Tim Cain says there are no bad games only different preferences and budgets... Agree? Disagree?

[Irenaeus]

Welcome @Tim_Cain to our forum and thank you for your vote.

[Acrux]

Welcome @Tim_Cain to our forum and thank you for your vote.

@rusty_shackleford, time for an impostor tag. Unless....

[Shillitron]

Welcome @Tim_Cain to our forum and thank you for your vote.

pffbbfbf

[NotAI]

I posted a video on this topic from a yt channel but on second thought deleted it after seeing the second half. From the last couple of videos realized the quality of that channel seems to have declined.

YTbers are trying to be fake nuanced where it is irrelevant.

The video started well but ended with the author finding potential redeeming and deep meaning in the narrative of LOTR: Gollum..........

[wndrbr]

The video started well but ended with the author finding potential redeeming and deep meaning in the narrative of LOTR: Gollum..........

same guy later defended Emil Pagliarulo and called gamers bad words for disliking Sweet Baby, so...

[maidenhaver]

I have to like every game? I can't even like ONE game. **** you, Timmy.

[Vergil]

People were expecting New Vegas in space,

Already a very silly premise.



Yes, this quest might have soured me in the game (I dropped it about 5 hours later).

If it makes you feel better they aren't actually going to space.

[maidenhaver]

I always do that with high speech so Chris sabotages them and they turn feral.

[J1M]

Stop posting every inane thought Tim Cain has. Agree? Disagree?

[NotAI]

Stop posting every inane thought Tim Cain has. Agree? Disagree?

Of course we must. What else are we gonna talk about? Games tend to come out only after seven years these days.

[WhiteShark]

There are no good games, only differences in budgets and pozz levels. Agree? Disagree?

[Irenaeus]

There are no good games, only differences in budgets and pozz levels. Agree? Disagree?

Small teams can make good games with zero pozz.

[AmericanMonarchist]

That bad games don't exist, you just don't like them, other people do, it's just all design choices and budgets.

Most people in the game industry are; they rarely make mistakes. There are just different audiences.

So the games industry is just very different from every other industry. This is the proposed theory.

Agree?

Disagree?

Vote!

He also asked for a counterargument.

I agree with everything I did not cross out. Universal standards are an egalitarian belief. Human beings are inherently unequal and so require have different needs in all facets of their life; including what they qualify as entertainment.

[OnTilt]

Human beings are inherently unequal and so require have different needs in all facets of their life; including what they qualify as entertainment.

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

[AmericanMonarchist]

Human beings are inherently unequal and so require have different needs in all facets of their life; including what they qualify as entertainment.

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

[OnTilt]

Human beings are inherently unequal and so require have different needs in all facets of their life; including what they qualify as entertainment.

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

Then, by what logic, is anything ever 'good' or 'bad'? All it takes is one person to say, "I prefer it that way" and anything becomes a matter of preference. Does a game have loads of bugs? I like that -- now this game is as valid as any other.

Black people don't like to bother being on time -- that's just a preference of Whites and Asians. You're being racists by imposing your preferences on them.

There is room for both personal preference and objective qualifications. You're allowed to like a bad game, just as blacks are allowed to prefer showing up whenever they feel like it. Still one is objectively proper and the other is not.

[AmericanMonarchist]

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

Then, by what logic, is anything ever 'good' or 'bad'? All it takes is one person to say, "I prefer it that way" and anything becomes a matter of preference. Does a game have loads of bugs? I like that -- now this game is as valid as any other.

Black people don't like to bother being on time -- that's just a preference of Whites and Asians. You're being racists by imposing your preferences on them.

There is room for both personal preference and objective qualifications. You're allowed to like a bad game, just as blacks are allowed to prefer showing up whenever they feel like it. Still one is objectively proper and the other is not.

Good or bad is dependent on goals. If I want to make an entertaining video game for Grandma, then taking inspiration from the Dark Souls franchise is bad because she lacks the gaming know-how and reflexes for that game to be anything but fun for her. As for your scenario, are we talking about making a society for negroids or Europids? The two groups have diametric needs and what is good for one is bad for the other. A society that caters to both is as paradoxical as water that is both boiling and frozen solid. The negro needs to be repatriated to Africa where he can live in a society that better works for him rather than subject him to our alien ways or degenerate our values in failed hopes of accommodating him since my goal is an America for Americans (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), by Americans. Keeping Jamal here hampers that goal and so by definition, is bad [for my goals.]

[OnTilt]

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

Then, by what logic, is anything ever 'good' or 'bad'? All it takes is one person to say, "I prefer it that way" and anything becomes a matter of preference. Does a game have loads of bugs? I like that -- now this game is as valid as any other.

Black people don't like to bother being on time -- that's just a preference of Whites and Asians. You're being racists by imposing your preferences on them.

There is room for both personal preference and objective qualifications. You're allowed to like a bad game, just as blacks are allowed to prefer showing up whenever they feel like it. Still one is objectively proper and the other is not.

Good or bad is dependent on goals. If I want to make an entertaining video game for Grandma, then taking inspiration from the Dark Souls franchise is bad because she lacks the gaming know-how and reflexes for that game to be anything but fun for her. As for your scenario, are we talking about making a society for negroids or Europids? The two groups have diametric needs and what is good for one is bad for the other. A society that caters to both is as paradoxical as water that is both boiling and frozen solid. The negro needs to be repatriated to Africa where he can live in a society that better works for him rather than subject him to our alien ways or degenerate our values in failed hopes of accommodating him since my goal is an America for Americans (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), by Americans. Keeping Jamal here hampers that goal and so by definition, is bad [for my goals.]

So you're arguing that African Negro civilization is equally as good as White European civilization, it's just not fit for the purpose of accommodating Whites?

[AmericanMonarchist]

Then, by what logic, is anything ever 'good' or 'bad'? All it takes is one person to say, "I prefer it that way" and anything becomes a matter of preference. Does a game have loads of bugs? I like that -- now this game is as valid as any other.

Black people don't like to bother being on time -- that's just a preference of Whites and Asians. You're being racists by imposing your preferences on them.

There is room for both personal preference and objective qualifications. You're allowed to like a bad game, just as blacks are allowed to prefer showing up whenever they feel like it. Still one is objectively proper and the other is not.

Good or bad is dependent on goals. If I want to make an entertaining video game for Grandma, then taking inspiration from the Dark Souls franchise is bad because she lacks the gaming know-how and reflexes for that game to be anything but fun for her. As for your scenario, are we talking about making a society for negroids or Europids? The two groups have diametric needs and what is good for one is bad for the other. A society that caters to both is as paradoxical as water that is both boiling and frozen solid. The negro needs to be repatriated to Africa where he can live in a society that better works for him rather than subject him to our alien ways or degenerate our values in failed hopes of accommodating him since my goal is an America for Americans (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), by Americans. Keeping Jamal here hampers that goal and so by definition, is bad [for my goals.]

So you're arguing that African Negro civilization is equally as good as White European civilization, it's just not fit for the purpose of accommodating Whites?

You keep assuming that I believe there is an objectively understood and universal good out there that things can be compared to. Saying "Negro civilization is equally as good to White European civilization" makes no sense in my philosophy because it is an incomplete thought. What is it equally good at? Is it equally good at feeding people? Is it equally as good at making rap music?

My thoughts on the civilization tangent is that negro civilization is great at accommodating the negro standards and I am fine with them having that civilization in Africa where they have zero influence on the way I do things.

[Xenich]

Human beings are inherently unequal and so require have different needs in all facets of their life; including what they qualify as entertainment.

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

That gets into the range of individual subjectivity which is kind of pointless (ie relativism). A standard can be set to what the objective is. For instance, if you are cooking a steak, generally speaking there is a certain expectation on its style and experience (unless otherwise specified). You can vary in approaches to its end result, but the base expectation of what the result should be is generally established and agreed upon. Falling outside of that objective "may" produce a result that an individual could find appealing, but it strayed from the standard and would not produce the expectation that is generally accepted, therefore it is poorly prepared.


You can boil a steak, but if your goal is to produce a traditional result, the method of preparation will be off and the results will reflect this. That is, while you may be able to get the balance of temperatures right in the end result, the texture and moisture associated with a traditionally prepared steak will be quite off and if you were to advertise this as a steak, many would find it poorly done because of the expectation of the result that is generally accepted.

Gaming is no different in this respect. While people can enjoy off shoots of various genres, if those genres are "prepared" in a manner that is contrary to what is traditional in its makeup, the result will reflect that and you end up with variations that completely miss the mark as to what is advertised.

That is the point I think and this affects everything from interface design, genre definition and mechanics. It doesn't matter that an individual might find the result appealing, the initial advertisement, communication of the goals, etc... do not match the outcome, which makes it a poorly designed/implemented system.

It reminds me of the argument that the designer of Dark Souls made concerning controllers vs mouse/keyboard in terms of the ports that were put out. His reasoning was that the game was designed around controllers because a controller has certain limitations in play which is the difficulty in learning that Dark Souls provided. To make a mouse/keyboard interface smooth (as the many mods and tweaks eventually accomplished) removed this difficulty layer in play, making the game much easier (FPS designs between console/PC also have these issues).

The point is, the game was horrible for mouse/keyboard because of these differences in design focus (as many console ports are). On top of that, it isn't an RPG in the slightest as the RPG aspects (level, gear progression, etc...) are not required for play (you can beat the game naked at level 1).

The base goal of an RPG is the point of character development as it concerns progression through the world and a properly designed RPG will not allow a character to bypass content without that development. So, the game is a poorly developed RPG, but a good action/arcade game if played according to its design with a controller as it was intended.

[Acrux]

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad?

Craftsmanship. Even a well-done steak can be made with craftsmanship, and not just be a dry, flavorless piece of meat.

That's obviously separate from preference. There's a reason "De gustibus non est disputandum" has stuck around for thousands of years as an adage.

[AmericanMonarchist]

I agree, however that doesn't mean that some games aren't objectively good or bad. People have different dietary needs but the food that meets those needs is still going to be prepared either poorly or well.

Just because people want different things does not mean that all things are equal. That would be relativism, an egalitarian ideal.

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

That gets into the range of individual subjectivity which is kind of pointless (ie relativism). A standard can be set to what the objective is. For instance, if you are cooking a steak, generally speaking there is a certain expectation on its style and experience (unless otherwise specified). You can vary in approaches to its end result, but the base expectation of what the result should be is generally established and agreed upon. Falling outside of that objective "may" produce a result that an individual could find appealing, but it strayed from the standard and would not produce the expectation that is generally accepted, therefore it is poorly prepared.


You can boil a steak, but if your goal is to produce a traditional result, the method of preparation will be off and the results will reflect this. That is, while you may be able to get the balance of temperatures right in the end result, the texture and moisture associated with a traditionally prepared steak will be quite off and if you were to advertise this as a steak, many would find it poorly done because of the expectation of the result that is generally accepted.

Gaming is no different in this respect. While people can enjoy off shoots of various genres, if those genres are "prepared" in a manner that is contrary to what is traditional in its makeup, the result will reflect that and you end up with variations that completely miss the mark as to what is advertised.

That is the point I think and this affects everything from interface design, genre definition and mechanics. It doesn't matter that an individual might find the result appealing, the initial advertisement, communication of the goals, etc... do not match the outcome, which makes it a poorly designed/implemented system.

It reminds me of the argument that the designer of Dark Souls made concerning controllers vs mouse/keyboard in terms of the ports that were put out. His reasoning was that the game was designed around controllers because a controller has certain limitations in play which is the difficulty in learning that Dark Souls provided. To make a mouse/keyboard interface smooth (as the many mods and tweaks eventually accomplished) removed this difficulty layer in play, making the game much easier (FPS designs between console/PC also have these issues).

The point is, the game was horrible for mouse/keyboard because of these differences in design focus (as many console ports are). On top of that, it isn't an RPG in the slightest as the RPG aspects (level, gear progression, etc...) are not required for play (you can beat the game naked at level 1).

The base goal of an RPG is the point of character development as it concerns progression through the world and a properly designed RPG will not allow a character to bypass content without that development. So, the game is a poorly developed RPG, but a good action/arcade game if played according to its design with a controller as it was intended.

I agree and this all wraps back into goals. If you are designing a game for hardcore gamers, and they shun it while the Candy Crush moms embrace it then you designed your game poorly because it is bad at accomplishing the task you wanted. (For argument's sake: Put aside that a screw up of that magnitude would most certainly require you not to even be in the genre you were advertising it to be) If you redesign your marketing materials (and by extension, your goal) to cater to the Candy Crush crowd then your game becomes good since it accomplished what you [now have] set out to accomplish. It is the same game, but the quality changes depending on your goals.

If I set out to create a steak to cater to Americans then I would put it on a grill since that is prepared in a manner in the fashion to which we are accustomed. If I were instead to cater to the English, then I would boil it since boiled beef is traditional there. There is no universal good or bad. Only expectations that differ depending on what person, subculture, ethnicity, or race you are dealing with.

[Xenich]

What does it mean for something to be prepared poorly or well? I believe a well-done steak to be an affront of good cuisine, but I know people who consider anything less to be akin to serving raw food. So is a well-done steak good or bad? I am not proposing we accept the universalist ideal of an objective standard, nor am I arguing that everything is equal. My position is that good and bad are inherently subjective and requires qualification. You can say you have a poorly prepared steak, but it has an implicit "to my desires" attached to the end of that sentence.The steak objectively failed to satisfy you. That same steak can still satisfy someone else, but all that means is that it is a good steak to them. and It is still a bad steak to you.

That gets into the range of individual subjectivity which is kind of pointless (ie relativism). A standard can be set to what the objective is. For instance, if you are cooking a steak, generally speaking there is a certain expectation on its style and experience (unless otherwise specified). You can vary in approaches to its end result, but the base expectation of what the result should be is generally established and agreed upon. Falling outside of that objective "may" produce a result that an individual could find appealing, but it strayed from the standard and would not produce the expectation that is generally accepted, therefore it is poorly prepared.


You can boil a steak, but if your goal is to produce a traditional result, the method of preparation will be off and the results will reflect this. That is, while you may be able to get the balance of temperatures right in the end result, the texture and moisture associated with a traditionally prepared steak will be quite off and if you were to advertise this as a steak, many would find it poorly done because of the expectation of the result that is generally accepted.

Gaming is no different in this respect. While people can enjoy off shoots of various genres, if those genres are "prepared" in a manner that is contrary to what is traditional in its makeup, the result will reflect that and you end up with variations that completely miss the mark as to what is advertised.

That is the point I think and this affects everything from interface design, genre definition and mechanics. It doesn't matter that an individual might find the result appealing, the initial advertisement, communication of the goals, etc... do not match the outcome, which makes it a poorly designed/implemented system.

It reminds me of the argument that the designer of Dark Souls made concerning controllers vs mouse/keyboard in terms of the ports that were put out. His reasoning was that the game was designed around controllers because a controller has certain limitations in play which is the difficulty in learning that Dark Souls provided. To make a mouse/keyboard interface smooth (as the many mods and tweaks eventually accomplished) removed this difficulty layer in play, making the game much easier (FPS designs between console/PC also have these issues).

The point is, the game was horrible for mouse/keyboard because of these differences in design focus (as many console ports are). On top of that, it isn't an RPG in the slightest as the RPG aspects (level, gear progression, etc...) are not required for play (you can beat the game naked at level 1).

The base goal of an RPG is the point of character development as it concerns progression through the world and a properly designed RPG will not allow a character to bypass content without that development. So, the game is a poorly developed RPG, but a good action/arcade game if played according to its design with a controller as it was intended.

I agree and this all wraps back into goals. If you are designing a game for hardcore gamers, and they shun it while the Candy Crush moms embrace it then you designed your game poorly because it is bad at accomplishing the task you wanted. If you redesign your marketing materials (and by extension, your goal) to cater to the Candy Crush crowd then your game becomes good since it accomplished what you [now have] set out to accomplish. It is the same game, but the quality changes depending on your goals.

If I set out to create a steak to cater to Americans then I would put it on a grill since that is prepared in a manner in the fashion to which we are accustomed. If I were instead to cater to the English, then I would boil it since boiled beef is traditional there. There is no universal good or bad. Only expectations that differ depending on what person, subculture, ethnicity, or race you are dealing with.

In those examples, this is generally true... but as Acrux pointed out, you can still implement a system properly advertised and do it in a manner that honestly is poorly done. Menu systems often reflect this outside of taste. That is, your menu system could waste a ton of time forcing the player through iterations of opening, closing, etc.. to get to various things that a properly designed interface would avoid. That is a design flaw issue in this example. This can translate into gaming systems as well, where the goal is understood, but how they approached their goal was implemented in a way that worked against what they sought to achieve, making it a poor design.

You can play a ton of different gem style games out there and the failures are plenty in their designs from how they move, the game play iterations, scoring, level evolution, etc... There are good designed ones, and horrible ones where they developer lacks basic logic skills, artistic ability, and should find another line of work.

[AmericanMonarchist]

That gets into the range of individual subjectivity which is kind of pointless (ie relativism). A standard can be set to what the objective is. For instance, if you are cooking a steak, generally speaking there is a certain expectation on its style and experience (unless otherwise specified). You can vary in approaches to its end result, but the base expectation of what the result should be is generally established and agreed upon. Falling outside of that objective "may" produce a result that an individual could find appealing, but it strayed from the standard and would not produce the expectation that is generally accepted, therefore it is poorly prepared.


You can boil a steak, but if your goal is to produce a traditional result, the method of preparation will be off and the results will reflect this. That is, while you may be able to get the balance of temperatures right in the end result, the texture and moisture associated with a traditionally prepared steak will be quite off and if you were to advertise this as a steak, many would find it poorly done because of the expectation of the result that is generally accepted.

Gaming is no different in this respect. While people can enjoy off shoots of various genres, if those genres are "prepared" in a manner that is contrary to what is traditional in its makeup, the result will reflect that and you end up with variations that completely miss the mark as to what is advertised.

That is the point I think and this affects everything from interface design, genre definition and mechanics. It doesn't matter that an individual might find the result appealing, the initial advertisement, communication of the goals, etc... do not match the outcome, which makes it a poorly designed/implemented system.

It reminds me of the argument that the designer of Dark Souls made concerning controllers vs mouse/keyboard in terms of the ports that were put out. His reasoning was that the game was designed around controllers because a controller has certain limitations in play which is the difficulty in learning that Dark Souls provided. To make a mouse/keyboard interface smooth (as the many mods and tweaks eventually accomplished) removed this difficulty layer in play, making the game much easier (FPS designs between console/PC also have these issues).

The point is, the game was horrible for mouse/keyboard because of these differences in design focus (as many console ports are). On top of that, it isn't an RPG in the slightest as the RPG aspects (level, gear progression, etc...) are not required for play (you can beat the game naked at level 1).

The base goal of an RPG is the point of character development as it concerns progression through the world and a properly designed RPG will not allow a character to bypass content without that development. So, the game is a poorly developed RPG, but a good action/arcade game if played according to its design with a controller as it was intended.

I agree and this all wraps back into goals. If you are designing a game for hardcore gamers, and they shun it while the Candy Crush moms embrace it then you designed your game poorly because it is bad at accomplishing the task you wanted. If you redesign your marketing materials (and by extension, your goal) to cater to the Candy Crush crowd then your game becomes good since it accomplished what you [now have] set out to accomplish. It is the same game, but the quality changes depending on your goals.

If I set out to create a steak to cater to Americans then I would put it on a grill since that is prepared in a manner in the fashion to which we are accustomed. If I were instead to cater to the English, then I would boil it since boiled beef is traditional there. There is no universal good or bad. Only expectations that differ depending on what person, subculture, ethnicity, or race you are dealing with.

In those examples, this is generally true... but as Acrux pointed out, you can still implement a system properly advertised and do it in a manner that honestly is poorly done. Menu systems often reflect this outside of taste. That is, your menu system could waste a ton of time forcing the player through iterations of opening, closing, etc.. to get to various things that a properly designed interface would avoid. That is a design flaw issue in this example. This can translate into gaming systems as well, where the goal is understood, but how they approached their goal was implemented in a way that worked against what they sought to achieve, making it a poor design.

You can play a ton of different gem style games out there and the failures are plenty in their designs from how they move, the game play iterations, scoring, level evolution, etc... There are good designed ones, and horrible ones where they developer lacks basic logic skills, artistic ability, and should find another line of work.

Fable III has a menu system that was critically panned as bad because a more traditionally designed menu system would allow you to accomplish the same things faster. From an efficiency standpoint it was bad design, but from a role-play perspective it was very immersive. As for craftsmanship,I think all of us here can agree that a game like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing or a movie like The Room are not of quality workmanship to put it nicely. That lack of quality however, paradoxically provides a qualify of its own. They are so bad that they are entertaining in how bad they are. The Room has provided me hours of entertainment, not in the way Tommy Wiseau intended, but it was nonetheless successful in entertaining. Conversely I have watched Eraserhead, a movie of superior craftsmanship, and fell asleep halfway through. I can appreciate the quality of David Lynch's work, but it failed in its goal of keeping me engrossed. The Room is a better piece of entertainment than Eraserhead in my books despite the latter being of higher craftsmanship.

If you want to use craftsmanship as your ruler to gauge whether a game is good or bad, that is your preference. I prefer my standard of whether a game is entertaining.

[Acrux]

I prefer my standard of whether a game is entertaining.

As you say, that's your preference. But you are using circular reasoning: you are stating the "goodness" of a game is subjective because you are using a subjective standard ("entertaining").

[Xenich]

I prefer my standard of whether a game is entertaining.

As you say, that's your preference. But you are using circular reasoning: you are stating the "goodness" of a game is subjective because you are using a subjective standard ("entertaining").

Agreed,

Relativistic reasoning is the death of Intelectualism.

[AmericanMonarchist]

I prefer my standard of whether a game is entertaining.

As you say, that's your preference. But you are using circular reasoning: you are stating the "goodness" of a game is subjective because you are using a subjective standard ("entertaining").

The goodness of a game is inherently subjective because any ruler you decide to use to measure it was chosen because you believe it is the right ruler. I believe measuring goodness based on entertainment is the best tool to judge something designed to be entertaining. I am not claiming this to be the objective system, just the way I prefer to measure things. You can judge it on craftsmanship (which begs the question what universal rubric are you using to ascertain quality but I will put that aside), but that is the way you prefer to measure. We both have our own reasons for choosing our own measures and we can discuss our reasoning, but that does not mean there is an objectively superior one.

[AmericanMonarchist]

I prefer my standard of whether a game is entertaining.

As you say, that's your preference. But you are using circular reasoning: you are stating the "goodness" of a game is subjective because you are using a subjective standard ("entertaining").

Agreed,

Relativistic reasoning is the death of Intelectualism.

You can still have intellectual discussions over subjective views. My belief that Batman is better than Superman is subjective, but I can still hold a productive conversation explaining my viewpoint and trying to understand the viewpoint of someone who prefers Superman even if at the end of the day opinions will more often than not remain the same. You can even apply that into politics. Gun control being good or bad depends on your view points, but you can still debate whether someone's position on gun control will lead them in the direction they want. Someone taking the position that gun control is good is subjective. Someone taking the position that gun control is good because it reduces school shootings is inherently objectively right or wrong since it either reduces school shootings or it doesn't.

[OnTilt]

You keep assuming that I believe there is an objectively understood and universal good out there that things can be compared to.

You don't believe in God, do you?

You can still have intellectual discussions over subjective views.

Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

Really though -- You can have such a discussion, but it's pointless. It becomes just empty chatter because ultimately nothing is real once you've accepted relativism as a philosophical framework. Might as well be talking to a woman if we're just going to be blowing hot air at each other with no point.

[Vergil]

It's interesting moral relativism is only ever defended in cases where the defender has some weird degenerate perversion that goes against morality and art relativism is only ever defended in cases where the "artist" makes dog **** like **** Christ or Outer Worlds.