Fr0dus Maximus said:
We need some good multi-page debates, imo. XD
Workin' on it... :lol
The problem is that you are attempting to objectively categorize games which is impossible because they have no objective value, beyond how much money it took to make it, and how many polygons it has. Everything else is inevitably in the eye of the beholder. The issue is not that you are using sales to objectively determine the quality of the game, but that you are trying to objectively determine anything about it at all. Even the success of the development studio is relative because people have very different measures of success. A developer might consider his project a massive success even if it sold 10,000 copies, just because he had a hand in creating what he saw as a masterpiece.
I do agree that objective assessment is the problem entirely, but rather than say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and leave it at that, I think there are
indicators of quality that can speak to a game's
value. Whether or not sales are good at doing this is a matter of debate, I concur, but to dismiss all dialogue surrounding a game's quality as subjective and without any determinant of value would be a mistake. The only time a game's
value really comes into question is when one is deciding to buy it or not; is it worth $60 at all, and is it more deserving of one's $60 than other games? Now, this is an individual choice, and determination of value here is completely subjective,
but looking at the number of people who choose to spend $60 on one particular game (sales) can indicate a game's overall value. Or, at the very least, sales indicate a game's objective worth
more so than any other method I've ever seen proposed.
The reason why I proposed this indicator, if you go and look back in the thread where I initially stated it, was in response to Mai lamenting that a game she thought was good ended up selling poorly. My response was, though less eloquently put, "how can you say it is "good" if it sold poorly?" So I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on your point of objective categorization Cherry, I may have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if I had articulated my position by saying what you just did. However, I do believe that video games can be qualified using other methods, and I don't think it a useless endeavor to think of games in terms of good or bad based on factors other than how much you personally liked a game. I have played many games which I didn't like but still appreciated what the developers had accomplished in making the game. Additionally, I have played games that I thought were terrible but still appreciated
how many other people enjoyed those games, and
how much they enjoyed them. I suppose I'm proposing an indicator of assessment that uses consensus to determine standards. Its not perfect, and its not the only indicator, but it provides a basis for productive dialogue when gauging a game's veritable strengths and weaknesses. It is in this way that subjective opinion can be formed and changed, and that is its primary use. Its not a be-all end-all indicator, but an objective basis which aids in forming collective subjective perspectives.
So in terms of whether or not beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder, I really don't think so, because I think a person can be cognizant of many different kinds of beauty while personally favoring one or two. We can still agree on whether or not something is beautiful while still disagreeing on just how beautiful it is. To avoid any discussion concerning beauty, or the quality of a game, because we are dealing with a highly subjective topic would be a mistake. Just because you think something is beautiful and I don't does not mean beauty doesn't exist. Coming to some sort of consensus on the matter, or articulating the precise differences that prohibit such consensus, is an enjoyable process that leaves each individual with a greater understanding of other perspectives and a broader appreciation of the concept.
I debate with them until they realize the obvious superiority of my opinion.
Exactly.
The opinion of reviewers is not meant to be a barometer for the financial success of the game, nor is it meant to represent the opinion of anyone but that single reviewer.
Not a barometer of, but a prescription for. Reviews are meant to inform the public, and reviewers are encouraged to be as objective as possible. For example, when a 30 year old reviewer is reviewing a game meant for a younger audience, they aren't going to dock it for not being aimed at them specifically. Reviews are not meant to just give you one person's opinion of a game, they are meant to inform you about a game and give you an idea of whether or not it might be something you, not they, would have fun playing. They evaluate, compare, and assess. They do give their opinion, yes, but they also try to provide you with facts to support or condemn your personal interest in a game.
Actually writing an amazing novel that you can call your own. The very thought that something so amazing came from your own mind. It will be a sad day when art is created only to please the masses.
Why is it such a hollow endeavor? Why is marveling at your own creation suddenly not enough? Why is validation from someone else on an entirely subjective matter suddenly necessary?
I'm not talking about pleasing the masses or validation, I'm saying the value in creating art is to have it affect other people, positively or negatively. Nobody paints, or draws, or sculpts, or writes, and then locks their creations away so that no one will ever see/read them. Video games are the same. Its not necessarily the financial motivation of high sales that determines a video game creator's success or not, but the knowledge that many people are viewing their creation. If video games can be seen as a medium for expression, well, its quite obvious that expression takes two to tango, so to speak. There's not point in me trying to say something if I know that no one else will hear it. I wouldn't be writing this right now if I didn't think anyone else would read it.
A thought occurs...
I can't be certain if this was my purpose back when I first wrote about sales being used in such a manner, but I do believe that my invocation of sales as an indicator was done so because I held some romantic notions about the video game industry. I believed that: good concepts + good programmers + good game designers + good reputation = good publishing + good marketing + good distribution = good review scores + good hype+ good word of mouth = good sales. I thought that if you through a "bad" whatever into the original mix would mess up the whole equation, and I thought that without a "bad" anything the outcome was inevitable. I now know this isn't always the way it works, though I do like to believe it sometimes, but the challenge has always been to investigate why games I consider bad appeal to many others, and what does that appeal say about my taste in games, other people's taste in games, and the choices being made in making those games?
