An Objectively Better Game; Is it Possible?

[Koh]

This is something I've been giving a lot of thought to lately, and I think I've finally come up with my own answer.

Overall, the quality of a game is a subjective matter. No matter what one person thinks, there are other people who think the opposite, or at least slightly different.

The PURPOSE of a game is an objective matter; they're (in business practice) to make money.

So, if a game series is changed somehow, to sell more units, is it objectively or subjectively better?

My answer to this question is it's objectively better. There may be people who don't like said changes to the series, however, if the main purpose of games (in business practice) is to make money, and more money is being made, then you can't argue that the games are worse on that level, because they've done their purpose of raking in more money.

I offer this as an example: Pokemon turning into a more open game, rather than the linear games they have been. Naturally, since people love to explore and have a bit more control over their story, it's only plausible that it'd sell more units. Does this mean that it's a subjective change, because not everyone really wants an open world, or objective, because they've done their job in selling more units? My answer is it's objectively better.

What are your thoughts?

[puggsoy]

It really, heavily depends on what you're talking about. "Better" in itself is such a vague term. There will always be subjective things in a game, because there will always be something that people have different opinions about. Even if it's objectively better business-wise, this doesn't mean the game itself is objectively better, only its ability of bringing in profit. The "purpose" of the game doesn't define the game.

I might be missing the point here (and please explain it if I am), but I don't feel that you can objectively rate a game as a whole, or indeed any creative work. It really depends which aspect you're talking about, whether it's an objective or subjective matter.

[Koh]

Well each piece is made up of many subjective things, such as a graphics, music, story, etc. But all the companies care about is how much money they bring in. So to that affect, what do you think?

[Sol]

You're only looking at things from the company's point of view. The consumer probably won't care how many units a game sells if it's just unpleasant to play. Considering the sale of a game is a two-sided process (the company and the consumer) the views of the people potentially buying the game can sometimes be just as important as the company selling it.

Even disregarding that, though, there are a lot of different ways to measure quality. Is it actually engaging? (being fun is one way to engage, but keep in mind it's not the only way, especially important when being fun isn't what the game is trying to do) Is the aesthetic cohesive? Do the mechanics, setting, and story all complement each other? If it has one, does the game get its message across? Are they trying to create a new experience for the player or are they trying to take a common gaming experience and make it outstanding? Are the characters actually believable as people? If a game is shooting for realism, how well do its mechanics, characters, events and settings reflect reality? Did the developers do what they set out to do? Was there something inherently flawed in what they were trying to accomplish?

I wish it was easier to have AAA games that aren't "products" first and foremost. But, it is an industry, so it's going to be hard to break away from that. Still though, just imagine if every movie was judged solely on how much it sold? Obviously there's a film industry, but movies are still judged on more complex criteria. Games should be the same.

[puggsoy]

Well each piece is made up of many subjective things, such as a graphics, music, story, etc. But all the companies care about is how much money they bring in. So to that affect, what do you think?

Well, that's only what the companies care about, so I would say that's also subjective. The amount of profit a game brings in is a definite fact, but whether it's a "good" thing or makes the game "better" is still entirely opinion. In the company's eyes it's good, but for consumers it's usually not that great, since they're the ones giving the money.

Same goes for other aspects. The resolution, is a fixed number and can't be argued about, but it's still personal opinion whether it's an improvement or not. I don't see how the income a game brings should be seen differently.

[Koh]

I completely agree with you guys, but I feel like I should explain a bit more...

I do mean this in the positive route. Like the changes the company decides to make are received positively by the majority chunk of their consumers, yet it was something that completely changed the way the games are played, like the aformentioned Pokemon example. Is this still a subjective change, or because it was well received by their consumers AND sold more units, it's objectively better?

These kinds of questions I'm putting a lot of thought into, given that I'm an aspiring game developer, currently indie.

[puggsoy]

Even if everybody has the same opinion, it's still subjective. Objectivity doesn't arise when people agree, it's there when you don't have a choice. 2 plus 2 is 4, whether you like it or not. The Earth orbits the Sun, even if you don't want it to. There's no opinion in the matter, it's a fact, and that is objective.

If there was a game that companies, consumers, politicians, EVERYBODY loved, it would still be subjectively good. Everyone would have the same opinion, but it would still be an opinion.
The words "good" and "better" are subjective in themselves. It's always an opinion, something you think, not a concrete fact.

[Kitsu]

Judgement systems are not objective. It's just not possible.
Objective cannot pass judgement, it can only state that which exists.

All judgement systems are created by reasoning beings to serve their own purposes. If something better suits their purposes than other things, it's "good"; otherwise, if it detracts from their purposes instead, it's "bad."
For example, if someone decides that their judgement standard for food is "it contains lots of sugar," then sweet foods will be "good" and not sweet foods would be "bad."
If someone decides that their judgement for games is "it offers relatively novel and difficult decisions at a steady pace" then certain strategy games would be "good" and exp-grinders would probably be "bad."
Note that judgement criteria can contain objective measurements like "contains at least 1 gram of sugar per 5 grams of total mass," but the fact that that particular criterion was chosen over others is itself subjective.
I suppose one could also say "well the reason such a criterion would be chosen is objective because consuming too much sugar can lead to obesity and health defects" or "the human body/mind is conditioned through biological and evolutionary development to prioritize the consumption of sugar." However, these are actually still subjective, because actual people still determined that these values are important (biologically motivated or otherwise).

As a developer, I believe that it's best for you to simply choose your own judgement metrics to measure your own games (and those you play) by. Of course, how you choose your metrics can itself be based on certain objective facts like "thing x sells well, so I should prioritize it," but realize that the decision to consider that data important was made by you and is therefore subjective.

[Kriven]

Yeah, if you narrow the point of view to specific criteria (like units sold), you can get objectivity. But that doesn't work when looking at games as an art form. The quest for that objective number is responsible for the slew of shit titles recently, btw.

[Koh]

I'm really liking these posts! It's nice to hear about it in these ways.

Ahem!
@Kriven: It doesn't HAVE to be like that though, you know? What if they're aspiring to create something that'd be both entertaining to many, and recognized by a lot of people, rather than "it's just another game in the bucket of a million games?" Something to get numerous amounts of people excited for, such that they KNOW they have a pretty decent sized audience? Isn't researching the types of games that sells the most and figure out WHY they sell the most going to be the best route for them?

[Kriven]

That doesn't create objectivity though, it just creates a majority opinion on a subjective topic.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, which might be possible. What I got out of your post was "What if more people are excited about it than there are not?" and "What if it reaches a large audience?"

[Koh]

I guess you're right. I mean, of course things like advertising affect the popularity of a game, but even if the game is plastered on every billboard and TV in the world, if the gameplay doesn't look appealing, there still won't be a lot of sales.

[Gors]

it is impossible.

Because 'better' and 'worse' themselves are subjective criteria. What is a good game for me, can be bad for others. Therefore, no game can be bojectively better. There are 7 billion of people in the world, and at least one of them will disagree with you. That's obvious.

Thus, to make a game that a bigger number of people could like, which i think it's what you mean, you should keep it reasonably designed, with all those different type of people in mind. that may result in a successful game.

[Kriven]

I hasten to point out that you can't please everybody, however. Some people prefer only specific game genres or narrative genres, and blending elements of them all into one game might result in soething awesome (or awful) which alienates the particular niche audiences. It's really kind of an effort in madness.

[Gors]

certeinly; but considering every 'type' of gamers available in the world (for example, shooter fans, platformer fans, simulation fans etc, and even 'casual' and 'hardcore' gamers), one could design a game that may cater to more than one group than just catering to one. In my opinion, a good game is one who conciliates many genres in a cohesive and intuitive way. Like Actraiser, which is an adventure Platformer Simulation game with hints of RPG. The idea in that game is executed fairly well, and it's interesting. It certainly is more fun than just focusing on just one genre.

Though like I said, this is my opinion and others can disagree. One can argue that mixing genres will scare away people that outright hate that genre, or as you said, Kriven, one part may end up well-implemented than the other, creating a unbalanced gameplay. No matter how much effort you show in the design, there will always be someone who will hate it so a better game doesn't really apply.