Incline Tim Cain says there are no bad games only different preferences and budgets... Agree? Disagree?

[ind33d]

I agree. I've been having fun scanning 100% of Ixyll II in Starfield with the survival mechanics maxed out while hunting dinosaurs, but it's obvious why the average person doesn't like it.

 

[Lyric Suite]

as if we needed more confirmation that fallout and arcanum were flukes.

I don't think they were flukes as such, more that he wasn't allowed to be a retard back then.

It's easy to say shit like this when your career or the very existence of your company isn't on the line, always on the verge of going under depending on the quality and performance of your game.

 

[aweigh]

tim cain dancing

 

[lightbane]

The existence of Dustborn has made this thread redundant, as it's a genuinely bad, objectively terrible game with no redeeming traits.

 

[JC'sBarber]

Liberals can only excel in a world where moral relativism is a thing, and that goes for creative works too. "Uhhh nothing is ACKSHUALLY bad, mm'kay?. It's just opinion".

 

[Krice]

Tim Cain and Jonathan Blow are the same type of people. They have created their own reality and stick to it no matter what. They seem to base their opinions on their experience, but fail to understand it's just their own experience, nothing more.

 

[Hell Swarm]

Tim Cain and Jonathan Blow are the same type of people. They have created their own reality and stick to it no matter what. They seem to base their opinions on their experience, but fail to understand it's just their own experience, nothing more.

You sound very liberal there faggot. Do you have a 2000s youtube account denouncing Christianity and promoting rationalism too? Everyone depends on their own experiences and bases their opinions on them. I don't care if you and everyone else thinks your Dad is the nicest guy on the planet and always treated you well if my experience with him is being a rapist. Personal experience is extremely important to judging the world and even more so in clown world where almost everything is dishonest.

 

[d1r]

there are no bad games only different preferences and budgets​

Neither a $1.000.000 budget would have saved the game. And different preferences? Sure, you might like it if you have SEVERE levels of autism.

 

[NecroLord]

View attachment 55649

there are no bad games only different preferences and budgets​

Neither a $1.000.000 budget would have saved the game. And different preferences? Sure, you might like it if you have SEVERE levels of autism.

He's just going out of his way to be a "nice guy"...

 

[Roguey]

The existence of Dustborn has made this thread redundant, as it's a genuinely bad, objectively terrible game with no redeeming traits.

Tim Cain says as long as one person likes something it can't be objectively bad, and the developers surely like their own game.

 

[JarlFrank]

I like some games that are objectively bad.
The problem is a lot of people have no ability to distinguish between "I like it" and "it has objectively good qualities" which are two different things.

The easiest part is technical implementation, which applies to games but also other forms of art.
If there are no bugs and it's competently coded, it's objectively good. Lots of bugs and messy code are objectively bad.
In a film, having skilled camerawork is objectively good. Amateurish camerawork is objectively bad.
In a novel, grammatically correct and stylistically elegant prose is objectively good. An excess of typos is objectively bad.
Etc.

Of course you can also make objective qualitative statements about other aspects of media, not only their purely technical implementation, but the majority of people can't even judge the most basic technical aspects on an objective basis. If they like it, they will defend even the objectively bad parts. They don't understand that a thing can have both good and bad aspects, and you can like it despite the bad parts.

 

[Krice]

Personal experience is extremely important to judging the world

Yes but that experience and opinion is not the truth for everyone. People who don't understand it have problems with their ego. Games can be bad in more than one way and sometimes it's not even a matter of preference. An easy example are buggy games that destroy your progress or save game file.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Personal experience and objectivity are two different things.

A few months ago i visited my grandmother's house after many years. I used to spend many summers there so instantly got nostalgic. I checked the bad i used to sleep in and i instantly got to relive some of the things i used to feel back then. Just looking at the room, even the walls themselves was a really powerful experience.

And yet, objectively speaking, it's just a house like any other. There's nothing particularly special about it, and i know this with perfect certainty, reguard of what my feelings or "experience" of the place tell me.

I think it's same when it comes to art. I remember loading up Baldur's Gate 1 a few months ago and instantly got nostalgic about it. Just the sounds of the menu brought back a lot of old feelings. But objectively, it's just a menu, and the game, while pretty decent, is not that great artistically. The writing doesn't even remotely compare to a great novel, the art in the game is not even close to a real painting, and the gameplay is even not as good as some of the games that existed then which i ended up playing later on.

It's a good game sure, but if i had to chose between a select number of cultural artifact that needed to be preserved for posterity, Baldur's Gate 1 wouldn't even come close to making into the cut. There are things i never even experienced, great works of literature i never read, whom i would still consider over something like Baldur's Gate because my brain is perfectly capable of being objective about the true value and worth of the game in artistic terms, reguardless of what my feelings may be.

The idea that art cannot be objective is just another individualistic cope. People unable to let go of their individual experiences and putting reality and objectivity above themselves.

 

[lightbane]

The easiest part is technical implementation, which applies to games but also other forms of art.
If there are no bugs and it's competently coded, it's objectively good. Lots of bugs and messy code are objectively bad.
In a film, having skilled camerawork is objectively good. Amateurish camerawork is objectively bad.
In a novel, grammatically correct and stylistically elegant prose is objectively good. An excess of typos is objectively bad.
Etc.

What about a game like Dustborn which is bad at everything: Terrible characters (who are all self-inserts from the writers) with no redeeming values, game-bugs in combat and certain sections of the game that are not mentioned in any review, nonsensical story, terrible and nonsensical message that is racist against whites and Christians, game made with taxes so it's legit robbery, terrible character art, stealing assets from another game (gta online), etc.

 

[JarlFrank]

It's objectively bad at everything, obviously, why do you even have to ask?

 

[lightbane]

I was asking about your opinion for a game like that, that somehow still has fans (their developers and little else).Would you like a game like that if it wasn't Dustborn and had some things swapped?

 

[Alienman]

The existence of Dustborn has made this thread redundant, as it's a genuinely bad, objectively terrible game with no redeeming traits.

Tim Cain says as long as one person likes something it can't be objectively bad, and the developers surely like their own game.

99,9999999% thinks the game is terrible, but one dev...

 

[Hagashager]

So can I play NARC (2005) without being #canceled?

 

[Tyranicon]

Why did this thread get revived?

And also, "muh no bad gaem" is the party line that a lot of devs have taken because it's beneficial to them. They want to create an atmosphere where no one's product is criticized, everyone's one happy family and they can all go on making money together.

This, despite gamedevs being some of the most catty and petty people on the planet. Just go on Twitter and see 24 varieties of constant shit shows.

 

[blessed king of longing]

tim cain dancing

behold: brown "person" humor

 

[aweigh]

I like some games that are objectively bad.
The problem is a lot of people have no ability to distinguish between "I like it" and "it has objectively good qualities" which are two different things.

The easiest part is technical implementation, which applies to games but also other forms of art.
If there are no bugs and it's competently coded, it's objectively good. Lots of bugs and messy code are objectively bad.
In a film, having skilled camerawork is objectively good. Amateurish camerawork is objectively bad.
In a novel, grammatically correct and stylistically elegant prose is objectively good. An excess of typos is objectively bad.
Etc.

Of course you can also make objective qualitative statements about other aspects of media, not only their purely technical implementation, but the majority of people can't even judge the most basic technical aspects on an objective basis. If they like it, they will defend even the objectively bad parts. They don't understand that a thing can have both good and bad aspects, and you can like it despite the bad parts.

I've always said I prefer something well-made over something original.

 

[aweigh]

The idea that art cannot be objective

there have been attempts at proving something along these lines, like those studies that show babies respond more favorably to symmetry. Beauty exists objectively, for example, which is why 2000 year old statues show roughly similar beauty standards to the ones we have today and aren't radically different.

 

[JarlFrank]

I was asking about your opinion for a game like that, that somehow still has fans (their developers and little else).Would you like a game like that if it wasn't Dustborn and had some things swapped?

Dustborn isn't the kind of game I'm into. Depends on what you mean by "some things swapped" - there isn't anything redeemable about it, so you'd pretty much have to make a completely different game to make it appealing in any way. Aside from the retarded political messaging, it also has shit gameplay, a terrible artstyle, and apparently isn't well-optimized either.

The kinds of bad games I like are amateurishly made but ooze with charm, obvious passion projects by people who don't quite know what to do but tried anyway.
I also love 80s B-movies, which have the same vibe. Amateurish but fun, made by someone who just wanted to make something cool and enjoyable.

Usually those games focus on gameplay and/or story and just want to be fun.
Dustborn is anti-fun. It wants to lecture you. There's no soul in it, only rottenness.

 

[Hell Swarm]

In a film, having skilled camerawork is objectively good. Amateurish camerawork is objectively bad.

Blair Witch Project disagrees. It is shot completely amateurish to the point where they completely missed shooting the actual monster in one scene so it never appears on screen. But the amateur filming makes the film much more believable and incredibly creepy because of that. Something unknown fucked with a bunch of people and we watch them slowly lose their grip and end up possibly dead by god knows what. Objectively good camera work would completely destroy that movie. Even if you don't like it, the found footage genre says skilled camerawork is objectively bad for those kinds of movies. So we're back to debating the definition of good camera work.

The idea that art cannot be objective

there have been attempts at proving something along these lines, like those studies that show babies respond more favorably to symmetry. Beauty exists objectively, for example, which is why 2000 year old statues show roughly similar beauty standards to the ones we have today and aren't radically different.

There are people who want to lick morbidly obese women's smelly feet. If beauty is objective then those people should never feel that's a better sexual outlet them thousands of porn stars looking exactly like those old statues. And then we have to debate hair colour. If I really like blondes with short hair and you really like brunettes with long hair which is the objective beauty winner and why? I'm not saying ugly things are better than beautiful things, but you cannot ever be objective about the way someone looks because we all have preferences that cannot be dismissed here. They say there are no 10/10s, there are only 9/10s and the extra point is for what your personal preferences are. Smelly fat foot licker is not going to have a 10/10 like mine.

there isn't anything redeemable about it,

I haven't played it and never will but that's untrue. The characters are ugly but the art execution is very good. It can be hard to make cell shading look decent and from the short footage I saw it appears they did an excellent job with that style. It's ugly as fuck in terms of humans but the world is nice looking and I did see one man who could have fit in with borderlands okay.

 

[gooseman]

He's wrong, but it's still possible to extract some type of enjoyment out of something objectively bad. Dustborn is so badly written, it sounds near identical to satire of the things its trying to promote.