We all use the word "objectively" ironically, but is

>>386780775
No.
All games are inherently different. Everyone's opinions are inherently different. There can be a general consensus, where certain games are accepted to be great, but at the end of the day, peoples tastes can be so radically different that theyres no way it can happen

>>386780775
The file size

>>386780775

tetris is cool

>>386780775
I don't think so, games are a lot like music. There are methods and ideals to strive for. But it doesn't stop Tyrone thinking JayZ is better than Mozart. And it won't stop Timmy from loving NoMans Sky more than Warcraft 3.

Sales numbers.

>>386780775
For something to be objectively good, you have to be able to quantify it.

You can't actively quantify things in games besides Length, and even that's subjective.

>>386780775
I'd say buggyness and netcode are objective qualities.
if your game literally can't be played even the way the developers intended it it's shit.

>>386781094
This. If a game is good, it will sell.

>>386780775
it's an easy formula

company profit x average hours of playtime

profit ensures continuity for the game (not 100%) or support if it's multiplayer
hours of playtime translates into enjoyment of the playerbase

>>386782486
That's not necessarily true. Games are sold on the EXPECTATION that the game is good, and that's more down those in charge of publicity rather than those in charge of programming.

>>386780775
yea
cerebrospinal fluid taps, brain scans, and neurological profiling
fun is a science and people who pretend there aren't objective standards for it are retarded

>>386785662
So why don't we use those instead of a percentage grading system? Are games reviewers somehow immune to brain scans?

On second though, don't answer that.

>>386785842
Because game reviewers don't review games, they shill, and the truth of the matter is your average person has absolutely generic taste and would find everything even shit fun.
This stuff goes into game development and marketing, not front end consumer relevant stuff, who mostly get fucked by it, as it's used to create chemical addiction and milk them for money.

>>386780775
Sales?

>>386785662
But all that does is measure a human's feelings.

>>386780775
'Good' and 'objective' are naturally conflicting words. There is no 'objectively good game' for the concept is a contradiction.

>>386786196
Which can be generalized and quantified and analyzed, predicting what an individual of a certain disposition will find most entertaining as well as how to reward them in a manner that continues engagement.

>>386786359
That absolutely does not make fun objectively measurable. For something to be objective, it must be independent of a person's feelings. All you've done is show that you can measure someone's subjective feeling of fun.

>>386786585
If something can be standardized and measured, it is no longer subjective.
Feelings themselves are objectively determinable.

No. The Value of goods and services is subjective.
Get fucked marxists.

>>386780929
first post best post, as usual.

>>386786646
>If something can be standardized and measured, it is no longer subjective.

You've shown that you can objectively measure emotions, you have not shown that emotions themselves are not dependent on feelings.

>>386786359
Continued engagement is no indicator of quality. Crack addicts really love their crack but I can't imagine they'd recommend other people take up crack.

Unless you offer them crack, then they'll say whatever you want.

>>386786646
Fun is an emotional response. Emotional responses are subjective by definition. The fact that you can quantify "fun" doesn't mean it is objective.

>>386780775
What is the game's objective? If we assume its to be fun then the game that the most people find fun would objectively be the best. If its trying to be spooky then the game that the most people find spooky would be the best. And so on.

Basically, popularity.

>>386786646
You haven't solved the problem at all. The feelings will still differ from person to person.

>this still hasn't devolved into a stealth /u/ thread
>SonIAmDissapoint.jpg

>>386786646
An objective measure of a subjective response does not make the subjective response objective.

>>386780775
Yes. Just examining its qualities is enough to be objective.
Fallout 4 for example, it's not subjective, that game is objectively bad.

>>386786646
>Feelings themselves are objectively determinable.
But not standardizeable.
Different people can react to the same stimulus with vastly different feelings.
How can you be so fucking unsocial and introverted that you don't realize that people are shaped by different experiences.