Why is there a greater consensus on quality games than on music, films, etc...

[heynow85]

Ever wondered about this?

It seems that people in general have a greater chance of coming to an agreement on what is or isn't a great game. But it's much more difficult to get people to agree on what is good music or what films are good.

Even among critics, when a game is really good, everyone agrees it's good. But you rarely see that smooth across-the-board critical consensus with music and film.

Maybe certain kinds of entertainment are just more subjective than others?

 

[novasatori]

I think a starting point would be to read about why games aren't art.

Games generally have strict rules, objectives, and instructions. It is really comparing two different things, and I would tend to agree that art is more subjective than games.

Roger Ebert touched upon it and spawned a bunch of debate between game designers and others, so there is a lot of content out there to read about it.

Here is one: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

 

[PrayForDeath]

Umm almost every game has been negatively criticized by some people: (note I love all of these games)

HL2: no real ending, very ambiguous story
Doom 3: Too dark, too many corridors, repetitive, flash light, etc...
Crysis: Tech demo
Diablo: Repetitive gameplay, too much grinding
WoW: too casual (used to be too hardcore), boring
Deus Ex:HR: favors stealth over combat, bad finale
Portal 2: too easy, too short, too many loading screens

And on and on... notice that every one of these games was a hit, but they were still heavily criticized by some.

I think it's just that games are a much bigger time investment than movies, so gamers tend to only buy/play the games that they're interested in, and thus they don't whine as much as movie-goers.

 

[Jaskalas]

You seem to be asking why we agree that a game has meet a certain quality standard. Well of course that's easier to agree on than preference. I find you may be talking apples and oranges.

Take Final Fantasy for example. An overwhelming majority will agree that it's a good series. Now ask them which one is their favorite?

 

[Snock514]

Game sales > film & media

 

[VulgarDisplay]

There are two major reasons why. Demographics, and resources.

The sad fact is that males ages 14-30 (what I would call the major gaming demographic) really have the same perverted/childish interests in video games. This is coming from a 27 year old, and I can honestly say that my interests in video games have changed very little from when I was about 8 years old. So this demographic is not very diverse. I'm sure if more middle aged and elderly poeple as well as children under 14 wrote game reviews we would see much more varying views on what a good game is.

As for resources it's a lot easier to churn out low budget films than it is low budget quality games. Publishers decide what franchises to dump their money into, and for the most part, budget = success in the video game industry.

Some indy games buck this trend through innovation, but for the most part it holds true.

 

[Piuc2020]

I don't think there's actually a greater consensus on which games are good than films... I would agree on music but that's because music is barely judged on it's technical quality and is mostly based on the emotional and social aspects it has so its appeal varies largely depending on the people and the groups that listen to it so no one can really claim a song is better than other and even this is debatable because among the same genre, you can and in fact people have, many times, listed the "best" songs in that genre, it's just not everyone likes that genre.

However, movies and games share both a technical aspect to their making that influences a lot and everyone can enjoy or dislike (poorly shot films with bad effects or bad dialogue can make it hard to enjoy even a good story and sloppy games with poor controls and weird graphic bugs can really destroy an otherwise fun game OR films with breathtaking shots and incredible effects and games with tight controls, beautiful graphics and excellent presentation values can be enjoyed by everyone) and then there's the more subjective aspects that are based on personal preferences (genres), artistic appeal (which again, is based on emotions which vary from person to person), fun factor and other factors which make it slightly harder to reach a consensus.

You would be surprised to see how much people's taste can differ in games, scores in review sites don't vary a lot because they are written by professional journalists that take every factor into account and the game is played by someone who enjoys the genre and tries to balance it's opinion for everyone. However if you ask around gamers, you'll find the consensus isn't as great as Metacritic might lead you to believe, same thing for movies. Easy to see a consensus in critics, harder in actual people.

 

[CountZero]

I think time commitment and sticking to genres you enjoy are the reason you see what seems like consensus but isn't really.

I'd hypothesize that the smaller the time/money commitment the less consensus you will see.

For example, I don't like sports. So if you tell me the latest Madden game is awesome I will likely never check it out as the commitment to getting anything out of it is several hours. Or if you dislike RPGs the commitment is frequently huge. Unless you have large amounts of free time committing to a genre you don't typically like is a hard sell. However if you were to convince me about a sports movie I might be willing to give it 2 hours of time but I might still think it sucks after that 2 hours even if the consensus is that it is great. Now I have a voice to say it sucks.

Music is the extreme side of this. I can find almost any song on you tube and check it out in its entirety in a few minutes and with no cost and music is probably one of the areas that appears to have the smallest amount of consensus.

It isn't that games have universal consensus but that people rarely stray from the genres they like, reviewers review the genres they enjoy and so reviews in general are from the perspective of someone that likes that genre.

 

[wuliheron]

Several hundred video games are produced each year, but only a handful rake in the big bucks. That's not much of a selection for people to disagree on. The technology is immature and, therefore, the art form is also immature and severely limited in what it can do justice to. You might as well ask why tribal people like rhythm and singing so much and tend to all agree about what makes for a good rhythm or song. They just don't have the means to do much else any justice.

 

[Maximilian]

Ever wondered about this?

It seems that people in general have a greater chance of coming to an agreement on what is or isn't a great game. But it's much more difficult to get people to agree on what is good music or what films are good.

Even among critics, when a game is really good, everyone agrees it's good. But you rarely see that smooth across-the-board critical consensus with music and film.

Maybe certain kinds of entertainment are just more subjective than others?

Pretty much everyone of any age group can relate to some kind of film/music, not everyone can relate to games so there is less diverse of an opinion about them.

 

[zinfamous]

Gaming has become a huge market in terms of value, but it is still a completely unknown world for the vast majority of people. The market has truly grown with mobile type games, so that is a different ebast in itself. That new market sees people that don't delve into console or PC>

that being said--Film and music are, of course, far more well-established, reach all demographics, has far more variety in terms of content and, of course, total content.

And as we well know, that which makes the most money in those genres is, generally, utter dreck, loved only by the most vapid and useless of audiences (Transformers, et al), and certainly rejects the opinions of what critics think is good.

When it's obvious that gaming critics aren't on the take, you'll find they tend to agree with what is good, and reject the same cookie-cutter type games that really aren't that great (MW and such). I don't think it's that different, actually--that which sells the best and is the most popular, generally isn't as well-received critically and by well-exposed fans with a wide range of experience.

 

[Sulaco]

...Because there are certain, objective (or near-objective) criteria for a good game.

Music and films is almost ALL subjective.

You can say "Game X has cutting edge graphics, excellent controls, and lots of options", and while the pedantic can argue and quibble, most of those are objective points that can be compared to other games and proven true or untrue.

Movies, and especially music, it's ALL opinion. Aside from music majors and those micoanalyzing lyrics and their meaning, there's no objective evaluation outside of "I like the beat".

Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But for the most part, universally accepted "Great" games have objective qualities that leads to a consensus about their quality.

 

[Monster_Munch]

There's tons of disagreement about how good games are.

I think GTA4 is probably the best game ever made, and I think Saints Row 2 was absolutely garbage. But there are plenty people who have the exact opposite opinion.

PrayForDeath is also right that people only play games they're interested in. I know plenty of gamers who love FPS and hate RPGs who would think that Oblivion was a worse game than Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[CountZero]

...Because there are certain, objective (or near-objective) criteria for a good game.

Music and films is almost ALL subjective.

You can say "Game X has cutting edge graphics, excellent controls, and lots of options", and while the pedantic can argue and quibble, most of those are objective points that can be compared to other games and proven true or untrue.

Movies, and especially music, it's ALL opinion. Aside from music majors and those micoanalyzing lyrics and their meaning, there's no objective evaluation outside of "I like the beat".

Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But for the most part, universally accepted "Great" games have objective qualities that leads to a consensus about their quality.

I disagree. You could easily judge movies/music in the same way. Especially in movies this is done all the time. Summer blockbusters are basically your idea boiled down to a movie with the best effects/fights.

But it can be done in music. I think metal guitar players play amazingly fast and I find it impressive but I don't like metal music at all.

Likewise a game can have great graphics and controls and still not be very good. Take DNF no matter how tight the controls or how improved the graphics it won't be a better game. Or Minecraft for the other side of the graphics picture.

Production value can hurt a game but it alone will never make a game that is widely considered good. Same goes for music and movies.

 

[McWatt]

Very interesting premise, but I wonder whether it's the case. If anyone wants to get quantitative, take 10 random 2011 games and 10 random 2011 movies and go to Metacritic. Stick the scores of every single review for each game/movie into a spreadsheet and calculate its standard deviation. Then do a Tukey-Kramer test to look for a statistically significant difference in the average standard deviation of game and movie reviews. If there is one, then your premise may be correct. If not, it requires further proof.

 

[CountZero]

Very interesting premise, but I wonder whether it's the case. If anyone wants to get quantitative, take 10 random 2011 games and 10 random 2011 movies and go to Metacritic. Stick the scores of every single review for each game/movie into a spreadsheet and calculate its standard deviation. Then do a Tukey-Kramer test to look for a statistically significant difference in the average standard deviation of game and movie reviews. If there is one, then your premise may be correct. If not, it requires further proof.

Mathematical rigor, are you insane?!

 

[Red Hawk]

I think a starting point would be to read about why games aren't art.

Games generally have strict rules, objectives, and instructions. It is really comparing two different things, and I would tend to agree that art is more subjective than games.

Roger Ebert touched upon it and spawned a bunch of debate between game designers and others, so there is a lot of content out there to read about it.

Here is one: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Oh, don't bring that crap in here. Roger Ebert has never played a modern video game and thus has no experience to draw from. Let me put it this way: everything that makes movies art makes games art. Impressive visuals? Check. Plot and stories? Check. Fun or realistic characters? Check. Themes and motifs? Check. Inventive camera angles and cinematography? Check. One does not "make" art when they play a game, they are experiencing it. The game developers are the artists.

As for the OP: I reject your premise. There are games that are accepted as "good" that do have plenty of critics (ie LA Noire, Mass Effect, Heavy Rain). There are games that are accepted as "bad" that a decent amount of people like (ie Duke Nukem Forever, Alpha Protocol).

 

[Red Storm]

Simply put, there are so many people out there that any form of media is just about guaranteed to have its fans and detractors. Doesn't matter if it's the crappiest thing you've ever seen or the most amazing work of art.

Games are typically much longer than both movies and songs, and the more time you have to spend with something, the easier it is to see what makes it good or bad.

 

[Via]

I don't see a consensus among opinions on games at all. The only possible exception is when the market is flooded by 100% scores for AAA console releases.

Look at a game like Doom 3 - it has to be the most polarizing game ever made. I personally loved every second of it, but so many gamers hate it with a passion.

 

[zinfamous]

...Because there are certain, objective (or near-objective) criteria for a good game.

Music and films is almost ALL subjective.

You can say "Game X has cutting edge graphics, excellent controls, and lots of options", and while the pedantic can argue and quibble, most of those are objective points that can be compared to other games and proven true or untrue.

Movies, and especially music, it's ALL opinion. Aside from music majors and those micoanalyzing lyrics and their meaning, there's no objective evaluation outside of "I like the beat".

Sure, there are plenty of exceptions. But for the most part, universally accepted "Great" games have objective qualities that leads to a consensus about their quality.

there is a lot that can be quantified in a movie to show how bad it is, just as with games. I think that there is nor more or less subjectivity than with games as to what is good.

Granted, it's not as easy to see with games for most people--truly bad writing, editing, horrible direction and acting--one needs at least a moderately trained eye to recognize these things, but I think the quantifiable measures are more or less the same. Though it seems people are far more tolerant of shitty movies, hence their unbelievable popularity.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed I & II. Most people here hate it.

There is no hard consensus on good vs. bad games.

 

[thespyder]

It all comes down to numbers. There are significantly fewer Game aficionados than there are Art (or movie or music) Critics. And with a smaller pool to draw upon, there are going to be, by nature, fewer variances in tollerances and "Likability".

And the demographic is much more focused as well. The "Main" Demographic is Males 18-35 (or whatever it is) is a much smaller pool than (and a subset of) "Everyone". And they have significant factors in common, a fact that is not true amongst the larger superset.

Also, standards of what is good within a video game are narrower and much more objective (though not 100% so) than in art. Whereas in Video games you can define graphics and game play elements and single vs. multiplayer factors etc... all which are rated to varying degrees, with Art, literally the sky is the limit. Form and texture and color and contrast all make for a wider pallet of variability when it comes to art and music.

 

[Tylanner]

Lets be real here.

The majority of games are designed from top to bottom to be completely immersive. Sight, sound, and feel. They are dictated by a set of rules, a phyiscal environment, and well thoughtout story line. Also they require a certain level of commitment from the user to complete all the way through to the end. These factors provide for a more uniform experience from user to user. A new-age human experience.

Music is by and large a pastime enjoyed as "ear candy". Much like food, it is left to personal taste and preference. It has deeply entrenched ties to specific lifestyles and cultures that go back many many years in some cases. Instead of painting the picture on a screen in front of you, the images and emotions evoked by music are different from person to person.

 

[Red Hawk]

Hoh boy, this looks like it's turning into a "Are Video Games Art" discussion...

It all comes down to numbers. There are significantly fewer Game aficionados than there are Art (or movie or music) Critics. And with a smaller pool to draw upon, there are going to be, by nature, fewer variances in tollerances and "Likability".

And the demographic is much more focused as well. The "Main" Demographic is Males 18-35 (or whatever it is) is a much smaller pool than (and a subset of) "Everyone". And they have significant factors in common, a fact that is not true amongst the larger superset.

Also, standards of what is good within a video game are narrower and much more objective (though not 100% so) than in art. Whereas in Video games you can define graphics and game play elements and single vs. multiplayer factors etc... all which are rated to varying degrees, with Art, literally the sky is the limit. Form and texture and color and contrast all make for a wider pallet of variability when it comes to art and music.

Having objective qualities does not make something "not art". Are the pyramids of Giza art? Are cathedrals art? Is a near-photorealistic painting art? Yes. We can objectively evaluate these things for the quality of architecture and engineering, how close it comes to realism, etc. Some things in games can be evaluated objectively. That does not make it "not art". Regardless of how high-quality graphics are, there's still an art style behind it. Video games are still capable of communicating an emotion, idea, or value to the players. That is, IMO, what constitutes "art".

 

[thespyder]

Hoh boy, this looks like it's turning into a "Are Video Games Art" discussion...



Having objective qualities does not make something "not art". Are the pyramids of Giza art? Are cathedrals art? Is a near-photorealistic painting art? Yes. We can objectively evaluate these things for the quality of architecture and engineering, how close it comes to realism, etc. Some things in games can be evaluated objectively. That does not make it "not art". Regardless of how high-quality graphics are, there's still an art style behind it. Video games are still capable of communicating an emotion, idea, or value to the players. That is, IMO, what constitutes "art".

Never said anything close to "Video games are not Art". At least I certainly never intended that in the slightest.

Nor did I say that 100% of all parameters involved in evaluating a Video game are Objective. I said that "Mostly Objective" Meaning video quality (resolution, number of pixels per inch, play length, comparison to other - similar games). All quantifiable and therefore objective.

But there is still the art of a good story line. Or even some of the visuals that grace our games today. All of which is "VERY" subjective.

BUT... when you compare to "Art" in general, there are almost no limits or guidelines. What one person calls art, another may call a trash can. Or an apple, or a sunset, or paw prints draped in paint. In fact any object or collection of images (sounds, etc...) or even their absense can be considered art. See how it is a much wider canvas than merely images on a video screen?

The scope of video games, the platform, the conceputalization, the arrangement, the pallet of video games are a good deal more limited, mainstreamed and structured (generally speaking).

the point I was making was that, given the structure of the medium, you have a more limited "Subjective" pallet. Hence fewer complaints or variety in what people like.

Consider it a subset of "Art" in general, much like canvas or clay is to the whole...