What games would you consider objectively some of the greatest ever made?

[telly]

I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.

Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".

We have the greatest movies list of 100 or 250 or so spread out. Either chosen by professionals in the field or the public.  Most of them come across as mostly consistent with minor overlap. Maybe you couldn't define something different among truly the best games. But it wouldn't be hard to see a clear difference among the bottom of the barrel to mediocre.  Just like theres a measurable difference between someone with an IQ of 80 vs 120 or so but not much difference between 110 and 120 or so? Good and evil? Beauty? Truth and injustice? We have a loose idea of this no? Some vagueness sure but I think most could agree.

That list was made from average ratings (Critic's & User's) from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd. So it still comes from people's opinions. It is NOT an objective fact. It's a aggregate of OPINIONS. The most you could say is those lists represent a general consensus, but that does not in any way imply they are the greatest objectively, or that I'm compelled to agree with it.

Looking through the lists some people have posted here, there are some I agree with and some I disagree with. And if I made my own list, there are people who would agree and disagree with me too. That's fine, but it means we're making these lists based on our opinions, which is NOT objective. I would highly disagree that we have objective measurements of what is good or evil, what is beautiful or ugly, what is intelligent or stupid, and what is good or bad. It's all based on opinions, loose consensus is not gonna cut it. I have my own scale of what games are good, mediocre or bad. We all have different tastes.

How do you know you've played all the best games out there? How do you know you'll still consider them the greatest 5, 10, 15 years from now? I'm not saying that a person can't create their own personal top list, but saying that any one person's list is the objective hard truth is just wrong. I'm just taking issue with the language being used here.

[dreama1]

I don't think anything can be considered "objectively" the greatest. Everyone's greatest or favorite game is based on one's personal opinion or experience.

Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".

We have the greatest movies list of 100 or 250 or so spread out. Either chosen by professionals in the field or the public.  Most of them come across as mostly consistent with minor overlap. Maybe you couldn't define something different among truly the best games. But it wouldn't be hard to see a clear difference among the bottom of the barrel to mediocre.  Just like theres a measurable difference between someone with an IQ of 80 vs 120 or so but not much difference between 110 and 120 or so? Good and evil? Beauty? Truth and injustice? We have a loose idea of this no? Some vagueness sure but I think most could agree.

That list was made from average ratings (Critic's & User's) from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd. So it still comes from people's opinions. It is NOT an objective fact. It's a aggregate of OPINIONS. The most you could say is those lists represent a general consensus, but that does not in any way imply they are the greatest objectively, or that I'm compelled to agree with it.

Looking through the lists some people have posted here, there are some I agree with and some I disagree with. And if I made my own list, there are people who would agree and disagree with me too. That's fine, but it means we're making these lists based on our opinions, which is NOT objective. I would highly disagree that we have objective measurements of what is good or evil, what is beautiful or ugly, what is intelligent or stupid, and what is good or bad. It's all based on opinions, loose consensus is not gonna cut it. I have my own scale of what games are good, mediocre or bad. We all have different tastes.

How do you know you've played all the best games out there? How do you know you'll still consider them the greatest 5, 10, 15 years from now? I'm not saying that a person can't create their own personal top list, but saying that any one person's list is the objective hard truth is just wrong. I'm just taking issue with the language being used here.

But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?

You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.

Just as we praise the great sportsman, warrior or the writer, or fine works of art and music. If I threw shit on a canvas would you objectively say it's a masterpiece and better compared to Van gogh painting or da vinci? If your comparing Van gogh and da vinci or which ice cream you like the most I'd say its more subjective.

I will say then perhaps there's many truths and beauty but some truths truer than others, and more shades of objectivity to it if you wish to correct.

So what do you suggest then instead? We forget a metric for quality standard and let the fortnighters and SJW journalists lead modern trends? Walking forward in straight lines only, and let retro games die with us as archaic disposable entertainment with no shades of an objective standard or merit to them played only be delusional nostalgists, it's all void to be replaced by the next fad?

I think some serious discussion should be made to preserve and try to define something closer to the ideal instead of relying on ill informed opinions or SJW journalists and pretending they have merit. The museum someone was wanting to build was good start at least.
That was the premise I wanted to be discussed.

[Warmsignal]

Yeah I was gonna say, there are no greatest games of all time objectively speaking. If you want a list of which games scored the highest, or sold the most, then you can easily research that information. Why would you seek to ask someone to make a person list of objective greatness? Seems like a contradictory request. Apparently it's just a cold hard fact that Wii Sports is one of the greatest games ever made (and I'm not knocking the game, it's quite good), but I mean it's common knowledge if you look at the sales. The closest thing we have to objective reality when measuring greatness is the sales figure. My personal opinion, which is subjective, doesn't matter.

you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it.

Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks.

but some truths truer than others

I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know.

So what do you suggest then instead? We forget a metric for quality standard and let the fortnighters and SJW journalists lead modern trends? Walking forward in straight lines only, and let retro games die with us as archaic disposable entertainment with no shades of an objective standard or merit to them played only be delusional nostalgists, it's all void to be replaced by the next fad?

Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?

This is the same debate that always transpires. Art is subjective, it's not objective. You might not enjoy Led Zepplin, but it doesn't mean they are any worse for it. Just because myself, and many other people enjoy their music, also doesn't make them better art. People have different sensibilities, different quirks, different temperaments. We don't all feel the same about all forms of art, and that's fine. We don't all have the same level of exposure to all forms of art, and that's also fine. I think if you want to try to measure video game greatness objectively, look at sales figures and look at historical game reviews/scores. That's the most objective approach, however flawed.

[dreama1]

Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks."

You can you're doing it right now.


I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know."

Then you don't know much.


Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?"

Yes, the dunning kruger effect doesn't exist. Your grandma's opinion (presuming she hasn't touched a video game) is just as valued and informed a someone on here or an enthusiast who's studied and researched it heavily in his free time.

Some might not enjoy Led Zepplin but most are smart enough to realise on a instinctual level why others would like it or notice the intelligence yet not fully embrace it themselves. Just like Mozart, Beethoven, bach etc.. It's not the same as comparing Led Zepplin to some drunk homeless guy in the street singing poorly. It's objectively shit in comparison. Just like I can't get up on a stage and be better than freddie mercury himself. He's objectively better at being freddie mercury.

[telly]

But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?

You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.

It's simply you're not using the word correctly. People use the word objective all the time without really knowing what it means. Put in the definition that I just pulled straight out of the dictionary.

Opinions can be [objective]

Opinions can be [not influenced by personal feelings or opinions]

Doesn't make any sense. It's like saying there's such a thing as a married bachelor. Your claim is axiomatically false statement by definition, which IS objective.

You can do, as Warmsignal did, pick something that is objective, like sales of a video game. Because the sales of video games are not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions.

But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish.

These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on.

I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not, but I'm not even going to attempt to entertain a response there.

[telly]

LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD

[Warmsignal]

Intuition and logic are not the same thing. You can't use intuition to formulate something as if it were objective fact. This is why opinions are said to be like... those things which we all have and never realize that our own stinks."

You can you're doing it right now.


I don't think so. There's only true, or false, as far as I know."

Then you don't know much.


Whether you like it or not, Fortnight is an immensely popular game because many people actually enjoy playing it. That much can actually be used as a significant measurement of something. So, which matters more when it comes to measuring video game greatness? Games which are/were played and enjoyed on a massive scale, or the whims of a handful of armchair art critics spread among various game collecting circles online? What exactly makes them more credible than the masses?"

Yes, the dunning kruger effect doesn't exist. Your grandma's opinion (presuming she hasn't touched a video game) is just as valued and informed a someone on here or an enthusiast who's studied and researched it heavily in his free time.

Some might not enjoy Led Zepplin but most are smart enough to realise on a instinctual level why others would like it or notice the intelligence yet not fully embrace it themselves.  It's not the same as comparing Led Zepplin to some drunk homeless guy in the street singing poorly. It's objectively shit.

Isaac Brock sounds like a homeless drunk on the streets when he sings most of his songs, but it sounds damn good to my ears and to the ears of many others as well. Who's a better singer, Robert Plant or Isaac Brock? It's all opinion and it actually doesn't matter.

Even if my grandma has never played a game, if she enjoys Fortnite then why shouldn't her opinion lend the game any further credit to it's accessibility and fun factor? Games which are more accessible to a greater number of people do not equate to the game's overall greatness and superiority? Says who, and why? It's all opinion. But one thing that is not opinion, is the the fact that Fortnite is a very popular game relative to the popularity of other games.

[telly]

Of course Freddie Mercury is the best at... being himself.  Do you mean to say who is the better singer? Of course people can have varying opinions on that.

[dreama1]

But you're saying there's no objective beauty or quality standard/metric with games, but you make an objective statement saying one doesn't exist?

You're right as in much as you can't throw a dart and hit it with a bulls-eye stagnantly. But you can feel and sense its outline instinctively or on a emotional level with some level or shades of objectively to it. You can't feel or touch it like air or catch the wind or describe love, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist? There's still a standard, and someone who is informed or has expertise in the area with others could make a list and get closer to the ideal and preserve it for anyone who wants to study games or get cultured in the best the medium has to offer.

It's simply you're not using the word correctly. People use the word objective all the time without really knowing what it means. Put in the definition that I just pulled straight out of the dictionary.

Opinions can be [objective]

Opinions can be [not influenced by personal feelings or opinions]

Doesn't make any sense. It's like saying there's such a thing as a married bachelor. Your claim is axiomatically false statement by definition, which IS objective.

You can do, as Warmsignal did, pick something that is objective, like sales of a video game. Because the sales of video games are not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions.

But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish.

These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on.

I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not, but I'm not even going to attempt to entertain a response there.

But we're not talking about sales. We're talking about beauty and greatness. These things are intangible. Can you identify what is empirically beautiful for every human being? Can you produce a well-validated reliable measurement of beauty or greatness or love? One that will lead everyone to the same conclusion if they used it? It's total rubbish."

Are you just going to strawman? Because you're making arguments I never made. I clearly said you can't hit it like a "bulls-eye" target and relay it empirically pinpointed and nailed, as much as looking through a keyhole at a room and not seeing the whole thing but only pixelated/not in focus (but still the objective shape of truth/beauty) It can be formulated closer to what the ideal is and more in focus the more experience someone has, but it's exact nature can't be understood at least not with language but through the abstracts you get something closer to objective truth or what it embodies. But If you wish to be relativistic and subjective about everything as is popular please do.


These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on."

I think many would disagree with you anyway, including Plato and the whole branch of metaphysics. But you can continue to be a relativist or whatever "you think" is going on. Yep whatever.


I have no idea what you're on about the SJW journalists defining what's a good game and what's not"

Of course you don't, nothing is going on, all is well. Good, spare us the npc response.

[dreama1]

LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD

Yes. You're a prime example.

[Cartagia]

telly and Warmsignal are on point here.  There’s no such thing as objective beauty.  You can get an extremely large consensus, but never truly objective.  Even something with a 100% on Metacritic or RT has got someone out there saying ‘Nah, it’s not that good,’ because it is all subject to someone’s personal tastes / opinions.

[dreama1]

telly and Warmsignal are on point here.  There’s no such thing as objective beauty.  You can get an extremely large consensus, but never truly objective.  Even something with a 100% on Metacritic or RT has got someone out there saying ‘Nah, it’s not that good,’ because it is all subject to someone’s personal tastes / opinions.

Well there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. There's universal markers so you're getting shades of it thats objective, but specific beauty is subjective and relative. I agreed that much, unless it's going to be a circle jerk here with no one dissenting as usual.

If it's relative or not to the subject. Even scientists have mapped out the ideal symmetries of a beautiful face. We are the same species who are attracted to similar qualities like any other animal. I would make the assumption it applies to other things as well.

[Warmsignal]

I don’t understand why you don’t just ask us, “What are your greatest games of all time?”. That’s a valid question. You’d be asking everyone for their personal opinions. Instead you are framing it as though there is a definitive list of greatest games which is based purely in fact, and you want us to tell you which games those are.

I completely disagree with any notion that there is an ideal video game, or a most correct way to make one, and that only a well trained eye could observe that game and recognize it for what it actually is - a game superior to all others, objectively.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

[telly]

Are you just going to strawman? Because you're making arguments I never made. I clearly said you can't hit it like a "bulls-eye" target and relay it empirically pinpointed and nailed, as much as looking through a keyhole at a room and not seeing the whole thing but only pixelated/not in focus (but still the objective shape of truth/beauty) It can be formulated closer to what the ideal is and more in focus the more experience someone has, but it's exact nature can't be understood at least not with language but through the abstracts you get something closer to objective truth or what it embodies. But If you wish to be relativistic and subjective about everything as is popular please do.

This whole metaphorical jargon sounds nice in theory but is total bullshit. The objective "best list of games ever" is not locked behind some hidden door or obscured away by language and we just need to look hard enough, that's ridiculous. The interrater reliability between all of us is completely wonked. We all have our own starting basis for what makes a good game that any attempt to determine this "bulls-eye" target is dead right from the starting gate.

As far as I'm concerned, you've undermined your whole argument. You've stretched out your position so far none of what you're saying can be remotely applied to any game that has ever been made. You're talking about a game that doesn't even exist anymore. If none of us can measure it (as you've admitted), and none of us can fully define or describe it (as you've admitted), and we don't even know what it would LOOK like:

a. How do you know such a thing exists?
b. What's the point or the use of trying to identify it in a thread like this?

These emotions "exist" as biochemical processes by humans. That's not to say they aren't important. They absolutely do have a neurocognitive foundation, but they are a product of the mechanisms going on in your own body. They don't "exist" in some cosmic ether nether-plane or whatever you think is going on."

I think many would disagree with you anyway, including Plato and the whole branch of metaphysics. But you can continue to be a relativist or whatever "you think" is going on. Yep whatever.

I know people would disagree with me, I'm talking to one right now (you). This isn't an argument.

LOL Dunning Kruger doesn't apply to whether people can have opinions of something or not you know xD

Yes. You're a prime example.

Nice jab dude. I mean I just stated that your example of Dunning Kruger was nonsense, and it sounds like you agree with me, so I dunno what to tell ya.  ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

[dreama1]

This whole metaphorical jargon sounds nice in theory but is total bullshit. The objective "best list of games ever" is not locked behind some hidden door or obscured away by language and we just need to look hard enough, that's ridiculous. The interrater reliability between all of us is completely wonked. We all have our own starting basis for what makes a good game that any attempt to determine this "bulls-eye" target is dead right from the starting gate."

You say that with such conviction that you have objective certainty that is isn't the case? And everything is subjective (which is objective) Ironic. And no you're incorrect. There is universal objective markers of good game design. Just as we remember great people or things that stood above the rest in either quality or beauty throughout time. We remember Mozart, and Beethoven 100 years later for a reason, and it will apply to some video games hopefully as well in a similar manner. If you can't accept or comprehend poor or mediocre game design vs quality design what else is there to say? If you seriously can't tell the difference between why Action 51 is objectively bad compared to say Contra, ninja gaiden, castlevania, or zelda or in a different league. Everyone is aware why it's poor in comparison even if they can't verbalise it exactly, the superior quality is understood objectively. If it's intuition or logic. It can be instinctively understood that it was crafted with love/passion and dedication and felt. Not metaphorical jargonise bullshit as you put it. Only humorists would say otherwise.

a. How do you know such a thing exists?
b. What's the point or the use of trying to identify it in a thread like this?"

Sorry for trying to make an engaging discussion about video games? This site is for cooking recipes only or brain dead topics? or worse at the mercy of marvelvscapcom2?




I know people would disagree with me, I'm talking to one right now (you). This isn't an argument."

Yes, and this isn't an argument either? Talking as if you figured out what people have been debating for millenniums in about 5 minutes? What am I suppose to tell you?


Oh I've heard about Anita Sarkeesian and all that, but I mostly don't give a shit about it. There are far worse things in this world to get all "offended" over."

Yes I'm well aware of that, but this is a video game based site. It might come a shock to you but we discuss things related to video games here, that includes video game journalism off handily if this comes as news?