Objectivity and Best Game Lists

[Who Dares Wins]

I've been looking over some Top lists and usually the best game of all time is Ocarina of Time, sometimes Super Mario Bros. or in PC lists, Deus Ex. I don't have anything against these games, they're awesome, but I'd like to see a Top list where you don't factor in anything except the game itself: no nostalgia, "it was good at the time", "it defined the genre", "it was made by X", "it's cheap", or anything like that. I want to see a list in which they judge: story, gameplay, graphics, soundtrack etc. in today standards and then see the results. What do you think about the idea?

Disclaimer: The best games would stil be on their "Best Game of All Time" lists, but I'm talking about a separate one with the conditions stated above.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's a reasonable idea (though "it's cheap" seems like a decent selling point).

On the other hand, it's very subjective, whereas a game that inspired loads of imitators/defined a genre or something is something you can sort of qualify.

 

[JAYSEE DENTUHN]

Deus Ex is amazing. I played for the first time this summer, so no nostalgia, and it blew me away. By far my favorite FPS.

 

[VaudevillianVeteran]

Nostalgia is a big part of a gamer's view on good games. Let's face it, some games were more original years ago. But, yes, we shouldn't write off modern games either.
But yes, I agree, nostalgia shouldn't dominate Top Ten/Twenty/Hundred lists (Aside from the aforementioned "Best Game of All Time" lists) and we should honor the hard work that modern developers do these days and the hours of button-mashing they give us. Maybe there should be cut off dates for some of them.

 

[BENZOOKA]

You can't put games objectively in an order of "better/worse".

<quote=benzooka>It is the subjective experience of an individual playing a game at a certain time (life situation, former experiences, preferences... as well as time in a chronological sense) and through that interactive experience come the subjective results that form an opinion about playing a game to one's mind. That opinion may then change through external shit.

Change the game/person/time, and you will get a different result.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Just look at the sales charts if you want to see the only objective measure what people think is currently the best.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

You can't put games objectively in an order of "better/worse".

<quote=benzooka>It is the subjective experience of an individual playing a game at a certain time (life situation, former experiences, preferences... as well as time in a chronological sense) and through that interactive experience come the subjective results that form an opinion about playing a game to one's mind. That opinion may then change through external shit.

Change the game/person/time, and you will get a different result.

I still think you can but there would be two "catches":
1. They should be rated through genre (RPG, FPS, RTS...)
2. It wouldn't be a consumer guide what to buy and what not to buy, and the best objective judge would be an AI made specifically for that purpose. (we're talking hypothetical bullcrap here)

 

[Vault101]

Just look at the sales charts if you want to see the only objective measure what people think is currently the best.

COD and WOW....thats a little depressing

popularity CAN mean quality, especially if word of mouth has somthign to do with it

and somtimes it doesnt, the popularity of Transformers...makes you want to bash your head agaisnt a wall

or Black swan, not a huge blockbuster but made alot of money because it was good

or Dark knight, huge blockbuster and very good film (heath ledgers death may have had somthing to do with it but no one id enying the quality of the film)

 

[omegawyrm]

It's probably impossible to rank games in an objective sense when you get to "top 10s" and there's a lot of reasons old games dominate "best games" spots. A) it gives the writer of the list some credibility as having some depth of gaming experience, which helps them, the purpose of those lists ultimately being to be read and persuade. B) If a person has been playing games since they were a kid, it's almost inevitable that they would transfer some of the strong emotions of the developmental periods of their life onto a favorite game, why do you think so many people love Star Wars? C) the way a person plays games is generally different when they're a kid, kids have a very different way of approaching exploration style games where they really internalize it as a grand adventure, i.e. why so many people have such strong feelings about the Zelda and Metroid series.

At least, that's what I think. Suppose at least one of those theses isn't as robust as the others...

In the interest of full disclosure, my favorite games are the Kingdom Hearts series (finished the first one when I was 14 and it really resonated with young me), Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes and Sons of Liberty (played those about 2 years later when I was beginning to form my own political opinions), and Final Fantasy X (finished it when I was 12 and felt like I'd dipped into something much vaster than anything I'd ever experienced before). Pretty much in that descending order.

As for the games I think might be OBJECTIVELY the best that I've played? Probably some combination of Bioshock, Metal Gear Solid 3, Super Mario Galaxy 2 (or Super Mario World 2), Zelda: Twilight Princess, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy Tactics, Team Fortress 2, Dragon Age, and that barely scratches the surface.

 

[Geeky Anomaly]

MovieBob made a point a few weeks ago though, and this could affect the ratings:

People who experience a lot of something tend to spot imitation and borrowed elements. With that said, who should judge the story part of a game? A person who has played hardly any games and seen hardly any movies? Or someone who's played hundreds of games, so they can spot those things?

The same story(or even the same gameplay mechanic for that matter) could be viewed as original and groundbreaking by one, or cookie-cut and mundane by another.

I hate to bring this up, as I'm sure it's been done before, but it's a good example:

There was a young woman(19 I think), whom I used to work with. When Avatar came out, she thought it was the most awesome story and movie that she had seen and was blown away by the whole thing. I asked her if she had seen Disney's animated Pocahontas, or read Dances with Wolves. She replied no to both. I lent her my Pocahontas DVD and wasn't surprised when she brought it back a few days later saying, "It's the same fricking story!"

I also agree with WhoDares. Maybe there really shouldn't be a "game of the year". I think everyone has a game genre that they don't like, or prefer the least. People who don't like or play MMOs or RPGs in general can't understand why World of Warcraft has gotten game of the year by more than one publication. Maybe we SHOULD just limit it to genre kings. At the least, merge those results with the sales data to create an "aproximation" of what the game of the years could be.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Just look at the sales charts if you want to see the only objective measure what people think is currently the best.

COD and WOW....thats a little depressing

popularity CAN mean quality, especially if word of mouth has somthign to do with it

and somtimes it doesnt, the popularity of Transformers...makes you want to bash your head agaisnt a wall

or Black swan, not a huge blockbuster but made alot of money because it was good

or Dark knight, huge blockbuster and very good film (heath ledgers death may have had somthing to do with it but no one id enying the quality of the film)

Yeah, we can tell that a sales list is objective because all too often things that you think are horrible are rated highly because a lot of other people see value in them. Just trying to find some way of making a list where you filter out biases you don't agree with isn't objective because your preferences would still be there. The OP thinks that Deus Ex, OOT and SMB should be excluded from the lists to eliminate bias but it might just be that people who rate them are still playing those games enough for them to have earned their place.

 

[darth.pixie]

That's why only critics or designers/directors/writers could review something objectively. They know what they're talking about and can add input from their own experience.

Honestly, there is no complete objectivity.

If you like a game so much and it's fun and it sucks you in...but others say it's crap...well, what do you do? To add an example, Divine Divinity 2 was a great game. I honestly played it again and again and consider it better than most titles today. A lot of people haven't played it/consider it bad/have other standards. Were I to look upon it objectively, I can see small flaws but ..not enough to warrant its dismissal from the "popular games" circle.

Also some games transcend the bullet point reviews. I've seen games who had bad reviews, bad graphics, repetitive story and/or quests...but had that "je ne sais quoi" that gained them fans. Sometimes it's about the experience rather than everything divided. And nostalgia isn't the only factor. You can get lost in Baldur's Gate now as well as years ago even though gameplay wise or graphics wise or even story wise (considering how everything is a cliché now) it wouldn't get as much acclaim as it does. Which would be a shame.

 

[BENZOOKA]

You can't put games objectively in an order of "better/worse".

<quote=benzooka>It is the subjective experience of an individual playing a game at a certain time (life situation, former experiences, preferences... as well as time in a chronological sense) and through that interactive experience come the subjective results that form an opinion about playing a game to one's mind. That opinion may then change through external shit.

Change the game/person/time, and you will get a different result.

I still think you can but there would be two "catches":
1. They should be rated through genre (RPG, FPS, RTS...)
2. It wouldn't be a consumer guide what to buy and what not to buy, and the best objective judge would be an AI made specifically for that purpose. (we're talking hypothetical bullcrap here)

Hypothetical or not. It's still impossible. AI could never do that properly. And in the end you can't judge games comparing only things that can be handled as objective. Most polygons in a character or the highest quality textures wouldn't automatically mean breathtaking visuals.

Genres get mashed and mixed and transform so much you can't compartmentalize then in an accurate way. Genres are anyways meant to be very loose labels, so you instantly get a rough idea of a game.

I could go on about those things, but what you're really after is the definition for the word best. The concept of objectivity has nothing to do with this matter.

And a definition for best is: having the most positive qualities.

What those are? Well, that's completely subjective and left for everyone to decide for themselves. As different people prefer different things.

 

[omegawyrm]

Well this is kind of disappointing, I was curious what other Escapists might put forth as "objective" examples of excellent games.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Any attempt to make a objective list of anything that isn't blankly supported by hard data is doomed to failure honestly the closest you could come to a non debatable list would be inflation adjusted international sales figures.