if a game crashes and has bugs it is bad quality. it doesn't matter if you enjoy the game or not the quality is measurably bad. how many crashes and how many bugs is just one of the metrics, but it is a clear example. another example would be load times. If you have two versions of the same game, but one takes 25 minutes to load and one loads instantly, surely you will agree that the quality of the 25 minute loading games is lower than the instantly loading game?
if a kid makes a home movie i'm sure the parents will love it, but it doesn't mean the quality of the movie is good. art, movies, games, music etc can all be objectively measured. how much you enjoy the media has no bearing when measuring quality.
if a game crashes and has bugs it is bad quality. it doesn't matter if you enjoy the game or not the quality is measurably bad. how many crashes and how many bugs is just one of the metrics, but it is a clear example. another example would be load times. If you have two versions of the same game, but one takes 25 minutes to load and one loads instantly, surely you will agree that the quality of the 25 minute loading games is lower than the instantly loading game?
if a kid makes a home movie i'm sure the parents will love it, but it doesn't mean the quality of the movie is good. art, movies, games, music etc can all be objectively measured. how much you enjoy the media has no bearing when measuring quality.
My point (mostly) exemplified, without the vagueness of my post.
There's actually a pretty compelling thesis against the use of dictionary definitions to describe abstract concepts. It's best stated by S. I. Hayakawa (former US senator and linguist) in his book on semantics (linked to PDF). See chapter 4, Contexts. I don't think it invalidates your point, but it is an interesting concept.
I hate Nintendo and have never enjoyed a Nintendo game or a game played on a Nintendo platform. No.
What about Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Or Donkey Kong Country? Metroid Prime? Golden Eye 007? Have you been so deprived as a young'un to never have played any of these classics? You gotta give it up to Nintendo; while they've slipped in recent years vs other companies and IPs, they've never had outright stinkers like Bubsy, Dragon Quest or the like.
I've held out against buying a WiiU as to me it's just a WiiHD... but after seeing Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild's gameplay and graphics, it may finally be the turning point for me to invest in their next gaming console.
I never said quality is opinion, so I don't know why you're quoting the dictionary. I'm aware of the definitions of both words, it has no real bearing on this discussion.
The only point I argued is that we can judge quality objectively (factually) or subjectively (opinion). It is not one or the other, it's both. And Kouji's insistence that that isn't the case is what I absolutely disagree with. To say quality means only one thing (in this case, how well something is made) is utterly ridiculous, as I've demonstrated many times in previous posts.
There's actually a pretty compelling thesis against the use of dictionary definitions to describe abstract concepts. It's best stated by S. I. Hayakawa (former US senator and linguist) in his book on semantics (linked to PDF). See chapter 4, Contexts. I don't think it invalidates your point, but it is an interesting concept.
"Abstract concept" and "context" is the key, and it's something it seems many people are just failing to understand. As I've said, you can judge quality on many levels, from various different perspectives. Technical quality is only one, single aspect.
ie; this game is made to a high quality
If you think a game is bad, you're saying it's not a quality game if you judge quality by how much entertainment it provides you. Nevermind how well made it is, we're judging it's quality based on an entirely different criteria.
It's a bad game, a poor quality game. It may well be the best quality game ever produced on a technical level, but that's exactly the point. In other ways, judging it on other criteria, it is not a quality game.
It's story sucks, it's characters sucks, the gameplay is boring, etc, etc, etc.
What about Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Or Donkey Kong Country? Metroid Prime? Golden Eye 007? Have you been so deprived as a young'un to never have played any of these classics? You gotta give it up to Nintendo; while they've slipped in recent years vs other companies and IPs, they've never had outright stinkers like Bubsy, Dragon Quest or the like.
I already addressed this. I guess you didn't read everything.
I was not deprived, I played many of those games. I simply didn't enjoy them. I admit (and have always admitted) that they may be of a high production quality.
However, they brought me no enjoyment, as they are not something I like to play. Therefore, on many other levels, the quality is low.
The entertainment they brought me was of a very low quality. Therefore, bad gaming experience. Ergo, bad games.
I'm running out of ways to say the same thing, over and over and over.
The only, only, objection I ever had and still have is someone being so rigid as to think "quality" can only mean "technical quality" and that opinion has no impact on how we judge quality, especially when we're talking about things such as story or how fun gameplay is. When you judge the quality of a story, all you have is opinion.
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.
Subjective quality is still a quality. One of many different kinds of quality.
You can say all you want, "my definition of quality is my own"... However, it's not that I just think quality is purely technical. In fact, that is the ONLY way to judge a game's actual QUALITY. Not going along with that and constantly draggin' personal preference and taste in here, that serves no purpose in deciding the quality of a game...
Kouji_San simply believes technical capability, how well a game runs, how it performs, how well made it is, is the only way to determine quality. He thinks quality has only this one, fixed, rigid meaning and definition.
He doesn't understand that things like story, or characters, or entertainment value, or nostalgia, or just plain old good feelings towards a game can have any impact on how a person judges quality, because he doesn't see that quality can be so much more than just technical, how-does-it-run-does-it-work-well-is-it-buggy sort of quality.
He believes quality means one thing, and one thing only.
Anyway, I don't want to get into it with him again, he doesn't share my opinion, or doesn't get it, I don't know, and I don't care any more.
I just wanted to put it all down one last time to explain what my point was.
I'd also like to apologise to you, @Kouji-San, for being abrasive at times. It came from frustration and I have nothing against you personally. I won't hold anything against you and as far as I'm concerned it's over, we just have to agree to disagree. We don't have to like each other, or even respect each other's opinions, but we can be grown ups and move on.
Enjoy a low quality jpg of me riding off into the sunset.
Now that I'm thinking about it almost all the nintendo games I grew up playing were adventure platformers, if that isn't your cup of tea than I can see how that would be a waste of time and a 'bad game' so to speak. Sorta like a metal guitar solo that is incredibly difficult, technical, and a testament to the guitarists incredible skill at his art but at the same time just hurts your ears.
Alternatively: the "Rite of Spring" by Stravinsky - high technical quality, so bad on personal quality that it started a riot.
Sorta like a metal guitar solo that is incredibly difficult, technical, and a testament to the guitarists incredible skill at his art but at the same time just hurts your ears.
Exactly right. It has a high technical quality, but a low enjoyment quality. The technical way of looking at it is only one kind of judgement of quality.
Sorta like a metal guitar solo that is incredibly difficult, technical, and a testament to the guitarists incredible skill at his art but at the same time just hurts your ears.
Exactly right. It has a high technical quality, but a low enjoyment quality. The technical way of looking at it is only one kind of judgement of quality.
Oh thank goodness this was finally said.
The quality of different games can be further broken down to the quality of the different things that make up the game.
CoD can be technically well put together will lots of polish and little bugs, a good quality there.
It can also be bland, derivative, and boring to me.. bad quality there.
Meanwhile fluid controls, responsive systems, and fast paced gameplay, a good quality if you are into that sort of thing.
It can also be short on content, a low quality for it's value compared to price.
It may have hi resolution art assets, high quality
but those assets may be dull, lacking in variety, and not stylish.. low quality.
Depending on what you as a gamer prioritize in your purchases, one can easily say that overall, they think COD is a good quality game or a bad quality game. Neither is wrong because they are coming from their own perspective on what qualities of the game matters to them.
If you feel the things that make the game fun for you outweigh whether it's put together well or not, then you can look back on mario and say "no i don't think it was a very good quality game."
Whoah, did I take a wrong turn at Google? Because it seems like this is the Flat Earth Society forum - I expected one of you two to go "Ha ha! I'm Papa Legba!" *commences rant*.
Anyway, to put in my obligatory two cents, EnglishInfidel's premise that quality has multiple different ways of judgement is completely sound, no doubt about that. However, I believe that Kouji_San's aim here was to judge the value of each kind of quality - or more specifically, show his view that a subjective quality cannot reach the same value that objective quality does (this may have been lost in the whole debacle that is the last 3 pages), which seems to make sense too. After all, it is widely accepted that fact trumps over opinion, but I digress.
It seems that the only possible conclusion of this argument is either a stalemate or MAD, so I think it's best this is over...
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2016
Think of it like this:
Let's take two people who have completely opposite opinions about any of these assets of a game, the story of a game, the controls, the look (graphics), performance and so on. No matter how hard they yell, neither opinion will have any influence on the actual quality of the things mentioned here. We have well defined standards of quality for all of those and can compare it to that, similar to how we grade these in any university/school across the globe. But, the individual opinions by these two people only have influence on how they themselves perceive that particular element of a game on a personal level. And how they could potentially influence other people their perception of the game.
However, the actual quality of the game and all/any of its assets doesn't change, no matter how much someone loves or hates it. This is compared to the standards of quality we've set out for anything really, the same standards we use for quality control. In fact, their opinion on how good something is, only changes for them on a personal level, which has absolutely no influence on the measurable quality of a product. Our opinions really aren't that important in this case, they become important for how it's perceived by the public and if it will be successful or not, depending on positive/negative reviews/opinions
So yeah, subjective quality does exist. But that is only used personally for decisions like, to buy or not to buy...
- Subjective quality is completely personal and only related to the success of a product, not the quality of a product in general
- Objective quality is actually measurable in terms of quality control using our well defined standards of quality
I still like this example: It's one of the reasons why Natural Selection 2 pre-alpha actually sold, mostly based on promises/ideas and future plans and their track record with Natural Selection. The game itself wasn't even a game and merely a low content techdemo/rifle range. Yet due to nostalgia goggles, people did enjoy it. But that still did not make the pre-alpha a quality product (bugs/no performance (1-10FPS) /no content (~ 2maps and only skulk/marine who couldn't even shoot, was modded in "badly"), no gameplay. It gradually grew into an actual game and eventually got better as development and time progressed. But don't come in here saying that, because it sold, it was a "good game" back during pre-alpha/alpha <- in terms of quality
Maybe this will clear up what I actually meant... This post got too long again anyway and I'm already so done with this xD
Ok @EnglishInfidel you don't like Nintendo games but the real question is
Do you enjoy SEGA games?
You know what, I had a SEGA Master System as my very first console, and I loved it, but mainly because I didn't know any better. I didn't like Sonic but I did like Asterix and Obelix, it's one of the only 2D platformers I've ever enjoyed as a kid. Oh and the Jungle Book, because I loved the Disney flick at that age.
California Games was another classic, though God knows why.
Other than that I don't really remember enjoying any games on it. I had a Light Phaser, and there was one shooting game I liked but I don't remember it's name.
Until the PS1 came out a few years later, I only really played on the Amiga and soon lost interest in the Master System, as it had such classics as Monkey Island, Cannon Fodder, Brutal Sports and Serious Soccer.
Comments
if a kid makes a home movie i'm sure the parents will love it, but it doesn't mean the quality of the movie is good. art, movies, games, music etc can all be objectively measured. how much you enjoy the media has no bearing when measuring quality.
My point (mostly) exemplified, without the vagueness of my post.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
It actually ended a while ago, you're a little late.
There's actually a pretty compelling thesis against the use of dictionary definitions to describe abstract concepts. It's best stated by S. I. Hayakawa (former US senator and linguist) in his book on semantics (linked to PDF). See chapter 4, Contexts. I don't think it invalidates your point, but it is an interesting concept.
This explains everything. I'd offer you a hug, but I'd like to not get punched.
What about Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Or Donkey Kong Country? Metroid Prime? Golden Eye 007? Have you been so deprived as a young'un to never have played any of these classics? You gotta give it up to Nintendo; while they've slipped in recent years vs other companies and IPs, they've never had outright stinkers like Bubsy, Dragon Quest or the like.
I've held out against buying a WiiU as to me it's just a WiiHD... but after seeing Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild's gameplay and graphics, it may finally be the turning point for me to invest in their next gaming console.
I never said quality is opinion, so I don't know why you're quoting the dictionary. I'm aware of the definitions of both words, it has no real bearing on this discussion.
The only point I argued is that we can judge quality objectively (factually) or subjectively (opinion). It is not one or the other, it's both. And Kouji's insistence that that isn't the case is what I absolutely disagree with. To say quality means only one thing (in this case, how well something is made) is utterly ridiculous, as I've demonstrated many times in previous posts.
"Abstract concept" and "context" is the key, and it's something it seems many people are just failing to understand. As I've said, you can judge quality on many levels, from various different perspectives. Technical quality is only one, single aspect.
ie; this game is made to a high quality
If you think a game is bad, you're saying it's not a quality game if you judge quality by how much entertainment it provides you. Nevermind how well made it is, we're judging it's quality based on an entirely different criteria.
It's a bad game, a poor quality game. It may well be the best quality game ever produced on a technical level, but that's exactly the point. In other ways, judging it on other criteria, it is not a quality game.
It's story sucks, it's characters sucks, the gameplay is boring, etc, etc, etc.
I already addressed this. I guess you didn't read everything.
I was not deprived, I played many of those games. I simply didn't enjoy them. I admit (and have always admitted) that they may be of a high production quality.
However, they brought me no enjoyment, as they are not something I like to play. Therefore, on many other levels, the quality is low.
The entertainment they brought me was of a very low quality. Therefore, bad gaming experience. Ergo, bad games.
I'm running out of ways to say the same thing, over and over and over.
The only, only, objection I ever had and still have is someone being so rigid as to think "quality" can only mean "technical quality" and that opinion has no impact on how we judge quality, especially when we're talking about things such as story or how fun gameplay is. When you judge the quality of a story, all you have is opinion.
It's this kind of thing I object to;
Personal preference can be a judgement of quality. One of many different kinds of quality.
Subjective quality is still a quality. One of many different kinds of quality.
And this is the biggest bone of contention;
Kouji_San simply believes technical capability, how well a game runs, how it performs, how well made it is, is the only way to determine quality. He thinks quality has only this one, fixed, rigid meaning and definition.
He doesn't understand that things like story, or characters, or entertainment value, or nostalgia, or just plain old good feelings towards a game can have any impact on how a person judges quality, because he doesn't see that quality can be so much more than just technical, how-does-it-run-does-it-work-well-is-it-buggy sort of quality.
He believes quality means one thing, and one thing only.
Anyway, I don't want to get into it with him again, he doesn't share my opinion, or doesn't get it, I don't know, and I don't care any more.
I just wanted to put it all down one last time to explain what my point was.
I'd also like to apologise to you, @Kouji-San, for being abrasive at times. It came from frustration and I have nothing against you personally. I won't hold anything against you and as far as I'm concerned it's over, we just have to agree to disagree. We don't have to like each other, or even respect each other's opinions, but we can be grown ups and move on.
Enjoy a low quality jpg of me riding off into the sunset.
Alternatively: the "Rite of Spring" by Stravinsky - high technical quality, so bad on personal quality that it started a riot.
Exactly right. It has a high technical quality, but a low enjoyment quality. The technical way of looking at it is only one kind of judgement of quality.
Oh thank goodness this was finally said.
The quality of different games can be further broken down to the quality of the different things that make up the game.
CoD can be technically well put together will lots of polish and little bugs, a good quality there.
It can also be bland, derivative, and boring to me.. bad quality there.
Meanwhile fluid controls, responsive systems, and fast paced gameplay, a good quality if you are into that sort of thing.
It can also be short on content, a low quality for it's value compared to price.
It may have hi resolution art assets, high quality
but those assets may be dull, lacking in variety, and not stylish.. low quality.
Depending on what you as a gamer prioritize in your purchases, one can easily say that overall, they think COD is a good quality game or a bad quality game. Neither is wrong because they are coming from their own perspective on what qualities of the game matters to them.
If you feel the things that make the game fun for you outweigh whether it's put together well or not, then you can look back on mario and say "no i don't think it was a very good quality game."
Anyway, to put in my obligatory two cents, EnglishInfidel's premise that quality has multiple different ways of judgement is completely sound, no doubt about that. However, I believe that Kouji_San's aim here was to judge the value of each kind of quality - or more specifically, show his view that a subjective quality cannot reach the same value that objective quality does (this may have been lost in the whole debacle that is the last 3 pages), which seems to make sense too. After all, it is widely accepted that fact trumps over opinion, but I digress.
It seems that the only possible conclusion of this argument is either a stalemate or MAD, so I think it's best this is over...
Let's take two people who have completely opposite opinions about any of these assets of a game, the story of a game, the controls, the look (graphics), performance and so on. No matter how hard they yell, neither opinion will have any influence on the actual quality of the things mentioned here. We have well defined standards of quality for all of those and can compare it to that, similar to how we grade these in any university/school across the globe. But, the individual opinions by these two people only have influence on how they themselves perceive that particular element of a game on a personal level. And how they could potentially influence other people their perception of the game.
However, the actual quality of the game and all/any of its assets doesn't change, no matter how much someone loves or hates it. This is compared to the standards of quality we've set out for anything really, the same standards we use for quality control. In fact, their opinion on how good something is, only changes for them on a personal level, which has absolutely no influence on the measurable quality of a product. Our opinions really aren't that important in this case, they become important for how it's perceived by the public and if it will be successful or not, depending on positive/negative reviews/opinions
So yeah, subjective quality does exist. But that is only used personally for decisions like, to buy or not to buy...
- Subjective quality is completely personal and only related to the success of a product, not the quality of a product in general
- Objective quality is actually measurable in terms of quality control using our well defined standards of quality
I still like this example: It's one of the reasons why Natural Selection 2 pre-alpha actually sold, mostly based on promises/ideas and future plans and their track record with Natural Selection. The game itself wasn't even a game and merely a low content techdemo/rifle range. Yet due to nostalgia goggles, people did enjoy it. But that still did not make the pre-alpha a quality product (bugs/no performance (1-10FPS) /no content (~ 2maps and only skulk/marine who couldn't even shoot, was modded in "badly"), no gameplay. It gradually grew into an actual game and eventually got better as development and time progressed. But don't come in here saying that, because it sold, it was a "good game" back during pre-alpha/alpha <- in terms of quality
Maybe this will clear up what I actually meant... This post got too long again anyway and I'm already so done with this xD
Yeah man, "Nintendo Power", or in this case probable lack of power, has that effect
You know what, I had a SEGA Master System as my very first console, and I loved it, but mainly because I didn't know any better. I didn't like Sonic but I did like Asterix and Obelix, it's one of the only 2D platformers I've ever enjoyed as a kid. Oh and the Jungle Book, because I loved the Disney flick at that age.
California Games was another classic, though God knows why.
Other than that I don't really remember enjoying any games on it. I had a Light Phaser, and there was one shooting game I liked but I don't remember it's name.
Until the PS1 came out a few years later, I only really played on the Amiga and soon lost interest in the Master System, as it had such classics as Monkey Island, Cannon Fodder, Brutal Sports and Serious Soccer.