What did it mean by this?

What did it mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

learntocounter.com/i-play-for-fun-the-four-dumbest-words-in-video-games/
insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There's multiple definitions for "good".

One of them follows a purely subjective standard, "if I like it, it's good". Following this standard, whether you have fun or not is the only validating factor.

Another one says that there are certain measurable elements (in games stuff like looks, sound, responsiveness of the gameplay, story and writing, etc.), which make something objectively good or bad. Since what we enjoy and have a good time with is subjective, we can like something even if it's specified as "bad".

Usually there are common elements that make us enjoy games, therefore often these two methods arrive at the same conclusion. Sometimes they differ in their respective outcomes.

In the end, you can claim fun = good or the other way around, both are correct.

That fun is an experience and can be derived from things of objective poor quality. Often intentionally.

Typical internet negative bullshit, and people confusing ironically liking something with just liking something.

i personally think scary=fun but many would not
but it is stupid logic
a fun game could be a shitty game like a flash browser game
and a boring game could be a AAA Sony exclusive crap
fun/boring and good/bad are not comparable terms at all

i LOVE 1001 spikes and that game is a failure: no body wants to play that type of game

I had fun running around the dark zone in the beta for The Division, nothing else about that game was enjoyable. Is it good because I had fun with something?

Easy. Go play Advent Rising. Fucking terrible, right? I had fun with it somehow. But I will straight up admit it is a bad game.

Do you consider the game overall to be fun?

>"oh my god I'm having so much fun doing cocaine"

Yeah, you might have a good time doing cocaine, but it's not good for you.

>Con Air is blast to watch but it's not a good movie

How fucking wrong can you be?

I hate it when people over analyze video games.

It makes people say boring games are good and awesome fun games bad because "objectively" it is.

The easiest example is majoras mask and ocarina of time.

One is way less fun but is hailed as better "objectively".

It's fucking stupid. I just want to have fun

fun is subjective
good is objective

>One is way less fun but is hailed as better "objectively".
which one?

It's a necessary evil of vidya being considered "art". It's mostly down to many creators needing their lives validated by others telling them how deep and meaningful their art is.
Keeping with the Cage theme, Leaving Las Vegas is considered by movie professionals to be very good, but most people find it less fun to watch than Face Off.

>con air a bad movie

no

>objectively good or bad
Why do you underage retards spout this so much? Do you think general consensus makes an opinion objective?

Which one do you have more fun with?
Than that's what I meant.

The point is that there isn't an objectively good or bad game, just fun and not fun. And that is an opinion, not a unit to be measured like it was science.

I agree with this, I love sonic 06 just because of how fucking awful it is. If you actually sat down and tried to play this game seriously though it would suck big fat cock
it's fun because it's bad

He's not wrong. I had a lot of fun with Dead Island but that game is objectively garbage.

Even the shittiest shit can be "fun".

Enabling shitty games "because they are fun" is becoming the norm of the industry.

Pretty much this

It's because retards a.) can't argue there point and b.) don't know what objective actually means. They think things most people find better are objectively better, for example, most people here would probably tell you higher fps is objectively better, I agree that it is better, but doesn't change the fact that it is still subjective.

No

>It's fucking stupid. I just want to have fun
Are you actually twelve?

>And that is an opinion, not a unit to be measured like it was science.
Good or bad are not measured by science either, but that does not make them subjective.

You fucking idiots REALLY need to understand the concept of "normativity" which is actually the most fundamental and important type of knowledge in the fucking world. It's absolutely frightening that so many of you apparently completely fail to grasp something as fucking fundamental.

Dick my suck

>good or bad
>not subjective
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is literally true. It's precisely how they are defined. They are normative, not subjective. Jesus fucking Christ you people are retarded.

He meant you're a faggot. He was right, too.

Normative isn't objective supernigger

EDF is bad, but a lot of people find it fun anyway. It's about that simple.

Your entire post is the most autistic post I've seen all day.
Normative concepts are still philosophic by nature and subjective. You can get a group of people and agree in normative definitions, like how all agree what word means what, and in that be right or wrong. But arts, entertainment, sexualized pleasures and luxuries are completely subjective and can't apply when no one agrees with your ever changing normative concepts.

Show how every definition uses the word "normative" and I'll believe you.

They are retarded. Welcome to Cred Forums where everyone is a retard and just posts waifus and Dark Souls

>MOM SAYS IT'S MY TURN TO PLAY WITH THE THESAURUS

fun is a buzzword

He means that a subjective term like fun shouldn't be used to judge a game objectively.

Now fuck off.

It's not bad by any means. It's a very cleverly designed game, and it can be quite demanding too unless you play on Easy or Normal like a bitch (for which the game actively penalizes you by limiting what weapons you can acquire). It very decent stuff.

Aesthetically, the sense of camaraderie and overcoming the odds, and also of making progress, is similarly effective.

You say "bad" likely meanig it's not AAA. In actuality, EDF games prioritize all the right things and irnore the rest--like all other games should.

>so by that logic a really boring game can be considered good

how do these people function

this high school tier philo almost made me puke

>Normative isn't objective supernigger
Did you see me say that normative is objective you cretin? That is my whole point: It's normative, not objective or subjective.

>Normative concepts are still philosophic by nature and subjective.
Philosophy often studies normative beliefs but that does not make them subjective. On contrary, they are studied precisely because they are deemed normative and most of philosophical methodology (as well as methodology of social sciences, but also majority of medicine and all of law) is in order to minimalize the subjective factor.

>But arts, entertainment, sexualized pleasures and luxuries are completely subjective and can't apply when no one agrees with your ever changing normative concepts.
Are you fucking KIDDING ME? Are you seriously telling me people can't change their views on what they enjoy and find valuable based on education, peer pressure, social norms, customs? Or that people can't comprehend and internalize situations where something that they subjectively enjoy might not be normatively considered good? You think drugs cannot be judged bad even if those who are doing them are finding the experience pleasurable? Are you fucking sane?

Normative statements define group preferences you god fucking damn morons.

None of those things you listed are measurable except for maybe responsiveness.

>judge a game objectively
>judge objectively
>objectively
I can objectively said that you're a retard.

The same reason that a movie can be fun, but not good. The Avengers is generally considered to be a fun film, but it's not a good film in terms of technique.

First post best post. But objectivity doesn't necessarily only apply to story since it has a structure, flow and development which can be judge as such. Gameplay too can be judge objectively based on already defined definitions of genres.

Ah, a Deadly Premonition-like

Technically flawed games can still be fun. Advent Rising is fun as fuck, but it's prone to crashes, shit framerate, and gamebreaking bugs that force you to reset.

There are plenty of buggy or poorly optimized games I absolutely love, but I understand my personal 10/10s aren't the public's and someone else may not be able look past all the flaws.

Some people have a lot of fun mutilating their dicks.
That doesn't make it "good".

I think it's stupid, the only thing that matters in games if whether you have fun or not and that's not something anyone but you yourself can rate, review or slap a number from 1-10 on.

If you have fun with a game it's a good game, end of story, other opinions should not matter to you that much.

What did they mean by this?

I think the simple fact people equals his opinions to being objective is pretty stupid. They go agaisnt each other. Just because 10 guys agree your opinion, doesn't mean it's considered "fact".

Unfortunately, the internet does this, and not just Cred Forums.

It's a really complex matter.
Videogames are games. They are toys. They are ludus. Fun is all about games are. Pick a toy, a tabletop game, card games, they all have the main purpose of being fun.
Of course, those same games can also be educative or competitive or have other purposes but being fun is always the main draw. A not fun card game or tabletop game has really a short time to leave, as nobody will ever play it.

It also happens that fun is subjective. Or so people say. You can hardly find a game literally everyone likes.
People try to draw comparisons with, say, movies, novels or comics. But none of those things share the main feature of videogames: gameplay.
"Gameplay" not in the sense of mere interaction but in the sense of a set of rules the player must follow and overcome to win the game. That's why videogames are more similar to tabletop games than to movies.
You can't judge a videogame with the same metric you judge a movie or other gameplay-less media.

So, how the fuck do you judge a videogame? Maybe the first we should start to question how we can judge "fun" itself. Making an actual discussion about how the "ludica" can be defined and judged.

Tl;dr: It's a hard matter and we are virgins in the shithole of the internet, nobody of us will ever come to terms about fun.

>Con Air is not a good movie

Holy shit, I see what's happening.
You think that because you can define your tastes to logical arguments that they are superior.

Your post basically states that people who do not know enough have bad opinions. You are mixing education and ignorance with epiphanies and proselyting. You think all change of perception is done one way, or at least that also is included in Video game preferences.

An opinion can change because they are founded on illogical conclusions, and there by be changed by the introduction of both abstract and factual information.

But knowledge can only be built upon, and I'm talking about actual knowledge that is based in fact, like the sun is warm and that we exist. Facts build on other facts and because of that education eliminates ignorance, which change is different than proselyte and the change of an opinion.

An opinion is affected by factual information. You can teach someone and eliminate their ignorance and thereby change their opinion. Unfortunately, for your argument of normative terms to judge tastes and art to be a sole bases, or even a respectable part of discussion in Video game enjoyment, that would need to be the ONLY way to change outward perspective. Abstract information can also affect ones perception of games, entertainment, sexualized pleasures and luxuries, and thus it can be defined as subjective since the change of perception is the change knowledge, but the preference.

Sorry you have to draw all of your being from soulless and unfeeling logic and that you cannot understand that preference is not a matter of education.

Try spending time with a religious missionary for a week and you'll understand what I'm saying.

>literally

Cred Forums is the most cancerous place to discuss vidya
but I cant leave

Not that poster
>Everything in art is subjective! There's no way to measure the quality by comparing the collection of works at large.
>It's not bad, it's my style!
>>>/deviantart/
>>>/tumblr/

Video games aren't art, it's an entertainment platform

A medium as a whole, no matter if it is about entertainment or not, can't be art, no shit. Some instances of a medium can be art though. Example: not all movies are art. Some are art, some are not. Nobody with a brain would ever say something like "Movies are art" or "Movies are not art".

>actual knowledge that is based in fact, like the sun is warm and that we exist
>We exist
Prove it. Inb4 "cogito ergo sum".

Cred Forums is only 2nd most cancerous. 1st is the entire rest of the internet

I get you

Not interested in philosophic discussion of existence on a video game board.

>He can't prove it
Welp, there goes the whole credibility of your whole post.

>You think that because you can define your tastes to logical arguments that they are superior.
No. Actually I don't believe my tastes are superior, I believe my only my standards are. More importantly, "cold and souless logic" is only one of many tools existing to help us improve ourselves and our understanding of the world that surrounds us.

I believe that the single most significan human evolutionary advantage is the ability to communicate knowledge and cooperate on it's production. I believe this capacity allowed us to wield knowledge (that is: set of tools that are beneficial to us in the long run, the "Darwinian" definition of knowledge) that immensely extends the amount of knowledge a single individual could ever accumulate on his own.

I believe it's arrogant and downright suicidal to reject what amounts to thousands and thousands of years of process of refining knowledge and improving our behavior and stances in favor of a shallow subjectivism, driven almost entirely by a form of mental deficiency known as insecurity.

I believe we should take advantage of all the tools to judge and understand ourselves and objects that surround us to challenge ourselves. That we should develop such things as standards and expectations which help us further regulate the world around us, as well as control how we spend our own limited time and effort.

And I believe NORMATIVE JUDGEMENTS actually exist for that reason. We deem things "good" and "bad" because we have an INSANELY powerful tool of knowledge that helps us to improve our efficiency and minimalize the sheer amount of tragedy in our lives in the long run. And that we should allow our tastes be influenced by that tool.
And I believe, compared to that, subjectivity is insignificant. Or should be. Opinion can be affect by many things, but should be most signficantly affected by knowledge. And that is not the same as factual information. Knowledge itself is in fact, always normative in some way.

Nicely said, however remember that even though we follow the rules set in a world by the developers (with limited resources) games are emergent, they ultimately follow the decisions that you make. Is it any wonder it's main demographic are men? This is also a very interesting read for anyone that argues about fun.

learntocounter.com/i-play-for-fun-the-four-dumbest-words-in-video-games/

>Your post basically states that people who do not know enough have bad opinions.
He's right, how are you able to logically come to a conclusion of a subject when you haven't even grasped nor understood said object.

I guess the digital nature of videogames, as opposed to the analogic nature of tabletop games, allows rules to be less strict and to give the player more freedom of action.

Anyway, I'll give a read to that link.

oh my god one of them is right here in this thread

>and to give the player more freedom of action.
Actually, the opposite is true. If you have time, this read is a must.

insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

Whose "them"?

have you ever watched a really, really fucking bad movie together with friends, maybe on alcohol, and you had a good laugh together?

Thats fun you had there.