Hi Thomas, Unfortunately for the view you are expressing here, the universal criteria is precisely the aspect you seem to be dismissing.
I.E. the crowd itself is expressing the universality of what represents a 'good' audio game. It may not be what I like, it may not be what you like, but it absolutely is what the crowd decides is a 'good' game. Put way more simply, which games are popular? The popular games are good games if a good game needs to be one which has mass appeal. I think most of us would agree that regardless of what we ourselves, like, that how 'good' a game is depends on how many people play it and how long it remains popular. These tend to be good indicators of games. This supports the idea that (whether we like it or not) good games tend to be a bit on the simpler side and are games which can be picked up and put down again without a whole lot of thought. If we desire a finer point on this, then we must ask a better question. However, trying to target a question simply because it is more in line with one's own personal views sacrifices the quality of the crowd sourcing. So in essence, we lose the objectivity when that is precisely what we are trying to achieve. So basically, in order to get a more precise result, we must nurture precise objectivity and let that take us where we want to go, whether or not that is where we ourselves feel that the correct answer is. Because, as I mentioned to Dark, whether any of us likes it or not, the world is running this way. People behave this way. Now make no mistake here, I am not personally making value judgements on what I think is right or wrong. I am merely saying that for certain data such as the quality of a game, the objective direction people seem to want is already here. We are in it right now. It is this community itself and the messages we are reading and agreeing or disagreeing with. This is the best real indicator of what really is 'good' or 'bad' in this community. Watching it happen is valuable… Thanks Thomas, for such a great note! Smiles, Cara :) --- iOS design and development - LookTel.com --- View my Online Portfolio at: http://www.onemodelplace.com/CaraQuinn Follow me on Twitter! https://twitter.com/ModelCara On May 14, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Thomas Ward <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Dark, Agreed. There has to be some basis, some universal criteria, in which a good game is based upon otherwise everyone's opinion right, wrong, and otherwise is equally valid. We know that not to be true because some games do very well and others don't. therefore it would be helpful to study what features, what designs, have traditionally made a game successful otherwise games will not improve, not get better, and will only be no better or worse than the developer's personal opinion of the game. Eventually games would just stagnate, never evolve, because one person's opinion is as good as the next. However, we know one opinion is not as good as the next. Having more than one opinion of what makes a game good is what causes innovation, creativity, and eventually competition. We need look no further than our own audio games community to see that in action. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's there were a number of audio game developers who were creating games based on Space Invaders. All were slightly different and unique. We had ESP's Alien Outback, BSC's Troopanum, PB Games' Dark Destroyer, and so on. What's so interesting about those games is how they are all different, and that in various ways ESP and BSC did a lot to innovate and add features to their games that made them unique such as the robot landers in Alien Outback or the moon rocks in Troopanum 2. Each had an idea they thought was a good idea, and those ideas set them apart from one another. Likewise my game Mysteries of the Ancients is fairly different from say Q9 and Super Liam. The big difference is I wanted to base the game more on a true 2d platformer similar to what was available for the NES and Super NES and incorporates a lot of 2d movement such as climbing ropes, ladders, jumping off of high ledges, and so forth. Back when the game was in public testing it was well received by the audio games community probably because I was not simply satisfied with the simplistic 1d format used by other accessible side-scrollers. Therefore having a full 2d game world turned out to be a good game design. Point being, one idea is not as good as another and there are likely some universal concepts that make a game good or better than another game of a similar type. Certainly specific characteristics will very from person to person, but there is some basis from which they base their opinions on that is the key to a successful game. Its up to a developer to figure out what people base their opinions of a good game on in order to make better games. Cheers! On 5/15/14, dark <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem charlse as I explained with just saying "beauty is in the eye > of the beholder" is that then you have no grounds for cryticism or comment > at all sinse ultimately everyone can just say "well I like this" or "I > don't like that" > > Suppose for example I were to claime that Jim's reaction test game is the > best game in the universe, and david greenwood had utterly wasted his time > with shades of doom. Well, if everything is relative, you cannot argue with > > me. No sighting of the good features of shades of doom, it's atmosphere, > it's challenge, it's requirement for exploration will make it a better game > > than Jim's rection test sinse it's all relative, indeed if everything is > relative then sighting of good features of shades of doom simply translates > > to "what I like" > > Still worse, when designing a game someone cannot attempt to "look at what > is good" or "Decide on good features of a design" sinse again everything > just comes down to relative opinion. > > This is not an idle threat either. I remember some years ago a developer had > > created a game which he was expecting money for, which lacked many features > > of a decent game. he! claimed the game was awsome and that he liked it, > other people disagreed, and thus the game never improved at all and now I'm > > willing to bet has been utterly forgotten about. > > This is the problem with relativism in any field where things are designed. > > It is an attractive position, sinse it does take into account the fact as > you said that different people like different things, and also it allows a > validity of opinion to everyone. The problem however is total relativism is > > ultimately unhelpful, and by making everyone's opinion equally valid, you > also make everyone's opinion equally invalid. > > Of course, a complete absolutism, saying "this is good irrispective of what > > you think" isn't going to be helpful either. This is why i personally lean > towards a medium position, that though there are! characteristics which make > > a good game, or peace of music, or peace of literature, how these > characteristics are applied, and indeed to what extent certain > chracteristics matter is an individuualistic matter. > > For example, I do not like sports games. Sports have little interest to me, > > particularly sports like American football and baseball that I am less than > > familiar with the rules of. > > yet, I look at Jim kitchin's baseball game, at the neetd to develop reflexes > > in the swinging of the bat, to assign player actions strategically, the use > > of sounds for advertisements and the ability to customize the teams, and I > can say these characteristics make it a well designed game, just one in a > genre and of a style that does not interest me. > > these! are the sorts of discussions that are interesting, discussing with > others what makes a good game and how well those characteristics are > applied, a discussion we would not be able to have if indeed everything was > > entirely relative, sinse ultimately we'd all then just be saying "I like > this" or "I don't like that" which pretty much ends most discussion dead. > > Beware the Grue! > > Dark. > > > --- > Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] > If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to > [email protected]. > You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at > http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. > All messages are archived and can be searched and read at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. > If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, > please send E-mail to [email protected]. > --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected]. --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
