Is it possible to objectively rate/compare games?

[Nimrota]

One recurring theme that comes up when arguing with Starfield fans online is that they say games cannot be objectively compared to one another. For instance, "games are objectively better or worse than others, which just isn’t a thing. Whether or not a game is better or worse is a subjective opinion." This is usually in response to me pointing out what I see are objective flaws in the game design, particularly RPG mechanics, which are comparative across games and therefore can be weighed against one another. But again, as they say, "And how one judges and rates those mechanics is subjective, again making this a subjective topic."

So do you think games can be objectively compared? I find it strange people do not believe they can be, since games are simply design decisions and player experience, which can be contrasted across games. The fact that people think it is wholly subjective to suggest one game is better or worse designed is completely alien, and I'm not sure if this is common or just Starfield fans seething that their game is quite weak, so they have to try and defend it by pretending it is subjective ("it's fun to scan rocks for 200h!).

Edit: Take this Reset Era poll I just found in which 43% of people said there is no such thing as an objectively bad game as an example of the mentality I'm talking about.

To quote one user in that thread:

Nope. The very idea is silly.

It's all relative, and all dependent on personal experience, taste, and other games one knows.

 

[Gamernyc78]

One recurring theme that comes up when arguing with Starfield fans online is that they say games cannot be objectively compared to one another. For instance, "games are objectively better or worse than others, which just isn’t a thing. Whether or not a game is better or worse is a subjective opinion." This is usually in response to me pointing out what I see are objective flaws in the game design, particularly RPG mechanics, which are comparative across games and therefore can be weighed against one another. But again, as they say, "And how one judges and rates those mechanics is subjective, again making this a subjective topic."

So do you think games can be objectively compared? I find it strange people do not believe they can be, since games are simply design decisions and player experience, which can be contrasted across games. The fact that people think it is wholly subjective to suggest one game is better or worse designed is completely alien, and I'm not sure if this is common or just Starfield fans seething that their game is quite weak, so they have to try and defend it by pretending it is subjective ("it's fun to scan rocks for 200h!).

Yes, I believe so if your not a schill, paid fanboy. There are definitely objective aspects of games such as graphics, performance, etc Of course there are subjective aspects as well such as art style, fun factor, etc... But a reviewer should be able to objectively review certain things about a game.

 

[BroodCorp]

Starfield has no business being compared to Spider-Man 2, for example.

 

[Zzero]

You can compare and contrast games (and literally anything else) all day but unless you are literally talking about math you will have to accept that art is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[shrike0fth0rns]

One recurring theme that comes up when arguing with Starfield fans online is that they say games cannot be objectively compared to one another. For instance, "games are objectively better or worse than others, which just isn’t a thing. Whether or not a game is better or worse is a subjective opinion." This is usually in response to me pointing out what I see are objective flaws in the game design, particularly RPG mechanics, which are comparative across games and therefore can be weighed against one another. But again, as they say, "And how one judges and rates those mechanics is subjective, again making this a subjective topic."

So do you think games can be objectively compared? I find it strange people do not believe they can be, since games are simply design decisions and player experience, which can be contrasted across games. The fact that people think it is wholly subjective to suggest one game is better or worse designed is completely alien, and I'm not sure if this is common or just Starfield fans seething that their game is quite weak, so they have to try and defend it by pretending it is subjective ("it's fun to scan rocks for 200h!).

probably not I’m bias asf. I like ps I hold their games in the highest esteem and to the highest standards and if non PlayStation games aren’t at that live I usually won’t even touch them. I used to buy dozens of games a year now it’s like a handful because I think most of the stuff in the industry is garbage. Nintendo is definitely garbage and Xbox isn’t much better

 

[Nimrota]

Yes, I believe so if your not a schill, paid fanboy. There are definitely objective aspects of games such as graphics, performance, etc Of course there are subjective aspects as well such as art style, fun factor, etc... But a reviewer should be able to objectively review certain things about a game.

A lot of people try to reduce it down to fun. "I'm having fun so the game is good on some level" which is strange because your subjective belief of fun has nothing to do with the game or its design at all. In this sense it comes across as projection to claim its "subjective" to critique a game when the defence of the design flaws is the subjective "fun".

 

[Arc]

I feel strongly about this one.

It upsets fans of any kind of media, but there are certain objective truths. The drive to just handwave this stuff by saying everything is subjective is reductive, and a bit of a cop-out I think.

That said, there are also subjective truths that can’t really be measured or weighed, that must be respected.

To compare to movies, we can certainly review the quality of the filmmaking, the direction, the techniques used (CG for example), the writing quality, and we can probably get a pretty good idea of where that thing lands in an objective sense.

How it affects you? That’s subjective. It’s entirely possible to acknowledge something is well made, and not be interested in it, or vice versa.

 

[Nimrota]

You can compare and contrast games (and literally anything else) all day but unless you are literally talking about math you will have to accept that art is in the eye of the beholder.

Well specifically all games are code, there is a baseline to which we could mathematically compare the products. Take Dark Souls and Starfield's melee combat system. In Starfield, all melee weapons are the same from a gameplay perspective. They all swing at the same speed, only the damage number changes. In Dark Souls, weapons differ wildly and it's not just about >damage on your next weapon. So DS has a range of weapon speeds designed and coded for the game, Starfield does not. Which of the two systems creates a better product? Looking it on a granular level like this ignores "well the rest of Dark Souls isn't fun" because it's not about a direct comparison of the games yet, just the systems. If Starfield had varying weapon speeds and animations, would it be better or worse?

 

[catchew]

after watching the veritas video (fantastic in depth video btw). absolutely.

it's game design. i have to admit i did succumb into the fomo on starfield. 100 bucks a pop for the premium edition. and just reading and listening to those who score it with perfect reviews 10/10 and 100s. touting it game of a generation. are honestly being disingenuous. and with that you'll resolve to comparing it. "if its game of a generation. then what is it offering that no other game has. what's transformative about it?" the game is being highly praised for what it isn't. instead of what it is as a bgs game. the more people play it. the more people will start seeing its flaws.

its a decent game. but not bg3 levels of intricacy in narrative. not the forever game in space they make it out to be. skyrim already did all that.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Yes. but it will require a deep understanding and nuance of the medium. so No.

 

[Nimrota]

Yes. but it will require a deep understanding and nuance of the medium. so No.

Certainly impossible for any games media outlet or member to do so.

 

[Nimrota]

after watching the veritas video (fantastic in depth video btw). absolutely.

it's game design. i have to admit i did succumb into the fomo on starfield. 100 bucks a pop for the premium edition. and just reading and listening to those who score it with perfect reviews 10/10 and 100s. touting it game of a generation. are honestly being disingenuous. and with that you'll resolve to comparing it. "if its game of a generation. then what is it offering that no other game has. what's transformative about it?" the game is being highly praised for what it isn't. instead of what it is as a bgs game. the more people play it. the more people will start seeing its flaws.

its a decent game. but not bg3 levels of intricacy in narrative. not the forever game in space they make it out to be. skyrim already did all that.

Argument about Starfield usually goes like this:
"Starfield isn't that good."
"Well it has 1000 planets, lots to explore, lots of content, no other game matches that so it must be good."
"NMS has that level of content."
"NMS doesn't have a good quality BGS narrative or RPG elements like Starfield."
"Starfield's narrative and RPG elements are weaker than other BGS games and other contemporary RPGs."
"Well it has 1000 planets, lots to explore, no other RPG has that. Besides, I'm having fun."
"Having fun doesn't make it objectively a good RPG compared to other games."
"Well you can't objectively compare games anyway so as long as you're having fun it is good."
"I'm not having fun with Starfield."
"Well that's subjective so that's your problem ergo the game is good."

 

[Arc]

Argument about Starfield usually goes like this:
"Starfield isn't that good."
"Well it has 1000 planets, lots to explore, lots of content, no other game matches that so it must be good."
"NMS has that level of content."
"NMS doesn't have a good quality BGS narrative or RPG elements like Starfield."
"Starfield's narrative and RPG elements are weaker than other BGS games and other contemporary RPGs."
"Well it has 1000 planets, lots to explore, no other RPG has that. Besides, I'm having fun."
"Having fun doesn't make it objectively a good RPG compared to other games."
"Well you can't objectively compare games anyway so as long as you're having fun it is good."
"I'm not having fun with Starfield."
"Well that's subjective so that's your problem ergo the game is good."

Or the opposite of this, where you’re detailing why you think a game is well made, actual, concrete things, and the other person says, ‘Well I didn’t have fun, so’.

 

[ethomaz]

Yes if you stay at technical points.
I mean you can score based in the framerate… it will be always objective.

But others things like Story, Character, Music, Art Style/Graphics, Gameplay, etc are all subjective.

 

[anonpuffs]

You can compare objective facts about games, but you can't compare them objectively because the apportionment of significance to the various comparisons is a subjective matter.

For example, i can compare starfield to cyberpunk in the objective performance metrics in terms of fps, frame rate stability, inclusion of various technical features like raytracing, the presence or absence of various gameplay features such as vehicles, starships, basebuilding, choice driven dialogue, reactive environments, the complexity and accuracy of physics and world interactivity.

But what if game A has better graphics than game B, but worse gameplay or physics? Then it becomes subjective.

Thankfully, Starfield is objectively worse than most modern AAA games in most areas and so can be said to be objectively worse than most modern AAA games.

 

[Cool hand luke]

I voted yes but technically it's no. You've just got a bunch of subjective opinions, and aggregates aren't any closer to objectivity, they're just a subjective consensus.

That said, Starfield sucks donkey dick and some people just love donkey dick. Good, normal humans don't love donkey dick, but bad taste exists.

 

[Nimrota]

Yes if you stay at technical points.
I mean you can score based in the framerate… it will be always objective.

But others things like Story, Character, Music, Art Style/Graphics, Gameplay, etc are all subjective.

I certainly disagree with your second sentence. Perhaps the most that I agree with is music is largely subjective, but even then we can compare how games utilise music. Games with great soundtracks have music that fits it, or where it is used in a diegetic sense to enhance the experience. Fallout's radio playing on the pipboy as you walk the world is an implementation of music that many other games don't match, and that music helps the worldbuilding, gameplay, etc, so it has consequences on the other objective elements of the game. Art style/graphics I can agree is certainly subjective. I think games like Splatoon are ugly, but get why Borderland's has the style it does, but a preference towards or against these elements shouldn't negatively impact the game except as to its implementation within the game. Story and characters are both writing, so they can be critiqued. E.g. Starfield's quests being narratively broken or the internal logic being contradictory makes it worse than any game in which the narrative is cohesive and stable. Gameplay is mixed I feel. On one level you can discuss the mechanics, on the other it's subjective. E.g. 1st/3rd person gameplay which is "better" isn't a real argument in general since it's a stylistic choice and preference is subjective. I don't really like racing games but I can still respect when they're well designed beyond my subjective preference for the game. "Feel" has a lot to do with games even though quantifying that is tricky, but if it was deliberately designed that way there is something tangible behind it.

 

[ethomaz]

I certainly disagree with your second sentence. Perhaps the most that I agree with is music is largely subjective, but even then we can compare how games utilise music. Games with great soundtracks have music that fits it, or where it is used in a diegetic sense to enhance the experience. Fallout's radio playing on the pipboy as you walk the world is an implementation of music that many other games don't match, and that music helps the worldbuilding, gameplay, etc, so it has consequences on the other objective elements of the game. Art style/graphics I can agree is certainly subjective. I think games like Splatoon are ugly, but get why Borderland's has the style it does, but a preference towards or against these elements shouldn't negatively impact the game except as to its implementation within the game. Story and characters are both writing, so they can be critiqued. E.g. Starfield's quests being narratively broken or the internal logic being contradictory makes it worse than any game in which the narrative is cohesive and stable. Gameplay is mixed I feel. On one level you can discuss the mechanics, on the other it's subjective. E.g. 1st/3rd person gameplay which is "better" isn't a real argument in general since it's a stylistic choice and preference is subjective. I don't really like racing games but I can still respect when they're well designed beyond my subjective preference for the game. "Feel" has a lot to do with games even though quantifying that is tricky, but if it was deliberately designed that way there is something tangible behind it.

I think I got what you are saying...
I believe you look at the technical aspect of the story, characters, art stype/graphics, gameplay, etc you can indeed be objective.
But after that, when you start to review past the technical aspect, you start to be subjective.

I will try to give two examples...

Story first... like you said if you look at cohesion, coherence, grammar, etc you will be objetive but comparing two stories you will like one more than other while another person will like in the opposite way that is subjetive.
And how you feel the story (subjective part) is more important for overall enjoyment than the technical aspects of that same Story.
So for a review it is more important the subjetive analysis of the Story than the objective.

The second example, Graphics/Art Style... you can indeed look at the technical areas like resolution, AA, artifacts, ghosts, etc... and while these parts can broke a game the most important is still the subjective part... how to you like the graphics by how it looks for you.
You can say the art of the graphics are what people like or dislike.
Unless there are a technical part of the graphics that is really atrocious... you end reviewing what makes you enjoy the graphics that is subjective.

I understand the ideia of making full technical reviews.
But that has no use for the average games... in fact there is no use to most of users.
They don't care about technical parts unless it is really something that broke the game.
They care about the experience, enjoyment, feeling of playing that game... that is all subjetive.

IMO there is no way to change that because that is what majority of gamers (and persons) want... subjective reviews.
It is the same for movies, music, TV Shows, Stand Up, etc.