*Shrug* If there was no standard than this couldn't be a possibility. Look at any game objectively and you can find flaws. The key is "does the bad outweigh the good?" That's your standard, and I think we can all agree that X and Y doesn't belong here for that very reason.
Again, again, what objective standard? One man's bug is another's feature. Sure, maybe whether or not a game turns on can be measured objectively, but after that point, you run right into the brick wall of subjectivity and personal opinion. There's no universal standard or checklist you can apply to games that determine whether or not video games are good or fun.
Video games are not cars, where you can just run the engine or crash it into a wall to determine its quality (and even there, there's still a lot of room for personal opinion and taste).
See, you hate the people who like pokemon more than you hate the game.
Where the hell did you get that?
I don't care for Pokemon, but I don't care that people care for Pokemon. The problem comes when people take their love for Pokemon to such an extent that they take any criticism of the franchise as a personal slight, something we see here time and time again.
It's an issue of fanaticism, not difference of opinion. Really, you could replace "Pokemon" in there with anything and the point is just the same - when you hold something as above criticism, that's a problem.
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv
adjective
- 1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
You assume I am incapable of being objectively critical in my analysis of games I like. That's why you're wrong here. And yes, games can be objectively good. Just like movies, music, and books can be objectively good and execute their intents well. And again, there's three categories of games: good, bad but redeemable, and ugly. The bottom line is that you're putting the value of zero to a game that objectively has more value. You can have an opinion, but when it moves from opinion to a factual statement like the thread title I get salty.
Pfft, what?
No, you can't. Feelings on art (like video games, movies, music, paintings, dance, performance, etc.) are inherently influenced by feelings or opinions, along with a multitude of other factors, because art is based entirely around feelings, opinions, emotions, and all that other gooey, subjective stuff. It's simply asinine to assert otherwise.
Furthermore, it's silly to put quality into such rigid categories. Quality is a spectrum with huge ranges, and it's limiting to say video games or anything else can only fit into three predetermined categories. What about games that are just mediocre? Not quite good but certainly not bad? What if a game is just bad, but not enough to be ugly? What if it's just there?
That's not to say that you can't examine things critically and
try (keyword) to be objective in your analysis, but any critic worth his salt will tell you that your own perception will color your work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. Just, you know, keep that in the back of your mind when reading and you'll be all hunky dory.
Nice try Gahars, but I can see right through your facade and see your true form.
This isn't the place for your high school poetry, Sterling.
What is my true form, though? Do I have wings? Am I all sick and gnarly, like some sort of dragon? Or maybe a wyvern, the hipsters of the dragon kingdom? How swole am I? DYEL-level or too swole to control? Please respond.
That's good. I'd be fine with an opinionated article column instead of a hard facts spread.
Good thing you already got that in post #1 on page #1, then.