'What makes a game good quality' and associated narcissistic ramblings.
System
Join Date: 2013-01-29 Member: 182599Members, Super Administrators, Reinforced - Diamond
Join Date: 2013-01-29 Member: 182599Members, Super Administrators, Reinforced - Diamond
This discussion was created from comments split from: Subnautica for Switch.
Comments
No.
Not even Mario Kart 64, Star Fox 64? The N64 wasn't too bad, but the controller was wonky with its stick placement.
Creation Engine is a lot more optimised/custom modable though and Subnautica is already pushing Unity beyond it's limits, I highly doubt the lower specced Switch would be able to run Subnautica if the Xbone is already having major issues. Even if it is finally optimised to run on the Xbone smoothly on release...
No, Mario games suck big time, never understood why that's a popular franchise. At least I can understand why children would enjoy Pokemon, but Mario? WTF?
But you have reminded me of Goldeneye, which I enjoyed playing at my friend's place, so you did get me there. I stand corrected, there's one game I did enjoy.
But I genuinely can't think of anything else. I owned a Game Boy but never really enjoyed any games for it, and my kids still have the old Wii, but it's a terrible device with absolutely no game that interests me and they have no interest in Nintendo any more since moving on to "grown up" consoles and PC gaming.
Nintendo has always been for kids, and I don't think I ever actually was a kid. I was born a grumpy old man with a desire for grown up entertainment.
While my friends were playing Mario Kart I was loading up my old Amiga and punching heads off in Mortal Kombat or killing pixelated soldiers in Cannon Fodder.
There could be the occasional game that I liked but I can't think of any right now.
Your list, to me, is a list of absolute trash.
Literally the only thing there that holds any interest to me would be Final Fantasy, because I enjoyed FFVII on PlayStation. Not Nintendo. And that's the only Final Fantasy game that I enjoyed, it was the first game I ever played on the PS. I got it with the PS for my birthday one year. Before VII it was not for me, and after VII it became emo crap (VIII) or weeaboo BS (IX + X).
Trash would be games like Big Rigs, if you can even call that a game...
Too off-topic in any case, so... Yeah... Switch more than likely ain't got the "Nintendo Power" for Subnautica
That's not how opinions work. I don't like them, sure, and because of that I don't think they are top quality games. It's just semantics though, it doesn't matter.
But that's just, like, my opinion, Man.
I'm aware that some of those games are loved by many, and that it's risky to call them bad because so many people disagree. But I can't help what I enjoy and what I don't enjoy.
I love turn based combat but I understand that a lot of people think it's a terrible game design and find games like that to be absolute garbage. That's fine.
It takes all sorts.
There are plenty of games, outside my genres, which I don't like either. However, me not liking them has absolutely no bearing on their quality and what they're designed for. Quality entails, support, bugs, crashing, performance, working content. "tight" controls
This is true, a game's "quality" is based off of programming, design, graphics (or graphics style), and sometimes story. But saying a game is bad quality because you don't personally enjoy it is wrong. For instance I don't like FPS' such as COD or Halo but I wouldn't say their bad quality, but rather that I don't enjoy them........also this thread has become something very different from what I wanted it to be but, whatever.
Well TBH, you did get some answers based on what Subnautica does on Xbone right now. And yes those are speculation, but if you ask me, it seems rather unlikely Switch could run it even after optimisation
This depends on how you define "quality". Quality doesn't always mean production value. If we're talking about graphics or design elements, they can be objectively good or bad, well made or badly made, good design or bad design. But subjectively, even if something looks terrible and the graphics are awful, there is probably someone who loves it.
Actually, the quality of a game (or anythign really) is nearly always dependent on someone's taste or opinion because we tend to judge subjectively. You have to make an actual effort to take a step back to judge something objectively, but a subjective judgement comes instantly and naturally.
Let's look at traditional platforming Mario for an example.
If I look at it objectively, it's got a high level of quality. Graphically the Mario games have always been decent, within it's own style. The controls are usually tight and effective, I don't think they tend to be buggy, they perform well, etc.
So it's a quality game, right?
But subjectively, no, it isn't a quality game. Mostly this comes down to gameplay, and like I said before, the main thing a game should do is entertain. The gameplay of Mario games is not good quality, subjectively. The feeling of accomplishment when finishing a level is there for some people, but for me it's a chore to play most platformers. I get absolutely no satisfaction from completing a level.
So not a quality game.
Now which one of these matters most to me, as a player?
Look at Fallout (the original 1+2) and how they were not good, not objectively. They were full of bugs, graphically pretty horrible even for their age, and yet incredibly fun because of how good the gameplay, story and overall atmosphere and immersion.
Gameplay quality will always be subjective. You either enjoy a game or you don't.
Once again, enjoyment/opinion/taste are something entirely personal, it cannot make a good game bad, if you don't enjoy it. Or make a bad game good, if you do enjoy it. A game is either good or badly designed based on factual elements like the ones mentioned in the last few posts. Of course someone could enjoy and utterly badly designed and buggy game, which barely works and crashes constantly.
ie: NS2 early alpha was in such a state and very bad due to performance issues, complete lack of content, bad and floaty controls, no hitreg whatsoever, severely lacking balance and gameplay. Yet we still enjoyed it, mostly because of nostalgia factor. But those nostalgia goggles are that personal preference bit. It did not magically turn the very bad NS2 early alpha into a good/decent game, that only came after constant development and fixes.
@NerdyEric hehe sorry for completely hijacking your thread. I hope I'm wrong in assuming Switch cannot handle it. But the way things are right now for Xbone. Which TBH, I think will run smoother on Xbone after v1.0 (gold). There would be a miracle needed to run it on anything lower specced than the Xbone (ergo Switch)
And there's that small matter of UWE actually thinking about going to Nintendo, when they have yet to decide for PS4 as well @Obraxis @Squeal_Like_A_Pig You lads any input on this. Can we have some magic for Nintendo
No, I'm not "mixing up" anything.
I'm saying your definition of "quality" is your own, and I'm under no obligation to go along with it. Just because you think "quality" is purely technical it doesn't make it true.
There are different ways of judging "quality" and different ways of judging a game.
Of course it can. A badly made game which I enjoy is no longer a bad game, it's a good game which was badly made.
Conversely, a well made, good "quality" game (like Nintendo games) which I do not enjoy are no longer good games, they're bad games because they fail to achieve their most important goal; they don't entertain me. They failed and it doesn't matter what quality they are, on a technical level, they're still bad games because they suck.
Exactly. They would call it a quality game because they enjoy it. You just entirely contradicted yourself and confuse me.
Just take modern Call of Duty games.
Massively high "quality"... but they're still absolutely awful.
Hmm, what about this...
So you want to build a bridge. You get some random guy on the street, who proposes to use low cost and very bad quality steel to build your bridge. His opinion is that it looks nice. So it must be good right... Would you go with that suggestion or go and ask someone else who actually knows his stuff and tells you to go with the high quality super steel, which looks ugly in the eyes of random street guy.
Too much damn irony in here... A bad game cannot become a good game based on opinion. It's merely a bad game, which happens to be enjoyed by someone for PERSONAL reasons...
Also CoD is a decent game and easy to play game, hence it's popularity with the casual crowd. For consoles CoD is working perfectly fine and is indeed very high quality, because it was designed with consoles in mind. However that quality goes down a lot when running it on PC, due to lack of depth, options (graphics), dedicated servers and in some cases performance issues due to bad port. This goes for most console ports... Especially when compared to properly designed PC FPS' games
No, this is completely wrong, and I've already explained why over and over again.
You're talking about OBJECTIVE QUALITY while completely ignoring SUBJECTIVE QUALITY.
If you're so unwilling to even consider that personal taste is a valid point, then what's the point in even discussing this?
Do you not understand the definitions of "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective? You cannot talk in completely objective terms and then decide that subjectivity suits you when it helps your argument. Again, I already explained this in great detail. Go and read it. You calling me ironic is amazingly hypocritical. Just because you can't grasp a concept doesn't mean it's wrong; it just means it's going over your head. The only irony here is that you don't seem to understand what irony is.
I like you Dude, but you're frustrating me with this lack of understanding a pretty simple concept. I'm done here.
Exactly. You're proving my entire point! It's still (for the most part) ridiculed and thought of a terrible franchise that hasn't innovated in years and is an absolute disgrace.
The latest CoD game was hated. The gaming community has universally decided that it's a BAD GAME. Despite being of a high production "quality", graphically, technically and even based on gameplay. Very high quality.
And yet, it's considered an absolutely terrible, BAD GAME. Why? Because it's gameplay sucks. Because it's old, boring and unoriginal. BAD.
It all boils down to this;
You think that objective quality of a game is everything.
I think that personal opinion is more important.
You're saying that some kid who's only game is Big Rigs, which he loves, and he thinks it's an amazing game, his opinion isn't worth a damn. He's wrong and that's all there is to it.
I'm saying his opinion is extremely important. To him, that game is a good game, it gives him pleasure and that's the main thing.
We have critics because a technical break-down isn't enough. We have gameplay reviews because looking at technical specs isn't enough.
I really do rest my case.
What's next, saying for example that Justin Bieber is a good singer, based on popular opinion and has a marketing cannon behind him? No, he is in fact NOT a good singer! Compared to the truly great ones out there, who actually can hit notes and sing perfectly, without the aid of autotune and mixing. Funnily enough, YouTube has a lot of amateur singers on there who are quite amazing, especially compared to JB... Dammit, I hate doing these xD
In any case. some opinions are stupid and should be made fun off. And just to take the piss out of myself here, my opinion is oh so wrong on NS2 early alpha being "good", it was enjoyable for me and others with the same mindset, but it was not "good". Just because I happen to enjoy the nostalgia factor based on my personal subjective preference. Back then, in that state, it was a very bad game. Lacking any kind of quality, but we accepted it because it was early alpha and nostalgic. The fun came from seeing it being developed, helping development and reporting bugs! But having fun in a game does not equate quality...
Are you serious? I don't know what to say. I've explained it repeatedly.
Let me try one last time.
In it's simplest terms;
Objectivity is fact.
Subjectivity is opinion.
When you're talking about objective quality you're talking about things that cannot be changed by opinion. How good graphics are compared to some other game. How good the controls are, do they work. How expensive something is compared to another thing.
When you're talking about subjective quality you're talking about opinion. How enjoyable a game is overall. Did you enjoy the story? Is it worth the price, in your opinion?
You can judge quality in both ways;
Objectively: Does the game have good graphics for it's age? Is it buggy? Does it work as intended? Does the story make sense?
Subjectively: Is the game fun? Is the story well written? Is the game fairly priced?
Okay?
So what you're saying is, the objective stuff is all that matters, and the subjective stuff, the opinion, that doesn't even matter at all.
What I'm saying is, subjective opinion, SUBJECTIVE QUALITY, is far more important than how well made (OBJECTIVE QUALITY) a game is.
I'm not trying to twist your words, you're just not getting it. You're only thinking of "quality" in one way, your way, which is not the only definition.
You just said "it is still a high quality game" which is only correct OBJECTIVELY.
SUBJECTIVELY is it NOT a quality game, it's a boring, same old CoD.
The definition of quality is;
the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
That doesn't mean on a purely technical level. It could be measured on a level of opinion, or of price, or of just about anything.
I have no idea if Justin Bieber is a good singer, as I don't know enough about singing to judge that. I do know, however, that he is definitely a good performer. He has millions of fans, he's good at marketing (or his "people" are) and he's a massive success.
Objectively, he might be a terrible singer. (I don't know, can he sing? Let's assume he can't.)
Subjectively, he could be a terrible singer (if you hate his music) or he could be a fantastic singer (if you love his music).
Now which is more important, the objective fact that he's a terrible singer? Or the subjective opinion that means millions of people love him?
Of course it's the subjective opinion that's more important. That's why we're here talking about him. If the only thing that mattered was objectivity, cold, hard facts, then he wouldn't be successful.
And we'd all be playing CoD on the Xbox because it's a "quality" game.
And we'd all be emotionless robots.
And we'd not need critics, reviewers or Subnautica forums because our opinions wouldn't matter.
All we'd need is game developers telling us the specs of a game and we'd just buy the best one because if a game is of high objective "quality" then it must be "good" and could never be "bad."
Just google "what makes a good game?" and see how many things are subjective.
Nearly everything that makes a "good" or "bad" game are based on opinion, not technical issues.
I will always say the quality of a game is based far more on things like fun gameplay or interesting stories (you know, opinions) than any production value.
Also you do realize that success has nothing to do with the actual quality of a game, that is merely the subjective aftermath of good marketing and reviews...
Oooh, wait I see what you're trippin' over, "good/bad" game. I meant "good quality" or "bad quality", you seem to mean good or bad only in terms of enjoyment, that still has nothing to do with the quality, it's just part of how successful a game can become. Heck even low quality games can become successful as long as they're fun.
ie: Subnautica is right now a low quality pre-alpha with bugs, performance issues, lack of content. Yet it is fun and in fact a "good enjoyment" game, just not a "good quality" game right now. If the fun factor outweighs the lack of quality it can become successful, this grows exponentially if there is visible development and future plans for the quality to go up.
It is a sad fact that some of the highest quality games out there are unsuccessful or have only a small following due to opinions and bad marketing, doesn't change the fact they are still high quality games. I never said quality is all that matters for success, I never even mentioned succes...
The problem is that most gamers these days are casuals who have lower standards and are heavily influenced by the richests game devs. Yet some other games out there, which aren't as successful, still are much higher quality than the casual lazily designed recycled stuff. And CoD might be one of the highest quality casual shooter out there, casual shooters in general don't aim very high, they tend to go with the "if it work, it works" laziness. True innovation comes from indie devs, who're trying to prove their concepts. Yet concepts without proper marketing, well you do the math
No, you're still not quite getting it. You still think "quality" means only one thing. It doesn't. Quality means exactly "good" or "bad"... it's just another word for the same thing. It's a relative concept, you can't judge quality without having something to compare it to. And quality does not only mean only what you're talking about... which is actually quality of production.
You're talking about the quality of graphics (objective fact), the quality of performance (objective fact), is it buggy (objective fact.)
But that's not the only meaning of quality in a game.
You can also have quality of story (which is opinion), quality of gameplay (which is opinion), quality of fun (opinion), quality of crafting systems (opinion), quality of replayability (opinion.)
That's the only point I'm trying to make. The word "quality" has many more meanings than the way you're using it, and the "quality" of a game can be judged on many, many different levels.
Take this for example;
Now, you call Subnautica a "low quality" game with "bugs, performance issues, lack of content." But why do those things make it low quality? You're only talking about one particular aspect. You're using "quality" as a purely technical term, which it isn't. "If the fun factor outweighs the lack of quality"...
What you really mean is "if the fun factor outweighs the lack of quality performance" because you're talking about only one particular definition of quality.
To judge "quality" you have to compare it to something else... so it's buggy compared to other games, therefore lower quality.
Graphically it's of a far better quality than other games, therefore it has good quality graphics.
It's just semantics.
No, but we were talking about Nintendo games and you said...
I still disagree. The quality of a game is not objective, it's based on opinion far more than how well made it is. I don't enjoy Zelda, therefore I think Zelda is a low quality game, because quality is not simply "how well made" a game is.
It's so much more than that.
Spotted the Tremulous player. BTW, they still usually have a half-full server up most of the time to this day (v 1.1 with TJW / Risujin's backport 931)
You don't seem to understand that "subjective quality" as you seem to call it is completely opinion based and as such, useless in determining quality of something. It is only useful in determining success...
So, I happen to like something (ie: those Nintendo games), yet you don't like them at all. Tell me, who's opinion has more value in determining the actual quality? Using this subjective based information, neither right? Now, if we have objective based information in relation to the actual quality, which happens to support an opinion, only then we'll see one opinion as more valuable. Still, even with that, neither opinion has any bearing on those facts!
And objectively, there is no need for comparing it to other products specifically. After all these years, we happen to have standards of quality for many things. If something ranks below that, it's of lower quality, simple as that...
Yet once more, low quality games (objectively), can still be successful (subjectively). As long as they are fun according to enough people. Yet I never mentioned success...
But here goes, just for fun. If we are using opinions as quality factor. I guess there are more nongamers, who do not like games at all, than gamers? If this is true, than technically there has never existed a game of high quality, if the average world populous opinion was to be used to determine quality. See how irrelevant opinions are to determine quality?
Another one for fun:
I don't like concrete, why didn't you build your docks out of glass, that would look so cool and I know of lot's of people who agree with me. Now I'm just guessing here, but that opinion would not have any influence on the quality of the concrete dock... No matter how many people want a glass dock or how popular a glass dock would be. It would most likely break or get damaged rather quickly from common use
I'm done here anyways, Switch thread died before Nintendo even had a chance
You are entirely, completely and absolutely incorrect. Objectively. And I've explained why over, and over, and over again. You're just not listening or not willing to acknowledge it.
You are wrong, and that's not just my opinion, it's a blatant fact. And it's all because you don't understand (or are too stubborn) to acknowledge that there are more ways to determine quality.
Again, you're continuing to use your own, single definition of "quality" despite the fact I've demonstrated so many times that there are many definitions of quality and ways to determine that quality.
I don't understand if you're being deliberately obtuse or you really don't understand this. It really isn't so complicated. Stop thinking "quality" has only one, objectively defined meaning. It doesn't.
You cannot, CANNOT talk about quality WITHOUT comparison.
I already gave you the definition;
qual·i·ty
ˈkwälədē/
noun
noun: quality; plural noun: qualities
1.
the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
"an improvement in product quality"
As measured against other things!
This is the very freaking definition of quality for God's sake! Where the hell do you think we got standards of quality from? Just pulled them out the ether? Black magic perhaps?
What are you even talking about? I don't even know where to begin with this. If someone doesn't like any game, they can absolutely say "There are no games of an enjoyable quality to me, I don't enjoy any games."
That's not the same as saying "All games are worthless and have no quality."
Average populous opinion has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The ignorant masses who have no opinion have NO OPINION and are therefore irrelevant, you're quite right.
Only the people who actually have an opinion matter, and it only matters to themselves, not any other person. That's the whole point.
In other words, gamers have opinions and those opinions matter.
Have you ever heard of Metacritic? Have you ever heard of Steam reviews? You're basically saying that anyone who's written a review on Steam about a game, their opinion is worth absolutely nothing unless they were talking about technical aspects.
"I liked the story.." SHUT UP, WORTHLESS IN JUDGING QUALITY.
"But the writing was well done..." QUIET, YOUR OPINION IS MEANINGLESS.
You can't be serious, come on, you know better than this, surely.
What the hell does this even have to do with anything we've talked about? I mean really, what in God's holy name are you blathering about?
If anything it entirely proves my point. The glass dock, whilst having no practical quality AS A DOCK, still has very high quality as a piece of art, or as an example of how not to build a dock.
It has a quality all of it's own, it's just not the kind of quality your closed mind can comprehend.
I give up.
If you don't want to or somehow can't see that opinions/preference/taste simply do not matter in determining quality. You are missing the point entirely, I don't know what else to say or make it even more obvious... I'm out of analogies, well not really but I just don't feel like it anymore...
One more?
My cookie is tasty, I like it, yet you and 5 other people don't like my cookie even though it's made from the best ingredients, most likely the best cookie ever made...
Who's opinion is more valuable to determine the cookie quality... NEITHER!!!
How successful will this cookie be, based on customers, probably not very... Or dependent on how many I keep buying xD
Heh about that glass dock. What is a dock used for and is glass a good materials for a high quality one. Noooo not if used as a dock... Art, sure but than its no longer a dock now is it, wtf xD