Game:

The Spam Club

» The Spam Club - Life, The Universe and Everything - Software Galore - Search old game "Elysium"
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll
» Multiple Pages: 123

Search old game "Elysium"

Posted at 12:08 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
True, you can measure quality of a game by certain standards set by the scene like graphics/gamplay/sound/originality/... but quality isn't the issue here... I know a lot of movies/songs/games/... who are stacked with good qualities but that doesn't mean I like them... You are wrong by mistakenly taking quality and liking as synonims (sp?)... and the reasons why I like this game (in this case) are completly subjective experiences from my youth so you could hardly call those facts/stats/standards/... I can always give reasons why I like/dislike something but these reasons would be experiences moreoften then not...
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 12:11 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
Quote:
Mr Creosote: the reasons why you like or dislike something are always based on facts, statistics or even standards you set yourself!
That's exact, but ultimately you have to decide for yourself if a fact/statistic/standard is positive or negative. You can try to convince someone that a game is good, but there is no such thing as proving scientifically and thus objectively that one game is better than the other. Similarly, your site would be hell to someone who's idea of heaven is a five sentence review... To me, it is not, and that's why I'm here.
Quote:
Pada1: True, you can measure quality of a game by certain standards set by the scene
Conforming (is that a word in English?) to other people's standards is something you should always avoid, in my opinion.
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 12:17 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
You repeated exactly the same thing I said in my previous posts.
Quote:
but quality isn't the issue here
Not for you, but as I said, you left the question whether it is or not open before, thus my post about your measurement being purely subjective.
Quote:
You are wrong by mistakenly taking quality and liking as synonims
Answered by
Quote:
An overall decision about 'liking' something or not will always be subjective

Mole: as far as I'm concerned, a standard is objective as soon as one person measures everything alike by it. So convincing others is not crucial there. The relation of the judgements have to fit, then it's objective.
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 12:21 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
You're both probably already typing your answers, that is why I'll reply again instead of editing my post ;)

On standards set by others / 'the scene': I couldn't care less about those. What most people consider 'good graphics' is a load of poo to me! Yet, I do measure game quality by graphics. But using my own standard of course. From the reviews combined, it should be clear what that is - and as long as this standard is applied to all games, it is as objective as it gets.
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 12:36 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
Quote:
as far as I'm concerned, a standard is objective as soon as one person measures everything alike by it
Unfortunatly, it isn't up to you to decide about the meaning of words... objectivity is universal, without any influence from man. eg: "the sun is hot" isn't an objective statement but "the sun is 3 000 000 degrees" (random figure) is... instead of changing the meaning of words to suit your needs, you should introduce new words and define them as clearly as you can... [edit] just remembered: the word you should be using is internal consistency... just a thought ;)[/edit]
Quote:
So convincing others is not crucial there.
you're right there, discussion about something isn't possible about an objective something because it is fact (you can of course debate about the methods used to come to the objective quality and thuswise criticise the objective fact)...
Quote:
On standards set by others / 'the scene': I couldn't care less about those. What most people consider 'good graphics' is a load of poo to me! Yet, I do measure game quality by graphics
What I meant was that you can use the same catagories which are kinda set by the scene... But you yourself of course choose what is good/bad in such a catagory by using your
Quote:
own standard of course
which is again subjective...
Quote:
it is as objective as it gets
and here you admit that it is a subjective matter because objective/subjective is a discontinu value (it is either a or b, there is no middle ground... there are of course subjective standard which look rather objective or resemble an objective standard but for a few details but they are still subjective (or vice versa))

Quote:
You're both probably already typing your answers, that is why I'll reply again instead of editing my post
and actually, neither me nor the mole were replying at the time you posted this :P but hey, a post more for you heh ;)

Edited by Pada1 at 20:40 on January, 04th 2003
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 12:40 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
Quote:
Mr Creosote: You're both probably already typing your answers, that is why I'll reply again instead of editing my post ;)
No I wasn't. ;)

Of course, using the same standard consequently is a good, I would even say 'intelligent', way of acting. But is it truly a source of objectivity? That would mean objectivity lies within the observer and not in reality itself; which is something great philosophers have disagreed on so I'm not going to argue any further, guess our definitions of objectivity slightly differ, but I'm not in the position to say who's right and who's wrong here...

[Edit: Pada1; 3 000 000 degrees... you should probably add a unity of measurement to that to make it objective :P]

Edited by The Mole at 20:45 on January, 04th 2003
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 12:43 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
Quote:
Unfortunatly, it isn't up to you to decide about the meaning of words... objectivity is universal, without any influence from man. eg: "the sun is hot" isn't an objective statement but "the sun is 3 000 000 degrees" (random figure) is... instead of changing the meaning of words to suit your needs, you should introduce new words and define them as clearly as you can...
Perfect example to prove my point: 'degrees' isn't defined the same by everyone - so according to the scale used (e.g. Kelvin, °C, °F or even a scale invented by me), the meaning of your "the sun is xxxxxx degrees" is different.
Quote:
and here you admit that it is a subjective matter because objective/subjective is a discontinu value (it is either a or b, there is no middle ground... there are of course subjective standard which look rather objective or resemble an objective standard but for a few details but they are still subjective (or vice versa))
I've not 'admitted' anything, I've repeated what I've been saying all the time (how many times should I quote this?):
Quote:
An overall decision about 'liking' something or not will always be subjective for the most part, but the reasons why you like or dislike something are always based on facts, statistics or even standards you set yourself!


Using the edit function this time to balance the post count out again :P
Mole: you're right in saying this leads to the philosophical question of objectivity and common standards. As far as I know, Immanuel Kant was the last 'important' philosopher to claim there are such standards which are valid for everyone, so for several hundred years, there hasn't been an opinion towards your definition ;)

Edited by Mr Creosote at 20:46 on January, 04th 2003
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 12:54 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
k, got me on the sun-sentence... simply forgot to include the celcius... my bad but my point there is still valid...

Quote:
Quote:
An overall decision about 'liking' something or not will always be subjective for the most part, but the reasons why you like or dislike something are always based on facts, statistics or even standards you set yourself!
And as I have said quite a few times myself, I disagree with this statement...

I'll go through it piece by piece in order to be as clear as possible:
Quote:
An overall decision about 'liking' something or not will always be subjective for the most part,
I cannot agree with this because of "the most part"-part... An overall decision will always be 100% subjective. eg: MI: I like the graphics because they are pleasing to my eyes (subjective), not because they were written by a certain programmer (objective) or whatever...
Quote:
but the reasons why you like or dislike something are always based on facts, statistics or even standards you set yourself!
Cannot agree with this either because why you like or dislike something isn't based on that fact/statistic/... but on your perception of that fact/...
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 13:00 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
Quote:
Mr Creosote: As far as I know, Immanuel Kant was the last 'important' philosopher to claim there are such standards which are valid for everyone, so for several hundred years, there hasn't been an opinion towards your definition ;)
You, of all people, should know that newer doesn't necessarily mean better. ;)
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 13:02 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
Why can't I like something because it was made by a certain artist? I could also says "these graphics are good, because they're hand-drawn and not calculated by software ( = maths)". "Being hand-drawn" is a fact. So there we are with the reasons for liking something being objective. Drawing the conclusion out of this that the overall product is good would of course be hasty - it is only one argument, but an objective one (just like the artist, the type of colours and a lot more). All these objective observations combined do influence the 'subjective' overall decision, that is why I don't think anybody can honestly claim his/her decision is purely subjective.

Mole: I didn't say it's better because it's newer, the pure mass on one's own side makes it easier in an argument though :P If nobody supports a theory for several hundred years, that is almost a statistical miracle...

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:04 on January, 04th 2003
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 13:15 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
if you say: "I like this picture because it is hand-drawn" you automaticly include a subjective sentiment into this sentence because that would mean you prefer hand-drawn work above calculated drawing... it is objective to you perhaps but it isn't objective because you as a subjective entity have judged one over the other as nicer, more likeable or whatever... If this statement was truly objective, I and everybody else would have to agree with you that hand-drawn work is nicer then calculated work... a truly objective statement would be that water is liquid at 20 degrees celcius in normal circumstances... this is something nobody can deny whitout being in contadiction of reality (or at least, our perception of it)...
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 13:19 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
I could quote myself again with the same statement now. I am aware that the quote you picked contains a subjective component! The reason given is a purely objective observation though! That is exactly what I said before: objective facts do influence the overall view in one way or the other. Are you really trying to deny that? Sorry, but that is incredibly stupid.

Oh, and by the way: your example about water is far from being consistent. You said "in normal circumstances" - isn't that subjective, too?

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:20 on January, 04th 2003
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 13:21 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
Quote:
Mr Creosote: "Being hand-drawn" is a fact. So there we are with the reasons for liking something being objective.
"Being hand drawn" is indeed a fact, but not a reason to like something by itself; the fact that you choose to call that a reason to like something instead of disliking it, for the same fact, or even not letting your decision be influenced at all by that fact, makes it - in my opinion - subjective. So it only becomes a reason after a subjective decision by you.

Quote:
Mr Creosote: I didn't say it's better because it's newer, the pure mass on one's own side makes it easier in an argument though :P If nobody supports a theory for several hundred years, that is almost a statistical miracle...
Haha, don't get me started on:

a) Statistics (ask Pada1, I can bitch for hours about that)
b) The immense foolishness of everyone, including me

So I couldn't care less about people not supporting my theory for several hundred years, because people aren't perfect and people are easily influenced by all sorts of crap (once again, this counts for me too of course).
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 13:26 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
I'm merely trying to point out that a human being is unable to be truly objective about his perception and therefor you cannot base yourself on objective facts but only on your subjective perception of this objective fact...
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 13:29 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
"In normal circumstances" is strictly defined in physics as at atmosphere pressure etc. so the name might be subjectively chosen, but the conditions are a fixed whole, it is quantified and measurable, so Pada1's statement is a fact. And I still think every 'reason' is merely subjective 'construction' made from a fact. Like Pada1 says; facts themselves are not reasons.
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 13:32 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Master Gumby
Posts: 103
I think you are confusing quality with taste. Quality can be objectified, whereas taste is inherently subjective. In fact, it is possible for the perceptions of quality and taste to contradict each other within the same individual and in relation to the same object.

For instance when it comes to games: you can objectively say that a game has good graphics because there is a standard for it: you can observe the detail of the textures, the definition of shapes, you can judge how effectively the hardware on wich the game is running has been used and compare it with other games. Through all of this you can measure the quality of the graphics and, if you were writing a review, you could objectively say if they were good or not. However, even after arriving at the conclusion that the graphics were excellent, you could then say I don't like them, and you wouldn't be contradicting yourself because then you would be issuing an opinion which is the result of a judgment that takes all those objective factors into account but then is heavilly influenced by your own subjective taste: what appeals to you personally, what makes you tick, and that is something that cannot be measured or objectified.

That's something that happens to everybody at one time or another, I guess. You can recognize the quality of a game, a movie or a piece of music, you can even say why it is good, yet subjectively it does nothing for you: you cannot bring yourself to like it.
-----
C'est pas la chute qu'importe -- c'est l'atterrissage
Posted at 13:49 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
This is going in circles. Dizzy summed up what I've tried to say about the basics all the time almost perfectly. Thus my conclusion about objectivity: standards set by oneself, but followed strictly. If you'd just accept this (even if only for the sake of an argument), you'll see everything I said is completely logical, because then, I can perfectly use objective facts as reasons.
Quote:
I'm merely trying to point out that a human being is unable to be truly objective about his perception and therefor you cannot base yourself on objective facts but only on your subjective perception of this objective fact...
That is exactly what I've been saying from the start. Why did you try to deny it then?

Pada & Mole: your arguments are simply not consistent! First, you're both saying there is only subjectivity. Then, you're claiming there is complete and utter objectivity. Again in your last posts:
Quote:
So I couldn't care less about people not supporting my theory for several hundred years, because people aren't perfect and people are easily influenced by all sorts of crap (once again, this counts for me too of course).
Quote:
"In normal circumstances" is strictly defined in physics as at atmosphere pressure etc. so the name might be subjectively chosen, but the conditions are a fixed whole, it is quantified and measurable, so Pada1's statement is a fact.
Please decide what you're trying to say. As a student of several fields of engineering, I can tell you there is nothing like 'exact measurement', thus any 'definition' cannot be compared and used completely objectively. I know the definition you're referring to, it does include some 'natural constants' though which are only randomly chosen and rounded numbers. They're not objective by your definition. By my definition however, they are, because I can safely make some prerequisites like "my conclusions are based on the assumption this number is 100% correct". That is exactly what I'm doing about games, too: "my conclusion is based on the assumption hand-drawn is positive".

Edited by Mr Creosote at 21:53 on January, 04th 2003
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted at 13:57 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 607
Quote:
Dizzy: You can objectively say that a game has good graphics because there is a standard for it: you can observe the detail of the textures, the definition of shapes, you can judge how effectively the hardware on wich the game is running has been used and compare it with other games. Through all of this you can measure the quality of the graphics and, if you were writing a review, you could objectively say if they were good or not.
Detail, definition of shapes, use of the harware are indeed points on which you could compare games but still, concluding from that comparison that a game has good graphics is subjective... The standard you choose to call 'quality' remains subjective, whether it was defined by you, or happens to be one millions of people agree on. Standards and comparisons can be very useful, but do not guarantee objectivity.

Mr Creosote: Yes, those circumstances are arbitrarily chosen but Pada1's sentence remains a fact simply because it contains no 'judgement' whatsoever. It would be subjective if he added a qualitative opinion about water, which he didn't.
-----
"One Very Important Thought"
Posted at 13:59 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Member
Prof Gumby
Posts: 560
I am saying that there is utter objectivity but a human being cannot base himself on this objectivity but only on his subjective perception about this objectivity... therefor any judgement a human makes concerning taste is always totaly subjective... we can only use objective facts in a formal system like maths. as soon as you try to use an objective fact in something like taste, you nolonger use this fact but your perception of this fact which is subjective... therefor all I said is logical (if maybe somewhat incoherent)... I have to go now but I'll explain it more clearly when I get back...
-----
"In theory, if people bred as fast as ants, and with an equal indifference for it's surrounding species, earth would have 5 million human inhabitants at the turn of the century. But this, of course, is highly unthinkable"
Posted at 14:02 on January 4th, 2003 | Quote | Edit | Delete
Avatar
Admin
Reborn Gumby
Posts: 8995
Mole: Every scientific report contains judgements and conclusions. Now guess what these are based on: the facts derived from standards which have been more or less randomly chosen (like for example temperature scale). That is exactly the same way I'm doing it, as pointed out before. Without making prerequisites first, no measurement could ever be possible!

Pada: Maths isn't objective (by your definition, it is by mine) at all. It is a a common myth that it is - but nothing but an urban legend. If you look carefully at it, you'll see that it is based on assumptions (all basics of maths are assumptions based on observations/statistics) and prerequisites (usage of certain scales,....).

Edited by Mr Creosote at 22:13 on January, 04th 2003
-----
Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
» Multiple Pages: 123
ReplyNew TopicNew Poll
Powered by Spam Board 5.2.4 © 2007 - 2011 Spam Board Team