Game quality

Can a game be good or bad? In my eyes, No. The way people talk about games and review them is centred around this idea that games inherently have quality, like an apple that is either fresh or rotten, 0s and 1s. Games are not binary, they are a form of art that just exists, nothing more, and have attributes to them that are neither good nor bad. It is people who give these attributes value and assign labels “good” and “bad”. In this writeup I will be discussing the subjective nature of art and how we can change the way we view and discuss it.

What is the difference between something having inherent quality and being given quality by people? For the former, The quality must be true across all people, an objective fact such as water being good for health, as without it one would die is inherent. The latter on the other hand is about subjective interpretations where each person brings in their own unique perspective when giving value to something, resulting in vastly different conclusions. To give an example, to one person tank controls are clunky and unintuitive, doing nothing but making moving harder than it should and dragging down their enjoyment of the game. To another person, the way tank controls take away control instils fear. When one is in control of their life they are comfortable and secure. When that control is taken away, anxiety and fear arise, like losing control of the wheel while driving a car. Both these views are valid, neither are wrong.

Tank controls exist in a vacuum with no inherent quality, it’s just a control scheme and nothing more, but through interacting with them people each apply an interpretation to it that is widely different and directly conflict with each other. As much as I’d love to talk more about tank controls, this writeup is not about tank controls but the existence, or lack of, inherent quality in art. So what happens when two interpretations of art without any inherent quality conflict and both sides believe they are right? Arguments. It is natural to assume one is right. We make sense of the world by what we know, which is our own experiences and thoughts. Other ideas create ambiguity which throws one’s mind into disarray. “How can they say that? They must be wrong!” “This game is good, that game is bad.” We simplify things, assure ourselves we are correct, and push back against what contradicts what we know because it makes us uncomfortable. Have you ever witnessed or participated in an argument about whether a game is good or bad? If so, you have most likely witnessed that both sides are trying to convince the other that their opinion is right. Rather than having a discussion about the game, both sides are dismissing what each other has to say and ultimately the conclusion is that the argument was a waste of time. Not all arguments are like this, as it depends on the parties involved, but it is a common outcome.

The review sphere suffers the same issue. Reviews are intended to inform, but rather than informing, it’s all too common for reviewers to take a stance and use it to make an argument of why a game is good or bad, without inviting the audience to form their own conclusions. If a game is bad the reviewer will assert their own opinion and focus almost exclusively on what they perceive as the game’s faults. Do readers of reviews view them because they’re concerned with what random internet people think, or do they view reviews to learn about what a game has to offer and if it’s worth their time and money? Contrary to what you might expect I’d say, I believe a lot of time it’s the former because of the way we’re conditioned to put weight into the opinions of others rather than forming our own. Every time a new game releases, reviews are put out for potential buyers to see if the game is worth their time and money. Reviewers all take a stance and write their review based on if the game is good or bad, and then assign a number representing the “quality” of the game.

Sites such as MetaCritic and OpenCritic then collect all these numbers and post the result of adding them all up together. This is then meant to represent how good a game is, like getting a grade on a maths test where each question only had one correct answer. Potential buyers then make their decision based on what they’re told to think, because it’s treated as objective truth. If a game has a lot of reviews calling it garbage and the overall critic score is low, it’s a skip without looking further, and people who like those games like “bad games”. We dismiss art pieces based on what others tell us what to think, rather than forming our own opinion.

On the opposite side, good reviews are used as “proof” of a game being “objectively” good. While on the surface, not much seems wrong with believing a game is good based on review scores, because it means the majority like it and even if you end up not liking it, the most you lose is some time and money. But beneath the surface there is more to it. These scores serve purposes from ensuring we made the right choice when making a purchase, validating that we hold the correct opinion for liking a game, to acting as evidence that people who dislike the game are “wrong”. We wrap ourselves around the opinions of others and meaningless number scores, forgetting about what we actually appreciate about the art. Even for those not a fan of game journalism and number scores, following a YouTuber you trust or asking a friend is still putting others’ opinions before your own if the question remains whether the game is “good” or “bad” or if they liked it or not. It may be more reliable, but no two people are the same and you’re still being told what to think. While it may seem like I’m advocating to try to play every game to form your own opinion, that is not the case. It’s completely unrealistic as time and money are limited. Rather I’m advocating that we present our opinions in a different way altogether.

In conclusion, my proposal is to move away from concepts such as “good” and “bad”, as art is not binary, and instead discuss the attributes one sees value in and recognise the subjective nature of art. Reviews shouldn’t end with if you liked the game or not, as that isn’t relevant and is subtly pushing the audience to agree with you. The review should not be built around proving that the game is good or bad, don’t make an argumentative essay. Just explain what the game is, what it offers, and leave the conclusion to the reader of your review, your audience is diverse and has different wants and values. No stars, no out of 10s, no thumbs up or thumbs down. And for those wondering if a game is for them, ask others about its merits and think critically about whether or not a game is for you.