The nature of quality, subjective versus objective Options

[chilly]

I had a lengthy argument an hour ago on the nature of quality—primarily of video games, but of things in general—and thought it worth sharing for further discussion. (Unrelated or irrelevant interjections or parallel topics have been omitted; I also split it into separate paragraphs for easier reading.)

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

[23:15:14] * P.P.A. playing some Ys: Oath in Felghana again, having uninstalled Skyrim
[23:15:22] P.P.A.: why did I even bother with that crap in the first place
[23:15:39] P.P.A.: soulless, lifeless Bethesta stuff
[23:15:41] Makai: DrExplosion says:
"Why did I even bother with this game that was so enjoyable I spent hours at a time playing it"
[23:15:52] Makai: Remirya says:
*Bethesda
[23:15:57] P.P.A.: You can enjoy something that isn't good
[23:16:04] P.P.A.: just like how I ahd fun with Sonic 06
[23:16:11] Makai: DrExplosion says:
If you enjoy it, it's enjoyable
[23:16:18] Makai: DrExplosion says:
That's kind of the point
[23:16:51] P.P.A.: Intristic quality is separate from subjective perception
[23:17:09] Makai: DrExplosion says:
"Quality" isn't objective
[23:17:54] P.P.A.: if you dissect something and analyse its aspects, how well they are executed, and how they play out together, I do think you can ascribe quality to something objectively
[23:18:00] P.P.A.: If you like it or not is subjective
[23:18:11] P.P.A.: but even if you dislike i you can still recognise its quality
[23:18:19] P.P.A.: It's the same the other way round
[23:18:29] Makai: Remirya says:
"This is a fucking amazing game but I hate it"
[23:18:36] P.P.A.: Yeah, and
[23:18:37] Makai: Remirya says:
sorry, that doesn't follow in my head
[23:19:07] Makai: DrExplosion says:
"This meal was well-prepared, but it tastes like shit"
[23:19:24] P.P.A.: That's valid too
[23:19:33] P.P.A.: It might use an ingredient you really, really dislike
[23:19:40] Makai: DrExplosion says:
That's a failure
[23:19:41] P.P.A.: that doesn't make it bad
[23:19:53] P.P.A.: It would be a failure if it was cooked especially for you
[23:20:02] P.P.A.: but not if it was part of a restaurant's menu
[23:20:09] P.P.A.: and you should simply have ordered something else instead
[23:21:01] Makai: DrExplosion says:
So it's a matter of "I can see how someone else would like this, but I don't"
[23:21:19] P.P.A.: Not only
[23:21:32] P.P.A.: That's a part of it, but it's also about intristic, objective quality
[23:22:03] P.P.A.: How much effort and thought was put into it, how carefully it was crafted, what was paid attention to in the process, and so on
[23:22:08] Makai: DrExplosion says:
If it fails at its intended purpose, it objectively lacks quality
[23:22:20] P.P.A.: Its intended purpose is first and foremost to sell
[23:22:36] P.P.A.: also
[23:22:44] P.P.A.: if its intended purpose was to please everyone
[23:22:51] P.P.A.: then you are denying the concept of quality
[23:22:57] P.P.A.: because there is no pleasing everyone, ever

[23:23:05] Makai: DrExplosion says:
So a child who works really hard on a shitty drawing that goes on the fridge has produced a work of quality because he tried really hard?
[23:23:14] P.P.A.: No
[23:23:31] P.P.A.: Because unless that child is a progidy, the drawing probably sucks
[23:24:00] Makai: Suika says:
Who determines 'quality'?
[23:24:02] P.P.A.: It is likely to be lacking in technique—perspective, brush strokes, lighting, shading, details, depth, escape points, realism, and so on
[23:24:11] Makai: DrExplosion says:
He says quality is objective
[23:24:29] P.P.A.: and independent of opinion or appeal
[23:24:31] Makai: Remirya says:
abstract art
[23:24:34] Makai: Remirya says:
discuss
[23:24:36] Makai: Suika says:
How does that even
[23:24:43] Makai: DrExplosion says:
I was about to say that, myself, Sel
[23:24:44] P.P.A.: See, abstract art can be appealing, but is bound to be of low quality
[23:24:56] P.P.A.: because while it might require inspiration to draw
[23:25:04] P.P.A.: it requires very little skill or technique
[23:25:15] Makai: Suika says:
I don't understand this at all
[23:25:22] Makai: Remirya says:
one might argue that it takes a certain skill and technique to get that look
[23:25:28] Makai: DrExplosion says:
So Guernica is low quality
[23:25:36] Makai: Suika says:
The quality of art in any form is purely subjective
[23:25:36] P.P.A.: But much less than, say, a Renaissance painting
[23:25:37] Makai: Suika says:
period
[23:25:55] P.P.A.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GuernicaGernikara.jpg this?
[23:26:09] P.P.A.: If so, then yes.
[23:26:09] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Yes
[23:26:42] Makai: Suika says:
Then I simply can't agree with you
[23:26:45] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Same
[23:26:51] Makai: DrExplosion says:
That painting succeeds at its intended purpose
[23:27:03] P.P.A.: That's not “quality” though
[23:27:07] Makai: DrExplosion says:
That's the most objective measure of quality you can get
[23:27:10] Makai: DrExplosion says:
"Does it work"
[23:27:18] P.P.A.: That's practicability
[23:27:20] P.P.A.: not quality
[23:27:29] Makai: Remirya says:
PPA you're pretty biased in terms of art
[23:27:30] P.P.A.: or utility
[23:27:34] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Maybe there's a language issue here
[23:27:41] P.P.A.: No, there's not
[23:28:05] Makai: Suika says:
No, but if I'm hearing you right, PPA
[23:28:12] P.P.A.: I see quality as something that is inherent to something, can be high or low, or absent—and which I see as independent of how popular or well-liked it is

[23:28:29] P.P.A.: Well
[23:28:36] P.P.A.: One aspect of quality is of course how well it works
[23:28:45] P.P.A.: if I have a beautiful chair that collapses if I try to sit on it
[23:28:49] P.P.A.: then it is of low quality
[23:29:06] Makai: DrExplosion says:
The chair has two purposes
[23:29:13] Makai: DrExplosion says:
To look good and to be sat upon
[23:29:14] P.P.A.: but between a beautiful chair that doesn't collapse, and a simple chair that doesn't collapse, the former is of higher quality
[23:29:33] P.P.A.: even if you might find it overembellished, and prefer the simple chair, or ti fits better into your home
[23:29:50] Makai: DrExplosion says:
If the chair is meant to be a work of art, sure
[23:30:04] P.P.A.: This isn't about art, but about quality
[23:30:04] Makai: DrExplosion says:
But if it's meant to be a chair, it fails at its primary purpose
[23:30:08] Makai: DrExplosion says:
It's fancy garbage
[23:30:12] P.P.A.: How so?
[23:30:22] P.P.A.: The chair that collapses, of course
[23:30:38] P.P.A.: [23:29:14] P.P.A.: but between a beautiful chair —>that doesn't collapse<—, and a simple chair that doesn't collapse, the former is of higher quality
[23:30:49] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Oh wait, I misread that
[23:31:41] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Okay, yeah. If it looks good AND you can sit on it, it's a good chair.
[23:31:56] P.P.A.: A beautiful chair that collapses is of lower quality than a simple chair which can be sat on, but a beautiful and detailed hand-crafted chair (which you can also sit on) is of greater quality than the simple one—even if you think it looks a bit tasteless or overembellished
[23:32:51] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Only if you're looking for aesthetically pleasing furniture
[23:33:01] P.P.A.: No.
[23:33:06] P.P.A.: It is of higher quality.
[23:33:13] Makai: DrExplosion says:
In all likelihood the artistic aspects of it detract from its effectiveness as a chair
[23:33:21] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Structural weaknesses, etc.
[23:33:23] Makai: Remirya says:
This conversation is dumb
[23:33:27] Makai: DrExplosion says:
You're dumb
[23:33:29] P.P.A.: well
[23:33:42] P.P.A.: Actually
[23:33:47] P.P.A.: No, that's just different kinds of quality
[23:33:54] Makai: Remirya says:
At least I'm not arguing that Guernica inherently sucks
[23:33:59] Makai: Remirya says:
That makes me less dumb than some people
[23:34:02] P.P.A.: if there's an ugly chair which is super-sturdy and comfortable, then it is also of very high quality
[23:34:06] P.P.A.: just a different sort
[23:34:30] P.P.A.: So I guess you're right in that intention does matter.

[23:34:35] P.P.A.: However, returning to video games:
[23:34:44] P.P.A.: here the intention is not simply to let the player have fun
[23:34:51] P.P.A.: but to create a certain agme
[23:34:57] P.P.A.: with a certain concept and idea
[23:35:02] Makai: DrExplosion says:
I disagree
[23:35:09] P.P.A.: and you can measure a game's quality by how well it is at being itself
[23:35:40] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Skyrim was not intended to be a treatise on the nature of man
[23:35:46] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Skyrim was intended to be fun
[23:35:52] P.P.A.: Sonic 06, for example, I find fun—but it's a horrible game, because it is completely unfinished (and thus not what it was intended to be), full of bugs (the same), unrefined, and barely or untested, etc.
[23:35:57] Makai: DrExplosion says:
If you had fun, it succeeded
[23:36:19] P.P.A.: Skyrim was, as I take it, intended to be a game which presents a credible world in which it would be easy to immerse yourself
[23:36:21] Makai: Remirya says:
I'm waiting for the day a bunch of people get bored and create Sonic 06 Plus
[23:36:35] P.P.A.: with a dense and believable atmosphere, many unique characters, and so on
[23:36:42] P.P.A.: It's immersive all right, but far from credible.
[23:36:52] Makai: Remirya says:
>credible
[23:36:53] Makai: Remirya says:
>dragons
[23:37:03] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Dragons can be credible if there's internal consistency
[23:37:06] P.P.A.: I said credibel, not realistic.
[23:37:10] P.P.A.: *credible
[23:37:23] Makai: Suika says:
But isn't credibility subjective?
[23:37:35] P.P.A.: Well, “coherence”, then
[23:37:42] Makai: DrExplosion says:
I like "consistent"
[23:37:55] Makai: DrExplosion says:
But pretty much, yeah, I see what you're saying there
[23:38:03] P.P.A.: The credibiltiy, coherence, consistence, or whatever you'd want to call it of Skyrim is often disrupted
[23:38:35] Makai: Suika says:
...I dunno about that
[23:38:48] Makai: Suika says:
I think that would depend on the individual's experience
[23:39:01] Makai: DrExplosion says:
I once had a bunch of people end up cloning themselves because of a bug
[23:39:06] P.P.A.: Bugs, of course, btu also the evry stilted and unnatural behaviour of the NPCs, the highly unrealistic graphics (which aren't abstracted to give you the impression of realism, but which try to be as realistic as possible and fail at it [glossy rocks everywhere, strange lighting, hideous peole, and so on),
[23:39:19] Makai: DrExplosion says:
It was like twelve of the same guy standing next to himself
[23:39:27] P.P.A.: the broken scales (the biggest cities are still just a few houses, for example), and other things
[23:40:23] P.P.A.: Also the robot-like behaviour of your housecarls, NPCs being very weird at times, or the episode I mentioned where I could freely walk past three guards into the private chambers of a ruler's aide in their palace
[23:41:08] P.P.A.: It's only immersive in there is a lot of things to do—a lot—, but not in that it crafts a world which you can really feel at home in, or which you could believe in
[23:41:13] P.P.A.: not because of how you perceive it
[23:41:31] P.P.A.: but because of many glitches and things that are completely unnatural, disruptive, and often fall into the uncanny valley
[23:41:33] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Immersion is going to be subjective
[23:41:52] P.P.A.: Again, you can immerse yourself in it
[23:41:58] P.P.A.: but not to the degree the developers intended
[23:42:08] Makai: Remirya says:
I find Skyrim unimmersive because a bear can kick a dragon's ass single-handedly
[23:42:11] Makai: Remirya says:
It has happened
[23:42:13] P.P.A.: only in terms of gameplay maybe
[23:42:17] Makai: Remirya says:
</half-sarcasm>
[23:42:42] P.P.A.: but not in terms of creating a believable, coherent, and seemingly natural world
[23:43:03] Makai: DrExplosion says:
Alright, that works for me
[23:43:06] P.P.A.: which can be derieved to have been the intention, judging by the incredible amount of detail

It also made me remember a link on the topic I had once saved but not yet gotten around to look at; which I have now done, finding it to be a really good read: http://paulgraham.com/goodart.html