Cyberpunk 2077

[Rendark]

Yeah, but that's a subjective point of view. Objectively, the game is great. It might not be to your taste, but that doesn't change it.

There's no such thing as a objectively good game dude.

Opinions are like assholes everyone has one but not assholes are useful or wanted, much like opinions actually.

Sometimes its better to just keep your unwanted asshole to yourself.

*pats dont worry bud Im sure someone out there besides yourself will want it.

Dude are you coming on to me? Because you should know i hate ponies.

[Skulltaker]

There's no such thing as a objectively good game dude.

Yes. Yes, there is. Games, like most forms of entertainment and art, have quantifiable factors that can be judged objectively. I'd not expect you to understand that, or to be able to do this, but it is most definitely possible.

[Fencers]

Yes. Yes, there is. Games, like most forms of entertainment and art, have quantifiable factors that can be judged objectively. I'd not expect you to understand that, or to be able to do this, but it is most definitely possible.

This is not true.

[Skulltaker]

This is not true.

Yes, it is. Note that I said most forms of art, and that subjective and objective qualities are not mutually exclusive. But series, movies, games, all of those can be judged objectively. That doesn't mean that this will factor in subjective value that the piece of art may or may not have, but you can still do it.

Qualities like Story, Dialogue, sounddesign, graphics, even things like stability of the engine and so on, all can be judged objectively, and can for sure be ranked. You cannot judge the impact it may or may not have on individuals, but you sure as hell can rate the quality of it.

[Kathandira]

I love this topic. But likely could use it's own thread.

Art is subjective, absolutely.But the execution of said art, and its intention can be objectively bad. This applies most directly to art that isn't really definable until the project is completed.

Wood Fired Ceramics is an example of that. You can sculpt an image of something, but the wood fire process isn't the most reliable. So the end result can be quite distorted, and appear to be poorly crafted. It can be cracked, it can have fire flashing in the wrong places, and you can have glazes that didn't turn out the way you wanted. All of this combined, and you have a really bad piece.

The funny part to me is, artists know this, and also know that their art is subjective. So they will write up a description of the piece after the fact that makes up for the poor quality of the work.

A warped and cracked piece may be written up as a commentary of the decay of blah blah blah blah. i've legitimately had to help write up this crap in the past just so a piece can be sold.

Ever read a commentary card at an exhibit? You see things like, "When creating this piece, the artist (yes, many are written in 3rd person) recalled their time as a child jumping in puddles on a sunny spring morning. The droplets that sprung into the air reflected a rainbow which in the warm light of the sun brought the last moment of joy they ever knew." And the piece that this describes is multiple colors of paint thrown at a canvas. More than likely, the commentary card for something like this was written after the fact.

At the end of the it all though. Art is subjective. If you like it, you like it. No matter if someone tries to convince you it is bad, or whatever. If you find enjoyment in any way, the work was successful.

[Northern Goblin]

There are elements to games that can be judged objectively. But those are purely technical qualities. Things that are down to player preference from narrative and graphics to gameplay and UI are subjective.

[Fencers]

But series, movies, games, all of those can be judged objectively.

No, they can not. You are totally wrong about this. Dead wrong. Not a single publication or outlet has done this- ever.

Qualities like Story, Dialogue, sounddesign, graphics, even things like stability of the engine and so on, all can be judged objectively, and can for sure be ranked.

Give me the quantitative and qualitative quotas for story as an object measurement.

I will go so far as to format it out in CLT, Monadic, P/C or S-MT forms for free. That is how confident I am in that what you are saying is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

But those are purely technical qualities.

Many of these can not either. If you ever were part of a technical review or manual review process, these aspects are only relative as set by the content or rights holders within a given range or claim.

In artistic review, all critical, journalistic and all trade organizations record these specifications broadly, by their own terms, and specifically send you a notation about the artistic interpretation thereof.

I have participated in the balloting for all forms of media at all age and demographic ranges. No such thing exists as object measure of what is intended for and created by artists and content creators.

[Endus]

No, they can not. You are totally wrong about this. Dead wrong. Not a single publication or outlet has done this- ever.


Give me the quantitative and qualitative quotas for story as an object measurement.

I will go so far as to format it out in CLT, Monadic, P/C or S-MT forms for free. That is how confident I am in that what you are saying is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Many of these can not either. If you ever were part of a technical review or manual review process, these aspects are only relative as set by the content or rights holders within a given range or claim.

In artistic review, all critical, journalistic and all trade organizations record these specifications broadly, by their own terms, and specifically send you a notation about the artistic interpretation thereof.

I have participated in the balloting for all forms of media at all age and demographic ranges. No such thing exists as object measure of what is intended for and created by artists and content creators.

I don't think a lot of people appreciate how totally subjective a lot of qualia actually are. Like, take music. If you expose someone who's familiar with standard Western music using the 8-note scale system, from classical music all the way through modern pop and hip hop, and expose them to traditional music styles from the Middle East or East Asia (probably others, those are specific subgroups I'm familiar with, I'm not trying to be thorough), they'll probably express significant distaste at things like "lack of rhythm" or "atonality" or "lack of tuning" or what have you. But those aren't objective qualia. Not one of them. They're subjectively encultured standards you've been so indoctrinated to you can't even see them as cultural expressions any more, but assume them to be some kind of objective truth.

And like, I'm not a professional music guy; my last musical experiences were high school band and such. I find music theory interesting, so I watch some Youtube pros break stuff down; 12tone and Adam Neely mostly, some Sideways sometimes, these aren't "the best" they're just the ones I've run across and found pleasant and informative. I'm just as encultured as anyone; I listen to a lot of '90s grunge and modern alt/indie stuff, mostly. So yeah, those other global styles make my hindbrain go "yick" and I don't like them. But I know enough to recognize that as my own intrinsic bias and enculturation. I have a lot of difficulty appreciating those styles properly, but I can still understand them, intellectually. In theory. In practice, I've got plenty of other interests and I don't spend the time, because we can't be masters of everything.

To bring this back around, it's like content like Bridgerton, or Downton Abbey. As an experience, I loathe them both, for overlapping reasons. But both, and especially Downton Abbey, are very well crafted. My dislike is subjective and personal, so I don't go around telling people they're "bad" and hoping to win friends.

You can make solid arguments about whether a project succeeds, but any such is almost necessarily going to have to be predicated on a set of culturally established subjective standards and the author's intent with the work. I can crap on Twilight just fine, as a piece of fiction, and not because of my distaste but because of culturally offensive stereotypes and tropes pushed as positives, and writing that is overly repetitive because the author lacks vocabulary and creativity. But that's really dependent on what the author intended; she meant it to be a fun romance. If you were writing about a protagonist who's meant to be horrible, like Humbert Humbert in Nabokov's Lolita, pushing offensive tropes underlines his character failings. If a character is meant to be intellectually impaired, like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon, repetitive speech can demonstrate that lack of facility with language, and Keyes makes this clear because the language in the start changes with Charlie as the experiment takes hold and his intelligence improves, so it's clearly for effect rather than just authorial incompetence.

But that's all very complicated and doesn't boil down to shouting "THE WRITING IS BAD" as if that's a statement that means anything.

[Fencers]

I don't think a lot of people appreciate how totally subjective a lot of qualia actually are

Most of it, yeah. What is that term for people who overestimate their understanding of practical knowledge, process, and capability? There is a specific term for it I can't recall, but that happens all over this forum.

If you have any experience working in media creation and marketing at a commercial level- these notions spouted about are flatly exposed as BS. These folks don't even get the common terminology or lingo correct. It's knowledge via Wikipedia as I say to friends and family.

I think many game players tend to be very interested (& invested) in their media and thus pick up a lot of secondary knowledge. I am certain most posting in this thread would not be able to deliver a DD/T for like Chess. Or format a film script, block a shot, draft a screener, give any YQQ for these "objective" qualities of games, film, etc. To evaluate CP2077 as an object piece of media? That is nonsense. Totally.

Everyone likes to believe their personal likes/dislikes are inarguably true. That they have the correct opinion on this game, comic book, movie, and so on.

It's kinda juvenile.

Like, take music.... And like, I'm not a professional music guy; my last musical experiences were high school band and such... I'm just as encultured as anyone

My grandfather, uncle and aunt were tradional Spanish folk musicians. They made records and played as a Spanish quatro for decades. My grandfather made acoustic guitars by hand. My husband is a drummer and dabbles in piano.

This is absolutely it. Even music theory is relative to a cultural assessment of music and sound. There is no objective standard other than that which people makeup, that can be useful. One can create a means by which one wants to set X or Y qualities as a measure or point of reference. But any other person(s) can come along and create any other set of criteria just as well.

[Skulltaker]

No, they can not. You are totally wrong about this. Dead wrong. Not a single publication or outlet has done this- ever.


Give me the quantitative and qualitative quotas for story as an object measurement.

I will go so far as to format it out in CLT, Monadic, P/C or S-MT forms for free. That is how confident I am in that what you are saying is nonsense.

I think we're not trying to argue the same point. So, just to clarify, because maybe I expressed myself poorly;

I'm not saying that the impact, the emotions art may or may not invoke in individual members of the audience, or, to trivialize, what it 'means to them', can be judged. I'm saying that certain aspects of art can, and these aspects are usually technical in nature. I'm also not saying that these emotions, just because they don't have monetary value, are worthless.

As an example, I've been playing the violin for almost 35 years now. Not professionally, just as a Hobby. Now, I'm fairly certain that it means more to my wife when I play for her on her birthday than it would, if, let's say Izhak Perlmann did. He's still, by far, the superior violinist. I mean, by miles. Or, to expand on this, I have no illusions of grandeur when it comes to the quality of my old High School orchestra. I found a recording of us and listened to it, and... well. We missed cues, played off tune... Doesn't mean that the audience didn't enjoy it, or that it meant nothing to them. Since most were assorted family, I'd say it meant more to them than, let's say, enjoying an evening with the London Symphony orchestra. Still, no one would disagree that one is the vastly superior orchestra, from a technical point of view.

[Ripster42]

Most of it, yeah. What is that term for people who overestimate their understanding of practical knowledge, process, and capability? There is a specific term for it I can't recall, but that happens all over this forum.

Dunning Kruger effect.

[Northern Goblin]

Many of these can not either. If you ever were part of a technical review or manual review process, these aspects are only relative as set by the content or rights holders within a given range or claim.

I'm mostly talking file size, loading times, effects on minimal vs optimal specs and how buggy/bug free something is.

There's set measurements for each of those criteria.

[Fencers]

I think we're not trying to argue the same point. So, just to clarify, because maybe I expressed myself poorly;

That still doesn't make your statement correct or absolve your claims.

Qualities like Story, Dialogue, sounddesign, graphics, even things like stability of the engine and so on, all can be judged objectively, and can for sure be ranked.

This is not true.

I'm mostly talking file size, loading times, effects on minimal vs optimal specs and how buggy/bug free something is.

There's set measurements for each of those criteria.

Which the owners set as well. There is an acceptable tolerance of what the publishers or content owner is willing to accept for a product brought to market. They completely make it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Dunning Kruger effect.

There ya' go. Thanks.

[Skulltaker]

That still doesn't make your statement correct or absolve your claims.

This is not true.

Which the owners set as well. There is an acceptable tolerance of what the publishers or content owner is willing to accept for a product brought to market. They completely make it up.

- - - Updated - - -

There ya' go. Thanks.

Well, you saying it's wrong, or throwing a tantrum, doesn't make you right. You can, of course, again and again, repeat what you're claiming, and completely skipping or dismissing what other people tell you. Doesn't make you seem desperate at all.

Aspects of some forms of art can be judged objectively. Or, things like movies, series, video games, or any kind of performance, aren't art. Because all of those have measurable qualities. If an artist is drunk on stage and vomits halfway into their solo, that performance is, objectively, worse than the last time they performed their piece perfectly.

[Endus]

Aspects of some forms of art can be judged objectively.

Name one artistic aspect you feel can be judged completely objectively. I'll point out how it's not objective in the least.

[Kathandira]

Name one artistic aspect you feel can be judged completely objectively. I'll point out how it's not objective in the least.

Depends on the intent vs the outcome. If the artist tauts that they are creating a photorealistic piece, and it comes out like a caricature, it is objectively a failure. However if they initially stated that it is their artistic representation of a person, then they get to play the subjective card.

Just because Art is subjective in many cases, it doesn't mean there aren't rules. Take music for example. A Waltz must have a time signature of 3/4. If it does not, it is not a Waltz. So if a musician presents you a piece and says it is a Waltz, but it is in 4/4, then it is objectively incorrect.

[Endus]

Depends on the intent vs the outcome. If the artist tauts that they are creating a photorealistic piece, and it comes out like a caricature, it is objectively a failure.

The goal of the artist was objectively not achieved, but that's not the same thing as an objective quality of the art. It is, in fact, explicitly subjective to that artist's intent, by your own admission. Which is why intentional caricatures aren't judged the same way, even if the outcome is very comparable.

[rhorle]

The goal of the artist was objectively not achieved, but that's not the same thing as an objective quality of the art. It is, in fact, explicitly subjective to that artist's intent, by your own admission. Which is why intentional caricatures aren't judged the same way, even if the outcome is very comparable.

Isn't that why we have different genres of art though? Because their are objective things designated for each of those types? Take a book for example. If it is sold as a Sci-Fi novel but contains nothing of that genre is it something that can't be judged because it is art? Or can it be objectively judged for not having elements of that genre?

Wouldn't the type of paint/material be an objective item of the work of art? Oil versus Water. Glass vs Stone. Bronze vs Marble. Those things impart different things to art that can be objectively judged. Things that are not open to interpretation. Even your explanation of caricatures fails to meet your goal as you make a distinction between intentional and non-intentional judgements. Intent is an objective quality. The artwork objectively failed at being photo-realistic. Nothing will change that, right? A good caricature can an objectively bad other thing.

[Kathandira]

You can also judge a person's skills. Line work, Color Theory, Perspective, Gray Scaling, Usage of Negative Space. So on and So on.

Artistic style can be very subjective. But flat out skill can be judged.

[Fencers]

Well, you saying it's wrong, or throwing a tantrum, doesn't make you right. You can, of course, again and again, repeat what you're claiming, and completely skipping or dismissing what other people tell you. Doesn't make you seem desperate at all.

I was having a conversation with you in earnest.

You made some broad claims, I said they were not true flatly. You didn't back up any of those claims or provide any objective mearsuments for the aspects which you yourself cited. I offered to help you as well.

Whatever interpretation you have of hysteria or desperation is your own fantasy.

Aspects of some forms of art can be judged objectively.

This is still wrong. No such thing exists. No publication, platform or outlet does so. No school or scholarly work I know of practices under this belief.

Can you name any?

Because all of those have measurable qualities.

Yes, and these are not objective. You can measure number of words in a book but there is no standard on the quality of those words.

If an artist is drunk on stage and vomits halfway into their solo, that performance is, objectively, worse than the last time they performed their piece perfectly.

Says who? What rubric is passed among critics to this measurement?

David Yow, Iggy Pop, Glen Branca, ATDI, MBV, Spacemen 3, DEP, Black Fast, Weekend Nachos- these performers had total meltdowns on stage and have had those meltdowns judged to be some of the best performances of their careers.