Everyone has a valid opinion/taste? Don't make me laugh

[Taerdin]

There is no textbook knowledge of video games, people's opinions are completely subjective.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "opinion".

I don't know what you mean by textbook knowledge of games. I could show you a text book on game design that talks about what qualities a game needs to be a good game in that genre.

Opinions are subjective, in that they differ from person to person, but they are based on personal experience and facts. When you experience something you form an opinion on it, and the more you experience a particular medium the more your opinion is informed as to what it means to be a part of that medium and what qualities a good piece of media has.

If I'm still misunderstanding you then please try to reach me. I promise I'm not impossible and the entire point of this thread is for me to gain a greater understanding (for me anyways)

 

[him over there]

Yes of course, because your opinion on a game or movie or piece of music is invalid until you've listened to/ played/ watched every one ever conceived.

This is not what I'm saying at all.

Surely you're not suggesting that someone who has never played a game in their lives is just as good of a judge of what a great game is as you are?

Same for movies or music?

The logical extension of my argument is that if you experienced all of these things your opinion would be as informed and valid as it could be, but their are varying degrees of validity. If you have only played 1% of games (which is still a huge number of games), your opinion is for instance worth much more than someone who has only played 0.00001%, or do you disagree?

I'm saying that you can't have a more valid opinion because quality isn't objective. People may be looking for different things in a game. Plus this argument is really only applicable to comparative work. You seem to be saying that someone's best game ever is wrong because they haven't played as many games as others. Isn't their best game ever subjective? I'm just saying that you can't have a more or less valid opinion about something subjective.[/quote]

 

[Entropyutd]

Thoughts?

Well it would be nice if you had any that didn't involve failed attempts to make you look less like a cuntnugget.

 

[Vault101]

hmmm..I dont know about "informed"

but if somone cant explain their like/dislike for somthing in a detailed manner then Im less likley to takw their opinion seriously

like

portal sucks?
why?
it just does..

or on the other hand

portal sucks!
why?
its gay, there's no shooting!
your an idiot

OR....

Portal sucks!
why
I dont like puzzles and it was too short <-that I can acept

 

[Taerdin]

I'm saying that you can't have a more valid opinion because quality isn't objective. People may be looking for different things in a game. Plus this argument is really only applicable to comparative work. You seem to be saying that someone's best game ever is wrong because they haven't played as many games as others. Isn't their best game ever subjective? I'm just saying that you can't have a more or less valid opinion about something subjective.

Quality may not be strictly objective but there are generally similar standards by which things are judged, and also people who have very similar if not the same subjective taste as each other in one or more particular things.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but of course someone's personal best game ever is always valid, but when they state 'this game is good' or 'this is the best game ever made' if they have not played any other games how can these statements ever be seen as valid? Whether subjective statements or not?

Also I'm not solely talking about objective quality here, I'm also talking about individual subjective quality. The more you experience games the more informed your subjective opinion of what you personally like is. If you've only played one game it is your personal favourite game, but the more games you play your personal favourite game will change, and theoretically if you could play all games you would come to your personal favourite game of all time. Thus your subjective opinion of what you yourself like comes closer to being 100% valid the more you experience in that medium, no?

 

[C F]

Opinions are what they are. Only if you seek to challenge someone else's, should you worry about arming it with your justifications.

Of course, any given opinion is open to debate. And once an opinion has been challenged, it can be deconstructed and all reasoning behind it can be analyzed to your heart's content. Then you can determine whether or not it is a "valid" opinion. Just keep in mind that "good" and "bad" are subjective qualities, and they can't be systematically disproved.

You aren't the one eating the steak. The kid is. And whether or not the steak is good, the kid likes it.
I think that's all that really counts.

 

[Ieyke]

It's true, a lot of opinions are basically worthless.
The opinion of a person well-versed in the subject at hand is infinitely more worthwhile than the opinion of a person who has never encountered the subject before.

You don't ask a half-blind guy what he thinks of a piece of art. You ask an art critic.
You don't ask George Lucas what he thinks is happening in the Cantina. You ask anyone else.
You don't ask a little kid which gem is more valuable. You ask a gemologist.
You don't ask Jason Mewes if he thinks something is a wise idea. You ask a philosopher.
You don't ask a visiting Eskimo if it's unusually hot outside in Texas. You ask a Texan.

 

[Taerdin]

But once you define truth as "What the experienced people say", saying that the opinions of experienced people are closer to the truth than those of a layman just becomes circular reasoning.
"This person's opinion is closer to the truth, because the opinions of people like him has been arbitrarily defined as the truth."

No not arbitrarily, but BECAUSE they have more experience. If I was in a dangerous situation, lets say a power plant was melting down and people are about to die imminently. There are two men who have proposed solutions, one of the men has no experience at all with nuclear plants, and doesnt even work there, and the other man has worked at that plant all his life, which is more likely to be correct?

It's POSSIBLE that the more experienced person is wrong, of course. These are not absolutes, there are never absolutes. I'm just trying to say that in general someone with more experience is more likely to know what they are talking about, and therefore their opinion is more valid.

Personally, I prefer my food to contain lots of salt. A connoisseur would tell me I'm ruining the food, but that's only because he's ascribing his puristic preferences to my cooking. To claim that his tastes are closer to an objective truth than mine are, just because he has more experience in the field simply doesn't work out.

See that's perfect for you. If you have experienced enough steaks to determine that that is exactly how you like it, then you have reached your informed and valid opinion.

But if for instance someone had no idea how they liked their meat needed help to figure that out for themselves, should they not look to someone more experienced than they? Maybe they meet a connoisseur and try that out and it's exactly what they like. Maybe it's not. But the more experience someone has the more likely they are able to help that person find their own personal informed valid best steak meal, assuming they have enough of an understanding of that persons own subjective tastes.

For instance if I also liked my steaks well done but wasn't sure what cut was best, or what sauce to use, or what spice or how much spice, maybe you would be someone who could give me some advice on that front? Or do you disagree?

 

[requisitename]

If everyone were looking for exactly the same thing in games/TV/movies/music/steaks, you may have a point that some are necessarily better than others universally. Unfortunately for your point, what I am looking for in each of those things may or may not be what you are looking for. That doesn't make you right and me wrong. Your opinion is better for yourself and YOUR "taste", but that doesn't mean it is better for mine.

For instance: I'm not a gamer, but I've played some games. I think MarioKart and Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure are awesome. Do they have the best graphics? Obviously not. The best storylines? No.

What I am looking for in a game, that is - what influences my opinion of a game - is whether it's a) fun to me and b) something I can play without constant frustration because it's too hard. Technical perfection, amazing graphics and kick-ass storyline are nothing to me if I don't want to play it for more than two minutes.

Does that make my opinion less valid than yours? Absolutely not. Because I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't like. I'm keeping my opinion to "what's good to me". It doesn't matter if you've played 20,000 games to my 20 - you know what you like and I know what I like. If someone were to ask me for a recommendation or whatnot, I'd tell them "this is what I like/don't like and this is why". No matter how much you may want to, you can't invalidate what is good in my opinion because my opinion pertains to what I like and whether it's "objectively good" or "objectively bad" (in someone else's opinion) I'm still going to like it because..

"it's good to me."

 

[FernandoV]

I'm talking about this solely in the context of how good something is. Someone's taste is obviously what they like, and good enough for them, but their opinion or taste doesn't say anything about the quality of a product/media unless it's well informed.

The thing about 'everyone has tastes' is that some peoples' tastes are less informed than others. I'm not going to have a starving African child tell me which steakhouse serves the best quality steak. If you gave that starving African child the worst steak on Earth he would probably love it and love you for it. That doesn't make it a good steak.

Just like when some kid who has no idea what a good game is plays a game and finds it fun, that doesn't say anything about the quality of the game.

Now if you're going to give actual reasons and arguments that's one thing, but if you state something like 'well it's good in my opinion', then your opinion is probably garbage in the first place and to be ignored.

Thoughts?

Uh...so basically you are saying that something inherently subjective such as an opinion or inclination can be valid or invalid? No, just no.

No no no.

Just no.

You can argue something is better than something else but in the end no matter if you've eaten 20 million steaks, just because you like Steak A and I like Steak B and have only eaten 10 million steaks, does not make Steak A objectively better.

Just no.

 

[Valanthe]

I believe you are confusing a critical analysis with an opinion. They are apples and oranges, If you are attempting to offer a critical opinion of a game as compared to others, then yes, your experience should come into consideration, as that experience allows you to ground your analysis with hard evidence.

An opinion, on the other hand, is exactly that. It does matter if I've played one game or one thousand, if I think Mirror's Edge is an awesome game, then I think it's awesome, end of discussion. My experience in the field is of little worth when offering a subjective opinion because I'm not going to step back from my own experience to offer justification greater than 'I liked it a lot.'

 

[Jonluw]

But once you define truth as "What the experienced people say", saying that the opinions of experienced people are closer to the truth than those of a layman just becomes circular reasoning.
"This person's opinion is closer to the truth, because the opinions of people like him has been arbitrarily defined as the truth."

No not arbitrarily, but BECAUSE they have more experience. If I was in a dangerous situation, lets say a power plant was melting down and people are about to die imminently. There are two men who have proposed solutions, one of the men has no experience at all with nuclear plants, and doesnt even work there, and the other man has worked at that plant all his life, which is more likely to be correct?

This is a situation wherein an objective truth exists. One person (the more experienced one) is more likely to know this truth or parts of it.
It's like my earlier example with the car.
I was under the impression that we were discussing taste though.

Personally, I prefer my food to contain lots of salt. A connoisseur would tell me I'm ruining the food, but that's only because he's ascribing his puristic preferences to my cooking. To claim that his tastes are closer to an objective truth than mine are, just because he has more experience in the field simply doesn't work out.

See that's perfect for you. If you have experienced enough steaks to determine that that is exactly how you like it, then you have reached your informed and valid opinion.

An informed and valid opinion that is certain to change if I were to devote more attention to steaks.

But if for instance someone had no idea how they liked their meat needed help to figure that out for themselves, should they not look to someone more experienced than they?

That would depend. Would the more experienced person be capable of setting aside his own preferences?
If he were, he would be able to make a reasonable guess at what that person is going to like based on what most people like when they have no prior experience with meat. In which case he would be wise to recommend some sort of fast food. Or maybe beef jerky.
He certainly shouldn't recommend a rare steak with no spices prepared at a gourmet restaurant.

In this situation, then, you have defined the truth as "That which most people agree on is tasty". Which means that a connoisseur's tastes are as far from the truth as they can be. The person would be just as well off trying to find out what kind of meat most people eat and try that. Even if the connoisseur was able to put his personal tastes aside and try to guess what the inexperienced person's tastes would be like.

Maybe they meet a connoisseur and try that out and it's exactly what they like. Maybe it's not. But the more experience someone has the more likely they are able to help that person find their own personal informed valid best steak meal, assuming they have enough of an understanding of that persons own subjective tastes.

If a person has no experience with steaks, they have no preference in steaks to explain to the connoisseur. If they have enough experience to be able to explain their preferences to a connoisseur, they don't need his help, provided they have access to the facts the connoisseur would use to make a judgement.

For instance if I also liked my steaks well done but wasn't sure what cut was best, or what sauce to use, or what spice or how much spice, maybe you would be someone who could give me some advice on that front? Or do you disagree?

Someone who has experience with sauces and cuts, may try to make a guess as to what kind you will prefer, yes. This will be based on what most inexperienced people happen to like or what kind of tastes you claim to like however, not some sort of ultimate truth as to which cut or sauce is "best".

Yes, he may be more suited to make a judgement as to what will fit you better, but if he acts like a professional, that judgement should be detached from his opinion. His opinion is no nearer to the truth or more valid than yours, he is merely more qualified to attempt to guess what your opinion may be.

 

[Taerdin]

Uh...so basically you are saying that something inherently subjective such as an opinion or inclination can be valid or invalid?

More like valid and less valid.

You can argue something is better than something else but in the end no matter if you've eaten 20 million steaks, just because you like Steak A and I like Steak B and have only eaten 10 million steaks, does not make Steak A objectively better.

It doesn't necessarily make it better, but if the only things being taken into consideration were the experiences of each person then the person with more experience is more likely to be correct.

I'm not talking about who can argue it better. Of course the person who argues it correct is correct whether they're experienced or not.

 

[DarkRyter]

I'm talking about this solely in the context of how good something is. Someone's taste is obviously what they like, and good enough for them, but their opinion or taste doesn't say anything about the quality of a product/media unless it's well informed.

The thing about 'everyone has tastes' is that some peoples' tastes are less informed than others. I'm not going to have a starving African child tell me which steakhouse serves the best quality steak. If you gave that starving African child the worst steak on Earth he would probably love it and love you for it. That doesn't make it a good steak.

Just like when some kid who has no idea what a good game is plays a game and finds it fun, that doesn't say anything about the quality of the game.

Now if you're going to give actual reasons and arguments that's one thing, but if you state something like 'well it's good in my opinion', then your opinion is probably garbage in the first place and to be ignored.

Thoughts?

You seem awfully closed minded.

There is no completely objective measure of quality. Good and bad, in a sense do not exist. There's no sort of "absolute truth" when it comes to quality. Any sort of judgement on the matter of quality is equally as valid as anything other, which is to say, not at all.

Someone could enjoy a game entirely based on the font used for the credits sequence, and that opinion would be as equally worthwhile as any other.

In anything, there is no specific element that shows a logical connection to the concept of "good" or "bad".

Any sort of standard would be completely arbitrary.

Summary: All opinions are worthless because there's no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong. Subjectivity renders the idea of critical validity completely superficial.

 

[Taerdin]

Yes, he may be more suited to make a judgement as to what will fit you better, but if he acts like a professional, that judgement should be detached from his opinion. His opinion is no nearer to the truth or more valid than yours, he is merely more qualified to attempt to guess what your opinion may be.

Is an opinion from someone who is more qualified to guess your opinion not more valid than from someone who isn't?

I think what's happening here is you're getting too hung up on the 'objective truth' side of this debate. If we can agree that everyone has their own subjective truth that is true for them at a particular point in time regardless of the fact that it may change in the future, and the fact that someone who has experienced a lot of things in that area may be more qualified to judge what will be this subjective truth for that person, or at least guide them onto the path of finding it, then I feel like we agree.

In fact I almost didn't reply to your last post because I feel like we are very close to agreement here.

 

[Fraught]

The world is to us how we perceive it. There IS no objectively best anything. Which games are best is determined by enjoyment experienced by the player and games go for different things. Some like games with a darker tone, some enjoy a lighter tone. Some get more enjoyment out of something because of nostalgic value, or certain frustrating game elements, because they like the challenge. Some like games to be short and pack a punch, some find more enjoyment out of a gradual exposure to a conflict and connecting with the characters deeply before stepping into tragedy with them.

There is no objective way to present a story or make characters traverse a world in a game that is the best.

And I don't get the African child argument. You're arguing about the validity of opinions but...the African child may like the shit steak, 'cause food is a biological necessity and whatnot, but...what? He can still think the steak you think is all "better" and "high-quality" is better than the one he's given. Doesn't mean you can ONLY like that which is the best. I really don't get the point of this, uhh, simile.

 

[Jonluw]

Yes, he may be more suited to make a judgement as to what will fit you better, but if he acts like a professional, that judgement should be detached from his opinion. His opinion is no nearer to the truth or more valid than yours, he is merely more qualified to attempt to guess what your opinion may be.

Is an opinion from someone who is more qualified to guess your opinion not more valid than from someone who isn't?

I think what's happening here is you're getting too hung up on the 'objective truth' side of this debate. If we can agree that everyone has their own subjective truth that is true for them at a particular point in time regardless of the fact that it may change in the future, and the fact that someone who has experienced a lot of things in that area may be more qualified to judge what will be this subjective truth for that person, or at least guide them onto the path of finding it, then I feel like we agree.

In fact I almost didn't reply to your last post because I feel like we are very close to agreement here.

But see what is happening here now.
Now we've defined an objective truth: It's been defined as the subjective opinion of the person whose preferences we're attempting to guess.
Then we're back at the car example.

When asking "what kind of steak is more likely to suit person x's tastes?", the guess of the more informed/experienced person is certainly the one more likely to be correct.
His answer has nothing to do with his personal tastes or opinions of what steak is best though.

When asking the question "what kind of steak is best?", the opinion of the experienced person is no more valid than anyone else's.

For someone's opinion to be more valid than that of someone else, there needs to exist a truth for the opinions to be measured up against, and when a truth exists, it's no longer a matter of opinion. Only of facts and who is closer to knowing them.

 

[Taerdin]

You seem awfully closed minded.

And you seem awfully quick to judge, and perhaps equally as close minded.

There is no completely objective measure of quality. Good and bad, in a sense do not exist. There's no sort of "absolute truth" when it comes to quality. Any sort of judgement on the matter of quality is equally as valid as anything other, which is to say, not at all.

Completely, no. But do good and bad performances not exist? If someone sings and misses all the notes is that just as good as someone who doesn't? Whether or not there are completely objective measures of quality the fact remains that there are some objective measures of quality that are recognized by a large number of people.

You can study a medium. Mediums do have standards. There are times when a shot calls for a wide angle lens, or a more upbeat music track. Just because these standards aren't completely universal or agreed upon doesn't mean they don't exist or are useless.

Someone could enjoy a game entirely based on the font used for the credits sequence, and that opinion would be as equally worthwhile as any other.

If you could explain the logic of this, or argue it in any way that would be helpful. Just stating it doesn't quite cut it for me.

I will humour you though. If this were true then why doesn't the Escapist/IGN/Gamespot/etc. have reviews like that? I liked the font of the credits, 4.5/5 stars. Is there really no standard by which to judge things?

If someone did post a review like that would it really be just as valid as a three page summary with in-depth analysis of all aspects of the game? That's really what you believe? Can you help me understand why you believe that? Just stating it like it's an obvious indisputable fact doesn't help anyone understand you, nor does it make you look any less close minded.

 

[Taerdin]

And I don't get the African child argument. You're arguing about the validity of opinions but...the African child may like the shit steak, 'cause food is a biological necessity and whatnot, but...what? He can still think the steak you think is all "better" and "high-quality" is better than the one he's given. Doesn't mean you can ONLY like that which is the best. I really don't get the point of this, uhh, simile.

The point is this, without a point of reference on which to base your judgements of the quality of a steak, your opinion of that steak is less valid. While your first steak may seem amazing to you, it may or may not be the best steak out there, and to claim as such would be an invalid claim.

Now if you could theoretically taste every steak that exists, you would reach your own personal subjective truth about which steak is your personal favourite best steak.

Then theoretically if someone who had never eaten a steak before came to you and said, 'I've never had steak, but I like spicy foods, and I like... etc etc etc', and somehow transfer their exact subjective tastes to you, using your own experiences as a guideline your opinion would be very valid when it comes to leading them towards their subjective best most favourite steak.

I know there isn't one objective best steak that everyone loves the most. But there are some objective standards by which we judge steak. Someone who is well informed is more likely to have a more valid opinion on which are the best steaks than someone who has never tried a steak.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at now