Really. 

That's something else that bothers me about R.P.G.s definition of quality - the selection of properties is completely arbitrary. I mean, "make money" and "be entertaining" are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum, because games that "make money" are probably those which are entertaining to the masses, but not to us. We seem to have different standards, but does that make our standards better than those of the masses? 

I think we mostly believe that there is some common property that all good games have, and that there's consensus among people about which games are good. In other words, we believe we could be objective about the matter, even if we aren't always.

If those beliefs were false, there would be no point in discussing games with other people, because we would have no common ground, no unchanging reality that both of us experience and can identify and reason about. 

I think games and other pop culture/mass pruducts (music for example) shouldnt not be judged by the popularity, cause marketing and advertisment plays a huge role. Very often a crap game gets rather popular just because its based on a popular franchize and has a massive ad compaign, but a good game might pass almost unnoticed if it is lacking the hype/advertisment 

now we need to be more specific about what popularity means. There are two concepts:

* how many people total have played this game?
* what percentage of people like the game?

This is the difference between well-known and well-liked. 

Ok, perhaps a subtle distinction, but something can be popular and still come out as a negative in the general weight of positives/negatives of its qualities. 

Now it's getting interesting, I think. Metl, I don't agree there. Even if there's no common ground, it's still worth discussing things, but you have to leave out taste. You can still discuss for example the feelings you have when you experience a certain piece of art. But you cannot make any generalized statements.
And about well-liked vs. well-known, I think that well-known does not play any role even in defining the term "popularity", let alone "quality", because a game / song / movie /whatever can be well-known, but if most people regard it as crap, well, it's not popular is it? Same goes for persons, by the way =).

R.P.G. I'm still not convinced that there are many objective criteria when it comes to art. But personally, in my subjective view, popular things / persons are usually suspect and I don't like them.

By the way, what about innovation? That is a fairly objective term, since something is either innovative (to most people), or it is not. 

And about well-liked vs. well-known, I think that well-known does not play any role even in defining the term "popularity", let alone "quality", because a game / song / movie /whatever can be well-known, but if most people regard it as crap, well, it's not popular is it?

Sure, but this is my whole point -- these are distinct concepts, and we should be clear about which we mean. When someone says that popularity is entirely the result of marketing and advertising, they must be talking about how well-known a game is. 

For software, we have a great way of defining quality. Is it bug free? The lower the number of bugs per hour of use, the higher the quality of the code - as far as the end user is concerned. 

Isnt the popularity of any commercial product measured in the ammount of sold copies? And thats about the only thing you can really count. No one knows how many of the customers are satisfied.

DKT is rahter well known game ... :) 

but thats only one aspect
there are many more qualities to code than lack of bugs 

What speedy said, plus there is a difference between quality of software (user experience) and quality of code.

But software is a bit of a different matter because it certainly is easier to quantify or to find the properties rpg speaks of. It's rather easy to find criteria that make good software.

It's much more difficult when it comes to artistic endevours. 

Overuse of coloured lighting = bad game.

It was all so easier back then. :( 

be a manly man and dare to use your judgement -
a bad game is a bad game and a good game is a good game. Bad art, good art.

You can't really run away behind some statistics or somehow scientifically factually deduce "good" from something like art.

People tend to listen to those critics they have found to be reasonable when compared to their own view, but even their ideas may sometimes deviate a lot.

Here is an example of an opinionated review that is further based on some more opinions:

Id textures are pretty good. They are detailed, handmade, vivid but not oversaturated on contrast, fit the palette well (except that one mip level of some woods get red spots when bright) and are inspired, strong, peculiar and beautiful. 

every freakshow can have an opinion. but in order to have a meaningful discussion, a rational debate, or an academic discourse -- you need definition and objectivevely quantifiable concepts with which to compare and contrast two or more different pieces of, in this case, videogame. 

well, sure, but it's just that, the user experience, that really matters. because the end user only ever see the compiled code in action, not the underlying mechanics on which it acts, that's the important part.

no end user care about the quality of code in any other aspect than the lack of bugs. excpet maybe performance, but I have a feeling performance might fall under something else than quality.

anyways, if it looks like code from hell, but runs like heaven - what do I care? and no matter how hard you try, "but it's really neat code, look - comments and everything!" is a really piss-poor excuse for buggy software. 

I'm still not convinced that there are many objective criteria when it comes to art.

Quite right--I agree, and that was a point I made. You can't objectively measure something that is defined to be subjective. Logical impossibility.

Regarding games--no matter what some people say, games contain at least some aspects of art, so they are not 100% objectively quantifiable. Even their purpose is subject to interpretation. Of course, you still should be able to examine some of it objectively, such as the build quality and the reward/punishment system. But when a game becomes popular based on the art style or atmosphere (and to some extent the story) then whether or not the game is good is not affecting its popularity. The atmosphere may have good build quality, but there will be different opinions about whether or not the atmosphere is appealing, and the actual gameplay may indeed be cack. 

Everyone's so mean and aggravated and uptight about this all the time. They're games. GAMES. Play it and if it entertains you, you like it. 

 

Has anyone chanced upon a program that will read character stats in Morrowind? I've searched various forums and the web but can't find much relevant. I've seen one program that will allow you to create profiles and edit those, but not ones you create in-game. 

<quote>But when a game becomes popular based on the art style or atmosphere (and to some extent the story) then whether or not the game is good is not affecting its popularity.</quote>

Isn't that goodness too? 

It just happens. I for one, am not espcially suprised with the review. Raven's been a worthless developer for years now, and have yet to put out a top notch, high quality game. SoF was a mediocre game, as was it's sequel. Why do you people seem so suprised that Q4 is yet another mediocre game? If id made it, I'd be ranting with the rest of you, but id didn't make this. Raven did. Check Raven's track record, it's less than stellar over the years. Why do you expect something so much different here?

http://www.forumplanet.com/PlanetQuake/topic.asp?fid=1486&tid=1760549&p=1 

I'm all stroggified by that discussion board.

I wonder if it gives cool gameplay things when you're a cyborg. 

if all you want to do is to check out stats or set them, you can do all that from the console.

i forget most of them, but it's like 'set level #' or 'set acrobatics #' etc etc 

1. In that instance people would subjectively like/dislike the art. As I mentioned, art is interpretive, and therefore subjective. Art can be subjectively good, but it cannot be objectively--or universally--good.

2. No, the game itself (i.e. gameplay) might be mediocre at best and might not be fun to play at all.