Facts; AMA

Yea Forums plays mostly mediocre games. Prove me right: protip – that's the only reasonable response.

Attached: Objectivity (Strawberry, chocolate, and brie).png (628x882, 879K)

How do you measure objective quality? How do you quantify it? What metrics are used to determine it?

A). Depending on the specific genre is possible.
B). Comparing across genres is also an option.

A large aspect of quality is improvement on fundamentals. … RNG was a simple method of gunplay variety, but obviously, deterministic recoiling patterns are more competitive.

>How is it measured?
It depends on how accurate and scientific you're interested in getting.

>How is it quantified?
>What metrics?
How happy it makes the user. This is basing on biological factors that are relevant to all players, because sperm+egg to adult is a very particular, algorithmically defined propagation, resulting in 99.5% genetic similarity, potentially 100%.

––

I'm being sorta vague, because the basics are important.

>Facts: opinions.
Nice. Post a pic nutraments nigger. I want to see the man behind the mania.

I agree.

t. university professor who has to defend the significance of films to increasingly annoying students who dismiss or argue about films they've never seen in contextual, sociological terms instead of aesthetic ones.

Quality is objective, but difficult if not impossible to quantify. Something that is well made is always well made.
But Yea Forums doesn't play mostly mediocre games, that's statistically impossible.

>university professor
>you actually got a masters in fucking around
How's it feel wasting 1000's of dollars having students watch you try to turn on a projector for 15 minutes?

Attached: 965.gif (530x742, 2.59M)

()
…
The truth is that many examples are available evidencing how similar rewards are.

>Loops of feedbacks, such as smiling leading to more smiling, especially when received from others.
>Hungers correlating with energy homeostasis, cholinergic-dopaminergic rewards, neurotrophy, et al., and even being required for rewards from alcohol.

[Specific types of chemicals are produced.] [They're utilized for very precise functions], which translates to homogenousness of experiences.

––

The differences are found amongst mediocre nutrition, leading the user to derivative behaviors caused by odd communication. (Nutriments are a huge percentage of feeling-well, creativity, performance, personality, social interest and investment, energy levels, and other aspects of genetic expression.)

Researched, even racism was dropped when social benefits were found. With something so common (and often powerful) so easily displaced, it really evidences how effective specific incentives are. (The scholarly articles suggesting differences between races are incredibly affected by their controls for nutrients.) So, repeated behaviors resulting in unique opinions are responsible …

>How happy it makes the user
Finally, someone brave enough to say what we've all been thinking; happiness is the only relevant quality in judging art
Lucky Star >>> Shitgelion
Happy Gilmore >>> SHITANKEP
My daughter's fingerpainting >>> Shitstine Chapel
Super Mario Sunshine >>> SH(IT)2 >>>>>>> "SHITOLOGIC"

Yea Forums doesn't play mediocre games because Yea Forums doesn't play ANY games. It just shitposts about those games, and the bad or mediocre ones are its favorite subject.
Had you worded it as "Yea Forums only talks about mediocre games" you would have been entirely correct.

The feedback you're talking about is individualized.
You need 100% unilateral agreement to truly prove anything is "good" and that status could be challenged at any second. Many people do not like videogames, therefore we can infer only certain types of people like videogames, therefore we can videogame preference is subjective and individualized, therefore we can infer videogames do not have objective quality.
This is not an appeal: it is an objectively true observation that can be proven true at any second.

Quantification (and qualification) are actually quite simple.

Receiving smiles is already being measured vs. eating candy bars, and receiving sums of money.

>that's statistically …
But most games are mediocre.

Attached: smiling.jpg (526x224, 43K)

See , especially the image content.

Smiles and chocolates are not game objectivity in the slightest.
This does not relate to my statement. This is nonsequitur and a false equivalent.
Anything else?

Seeing as 99% of games are bad to mediocre, it is impossible to prove you wrong.

You're arguing to extremes, when even great games are potentially shelved eventually because of repetition, at least for a while.

Also, the logic that some demographics having little interest in video games suggests anything, especially for the future of those and/or others is A). appealing to tradition, and B). way too little for too much. Their judgments are plausibly based on very small amounts of gameplay, if any, and often in very gross physical capacity and trained-ness.

––

Science is actually really proficient at explaining objectivity in preferences (motivation). Playtests relying on "fun" were very imprecise predictors of future playing – even 1%, vs. groups being instructed on specific qualifiers (41% – "still playing after 8 months"). So, the demographics with low ratings of games are basing on arbitrary definitions. That's also true for many really experienced.

Attached: accuracy - 'fun' vs specific qualifiers.png (624x219, 26K)

You're not addressing the issue:
>If one person doesn't like something, it can be determined to be not "objectively good."
Observations aren't appeals because arguments aren't being structured around them. My absolute observation falls by syllogism and logicism to prove your premise to be objectively incorrect.

When you argue objective, you argue in the extremes. Objective is an extreme word: it's an absolute.

Following your logic I can say this:
Breathing 22.3 oxygen-concentrate air is optimal. This is a scientific truism.
We can infer from this that I know which games are best.

For

Your observations are based on faulty premises, specifically that the demographics are optimizing their own interests.

Why is it faulty?
These demographics are, in fact, able to determine their preferences and interests. Thinks isn't faulty.

If you can say that then the same can be applied to you, check this shit out:
>You cannot optimize your own interest.
Your own claim can be applied to you.

Define quality

It was just exhibited that relying on improper nutrition/behavior and/or qualifiers/understanding is poor.

>You cannot optimize your own interest.
That's rewording what was said (and thus the burden of proof is on you).

Attached: An example of objective quality (physiology).png (887x183, 41K)

You're muddling the issue with unrelated material, but I won't let you do that.
Stick to videogame quality objectivity and prove it.
Biological imperatives are not equitable to videogame quality objectivity, so we can effectively discard that data as it is nonsequitur.