in the initial stages.

This appears to be the base of Gambler's argument, which is that artistic merit can be determined and that it is often mistaken for enjoyment.

Excuses if I mangled that.

Is the Mona Lisa better, or Van Goghs Sunflowers? We could argue all day, but that doesn’t mean that there is a definite, objective answer.
It’s the same with games.

But do they beat out the best-selling Troutman?

 

[Imbecile]

Nothing beats Troutman. Except for Cow Wars

 

[denizsi]

Is the Mona Lisa better, or Van Goghs Sunflowers? We could argue all day, but that doesn’t mean that there is a definite, objective answer.
It’s the same with games.

The point isn't really about which one's better. While one may prefer one of them over the other, there's no denying that any of the two is less of an original work of art with a conscious level of technique and professionalism. I'm sure there have been thousands of similar but weak and amateur attempts at both of their times.

So, to be able to claim that it's the same with games, first all games (or all the games in question) must reach such a point where everything about them is top notch, from story to graphics, ai to setting and not just to have them as gimmicky features but strong elements of the game, so all games are more or less equal on a professional level. Only after that can you argue that personal preferences on games are subjective.

Why? Because Mona Lisa isn't just a fucking amateur painting and neither is Sunflowers. In any given profession at any time in history, there were, are and will always be more amateurs and imitators than real visionaries and professionals, as is the case with those paintings. What makes games different? There certainly are some technical areas in games which doesn't leave any room for personal views.

Additionally, if one's lack of sophisticated tastes leads him or her to like lesser works of art, food or games and dislike or despise better and greater forms of those, it can not be a matter of taste or of subjectivism either. Take for example, artists like Van Gogh, Gogen or Toulouse Lautrec; they were insulted and made fun of in their early days (and some, until their death) only because of the viewers' unsophisticated artistic tastes, or the lack thereof. But today, they are among the pinnacles of fine arts. What does that tell now?

Games are no different. Some games are just good. Some are just bad. It's a matter of subjectivism when you are taking games that are comparable in the ways I mentioned above.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Yet there have been contemporaries of VanGogh that thought he was nothing but a mad amateur. Likewise many of the great works of great classic painters are now called into question as it has been shown how many were actually manufactured in a rather industrial fashion by workshops, which contradicts the classid view of the artistic genius.

Artistic value has an objective basis, but it also depends on the social circumstances and ersonal preferences if one is capable of perceiving it.

 

[Gambler]

Excuses if I mangled that.

Nope, it seems you got it right.

 

[Hazelnut]

Yet there have been contemporaries of VanGogh that thought he was nothing but a mad amateur. Likewise many of the great works of great classic painters are now called into question as it has been shown how many were actually manufactured in a rather industrial fashion by workshops, which contradicts the classid view of the artistic genius.

Really? Well I never... sources?

 

[Imbecile]

Games are no different. Some games are just good. Some are just bad. It's a matter of subjectivism when you are taking games that are comparable in the ways I mentioned above.

.

So who decides which games are good and which games are bad? Who decides that Zelda’s cell shaded graphics are ingenious rather than childish? Who decides that a game is too long, or too short? Who decides that a game is too difficult, or too easy? Who is this magical person who decides that a game is just good, or just bad?

Yes, there will be some consensus and this will change over time – but neither of these facts mean that there is one right answer. I also appreciate that there will be elements of games that are functional and can be compared objectively. But not all.

Or am I missing the point?

 

[Twinfalls]

this discussion sux

 

[Gambler]

So who decides which games are good and which games are bad?

<sarcasm>So who decides whether Earth is flat or not? I say, it's all subjective. Yes, there is some consensus and id did change over time – but neither of these facts mean that there is one right answer.</sarcasm>

this discussion sux

But it's necessary nevertheless.

 

[Wysardry]

this discussion sux

That's just a subjective opinion.

 

[MacBone]

I'm curious - are there any programmers now that consider the games that they make to be art? Hmm. . .

@Gambler - What about artists whose reputation vacillates through the ages? At one time, Shakespeare was considered a decent writer, but not the best of his time. Critics, Samuel Taylor Coleridge among them, succeeded in elevating Willie's rep to almost demigod stature, and over the last two or three decades, that reputation has slowly been chipped away. Now various critics are arguing again that Shakespeare wasn't even the best writer of his day, and point to people like Thomas Middleton and Ben Jonson as being as good or better than Shakespeare.

Have Shakespeare's plays and poetry been altered during the last four hundred years? No, but tastes and appreciations have changed, and many people are burned out on the Bard (though I for one still like the old guy, and so does Hollywood, apparently).

We can attempt to be objective about games, sure. How many magazines and sites rate games on a numerical scale (well, true, the Codex doesn't)? Movies and music get the same treatment, but I don't tell my wife, "Oh, you'll love Kill Bill. It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 84%!" No, I'll tell her she'll dislike it because I know she doesn't like seeing people dismembered, decapitated, and castrated (that was Sin City, but she wouldn't care for that either). She doesn't see it as art, though she'd love a Chopin concerto.

Here's another example: hip-hop. Many people would decry even attempting to label hip hop as art (as would former president of Harvard Lawrence Summers), but plenty of rappers (A Tribe Called Quest, Mos Def, the Roots) and scholars (Cornel West, Tricia Rose) consider hip hop to be art.

One could compare hip hop to other forms of music and even to literature and argue for or against hip hop as being art, but there's a huge element of subjectivity there.

 

[Imbecile]

So who decides which games are good and which games are bad?

<sarcasm>So who decides whether Earth is flat or not? I say, it's all subjective. Yes, there is some consensus and id did change over time – but neither of these facts mean that there is one right answer.</sarcasm>

I'm sorry, but that analogy is just bollocks. Disputing whether the world is world is flat can eventually be proven. Proving whether the Beatles are a good band, or whether Mario is a nice looking game cant be proven.

Picking ridiculous examples just doesn’t prove anything chum

 

[MacBone]

this discussion sux

Sorry, TF. Looks like yet another perfectly good DF topic got sidetracked into a stupid Subjectivity 101 discussion.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I agree with Twinfalls and a little part of me just died inside.

 

[Gambler]

What about artists whose reputation vacillates through the ages?

Did I say something about reputation? No, I did not.

Disputing whether the world is world is flat can eventually be proven.

Only to people who actually listen and analyze arguments. Proving it to arrogant demagogues will be difficult, if not impossible. Especially if they benefit from incorrect theories. Remember Copernicus?

Anyway, I said everything I needed to say. This is my last post on this topic.

 

[ad hominem]

I agree with Twinfalls and a little part of me just died inside.

Was it the tenderloin? Or the spareribs? 'cause I could totally go for some ribs right now.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

My general rule for subjecte vs objective: a robot should be able to discover objective facts and report them back.

Simply arguing is not evidence of objectivity. You have to appeal to empirical evidence.

 

[St. Toxic]

People argued about shape of the Earth in the past. People argued about whether Earth is the center of universe. Now we know for sure.

I don't. I have yet to visit space and look upon what might be a sphere, and man has yet to measure space to the extent where he can assuredly claim where it's centerpoint resides. Your claim of "we", including on, according to you, good grounds an enormous amount of people, does not take into account that there are, and if not, should be a minimum handful of non-believers to every proposed thesis or fact.

 

[kingcomrade]

I don't.

Then you're pretty stupid. Even if you can't read, there's pretty pictures.

 

[St. Toxic]

There are pretty pictures of ufo's and the yeti, not to mention pretty moving pictures of a bunch of other useless junk. Simply put, I'll believe it when I see it, up close and personal, with my own two eyes.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I agree with Toxic. I think if the Lord Jesus Christ made us in hisi mage you'd think he'd put us in the middle of the universe considering he died for us and all that and I think that makes us pretty important and franly I'd be insulted if the Lord DIDN'T put us in the center of the universe considering we're the love of his life and whatnot.

 

[Elwro]

But, as a perfect being, God has to have a sense of humor. And I think it'd be quite amusing if we, the most important fruit of Creation, were put in some remote and dull part of the Universe while the real fun would take place in a galaxy far, far away.

 

[Lumpy]

Technically, we are at the centre of the Universe, and everything else is rotating around us. More precisely, we can be, or we cannot. It just depends on the reference point.

 

[St. Toxic]

We'll know for sure when we've measured all of space.