Board 8 > What the hell is up with ugly games these days

(+) 1 Yeah! (+)

a lot of nerdz are ugly and that's why they like ugly games and try to fight back against "objective beauty"

personally I'm a 10 so I only play the latest AAA games in 4K

Ah, one of those topics.

I definitely have thoughts and opinions on this because I fucking love pixel art aesthetic and it is crucially undervalued and underappreciated by "gamers", but I don't currently have the time or energy to follow this topic at the moment.

So instead I'm just leaving this post here like some weird indie dev shill and/or troll.

Oh I will say there's an episode of The World God Only Knows about finding beauty in what we impulsively define as ugly, and it's surprisingly poignant despite how silly the episode is and how corny the show is as a whole. But the thing about art is that there's no singular defined interpretation, so I imagine I'm the only one who enjoyed that episode.

Ialso haven't seen it since high school so maybe a poor example

tazzyboyishere posted...

Ah, one of those topics.

I find it moderately interesting that you can predict the exact course of this topic without reading any of the posts.

Why don't we all just find a dictionary and look up a popularly-accepted definition for "objective"

paperwarior posted...

Why don't we all just find a dictionary and look up a popularly-accepted definition for "objective"

Pff, that's a pretty subjective way to decide what objective means.

Lopen posted...

Wrong as in "does not apply" yes absolutely.

Like what?

For a very simple and broad example from the math side (I don't know enough on the physics side to speak to specifics, just that I know that such things exist) there are a ton of theorems that apply to only the set of Real Numbers. Because you can generate a counter-example to the theorem by using numbers from a different set doesn't invalidate the truth of the statement among the original set.

For example if we consider pretentious art history graduates who are desperately seeking a practical application of their degree and choose to use it to try and validate liking objectively ugly video games in internet arguments to be a subset of the imaginary numbers the theorem would still be considered true among the set of real numbers (the 99%+ of people who think the game that didn't put any resources or talent into visual design is rightfully ugly)

Like listen I'm not saying every game I think looks good is objectively beautiful or that every game I think looks bad is objectively ugly. But there are certain standards with respect to art that when not followed tend to invoke a feeling of revulsion towards the uninformed viewer. This is true of like pretty much every art form out there. In music, you could play a piece with a bunch of untuned instruments that randomly insert a different note in place of the intended one every bar and that would be an analogue to an ugly video game. Most people would call that a cacophony but I'm sure some people would find that a daring piece to play and laud what it's doing. That doesn't mean you can't say it's objectively bad-- it just means that in spite of that some people will like it. Which you know, if you're secure in your tastes you should be completely okay with liking something that's objectively bad.

literally everybody agrees that beauty is subjective

something is "objectively ugly" if literally everybody thinks it's ugly
"literally everybody" doesn't mean LITERALLY everybody
"objectively ugly" doesn't mean OBJECTIVELY ugly

hope this helps!

I don't care if I like unpopular things but I also tend not to take someone seriously if they try to argue that said unpopular thing is "objectively" bad

NeatoAnAccount posted...

something is "objectively ugly" if literally everybody thinks it's ugly
"literally everybody" doesn't mean LITERALLY everybody
"objectively ugly" doesn't mean OBJECTIVELY ugly

You were on the right track and then you screwed it up with the third line

Loving this definition of objective that involves lots of people thinking something is or isn't a certain quality.

Leonhart4 posted...

I don't care if I like unpopular things but I also tend not to take someone seriously if they try to argue that said unpopular thing is "objectively" bad

Popularity has nothing to do with it.

There are plenty of unpopular things I would say are objectively bad and plenty of unpopular things I would say are not. There are plenty of things I find ugly that I would call objectively ugly and plenty of things I find ugly that I would not call objectively ugly.

The problem is when you can't distinguish why something might be considered objectively bad and try to extend that to say that nobody can and that it has to be a matter of opinion. Often the issue is a lack of knowledge and ability to articulate than it being completely a matter of opinion.

I mean yes some things are completely a matter of style choices. Red car vs blue car. No one is going to argue either one is objectively better. How about a new car with a leather interior vs a new car that has had dog poop sitting in it for 2 days. Which one smells better? Surely the dog poop car can only smell bad subjectively as smells are a matter of opinion, right?

Yeah if there is no such thing as objectively better there is also no such thing as talent and therefore all art is worthless because banksy is no better at art than a toddler.

its nonsense

All games are beautiful.

On the inside.

masterplum posted...

banksy is no better at art than a toddler.

I'm sorry man but this is objectively an insanely funny example

Kenri posted...

Loving this definition of objective that involves lots of people thinking something is or isn't a certain quality.

You know what someone means when they call an artwork objectively ugly, though.

There are 2 possible rebuttals to this, and one is much more interesting than the other.

The interesting one is "Here is the beauty to be found in the art."

The boring one is "No, subjectivity is an attribute of ugliness, therefore 'objectively ugly' is a contradiction. QED."

The boring answer always works. You don't even need to know what artwork is being discussed.

masterplum posted...

Yeah if there is no such thing as objectively better there is also no such thing as talent and therefore all art is worthless because banksy is no better at art than a toddler.

its nonsense

This is true. Even though personal taste overrides what's "objectively better" all the time, there is still "objectively bad" art.

NeatoAnAccount posted...

This is true. Even though personal taste overrides what's "objectively better" all the time, there is still "objectively bad" art.

And this is all I've been saying.

Having self confidence is realizing that you have the ultimate override, being able to accept what you like is "objectively bad" and being at peace with it. It's okay. I love plenty of bad shit. Let's have a discussion about our favorite movies and I'm going to have some terrible ones near the top of mine and I'm going to hate some of your movies you like that I would say are objectively pretty good, just not something I personally got anything out of.

Having a lack of self confidence is saying "b-b-b-but that's just an OPINION!!! MY ART APPRECIATION CLASS!!!"

Just because you don't have the knowledge on the topic to grasp why the thing you like objectively sucks doesn't mean it doesn't. It just means you have weird tastes or like it for reasons completely unrelated to why it sucks and can't separate the two, and can't grasp why it does suck. You trying to marginalize everyone who disagrees with you by putting everything at equal "it's an opinion so we're both right" is the super egotistical and not humble at all, despite what some people in here are deluding themselves into believing.

I think the term you're looking for is "technical quality." As in, the skilled craft and design evident in the work itself. This also isn't quantitative but it's less dependent on opinion than the overall evaluation.

paperwarior posted...

I think the term you're looking for is "technical quality." As in, the skilled craft and design evident in the work itself. This also isn't quantitative but it's less dependent on opinion than the overall evaluation.

"Technical quality" is a noun phrase, while "objectively bad" is an adjective phrase, so they are not substitutes.

Also "objectively bad" works perfectly. It communicates the intended message compactly and everyone knows what it means.

Really? I can't say "technical quality" to mean "technically good or bad" but when someone says a game's objectively bad and then joins in an argument about what "objective" means that's clear and effective wording?

Something of exceptionally low technical quality can be objectively bad but it's hardly the only way something can be objectively bad.

Like my analogy about performing a song with untuned instruments with random notes thrown in at calculated intervals-- it can be performed completely perfectly in terms of hitting the notes and it'll still sound objectively bad to people because you're made calculated choices that ruin the quality of the work.

That would probably be considered poor composition on a technical level. There's such a thing as music theory. The rules are not absolute but they've even been plotted out mathematically and they fit to some degree with what most people like. But it's still not objectively anything.

I still don't even understand what you mean by "objectively" though. It's not overall consensus and it's not a technical evaluation. Seems kind of like a "I know it when I see it" standard but I get the feeling there must be more precise terms for why these things are bad and possibly still enjoyable.

NeatoAnAccount posted...

Also "objectively bad" works perfectly. It communicates the intended message compactly and everyone knows what it means.

I know what people mean when they say it, but it's rarely ever followed up with an explanation of why it's objectively bad, so I tend not to take it seriously when it's said since it's used more to give their personal take more credibility.

Like if you're going to argue something is objectively bad, then you should be able to discuss the objective metrics that make it bad instead of just saying so or saying enough people agree to make it so. Otherwise it doesn't actually enhance the conversation and becomes a word that leads to topics like this.

paperwarior posted...

I can't say "technical quality" to mean "technically good or bad"?

You can. If you talk about a game's "technical quality," it will be clear what you mean by that. Then people will be able to argue with you about whether or not they agree with your message.

Words mean what people mean when they say them. Generally speaking, it's clear what someone means when they say a game is "objectively good" or "technically good," especially if they say literally anything else at all about it.

Edit:

Leonhart4 posted...

Like if you're going to argue something is objectively bad, then you should be able to discuss the objective metrics that make it bad instead of just saying so or saying enough people agree to make it so. Otherwise it doesn't actually enhance the conversation and becomes a word that leads to topics like this.

Well then the proper response is "what objective standards are you using?" If I call something objectively bad and leave it there, I probably think it's self-evident.

paperwarior posted...

That would probably be considered poor composition on a technical level. There's such a thing as music theory. The rules are not absolute but they've even been plotted out mathematically and they fit to some degree with what most people like. But it's still not objectively anything.

Okay so whatever we can call it that if you want because you've just said you agree with me pretty much. The only difference in the matter is I would call music theory "objectively something" yes. That's what I've been getting at with art as well. How is something studied and with defined rules not considered "objective"-- the theory isn't based on nothing. There are certain principles that should be followed to make a work be better-- irrespective of style. Having some random person who really likes a bad composition because it fills some deep desire to be unique, or it reminds them of something from their childhood, or they have some form of brain damage or whatever else, that doesn't invalidate the objective truth.

Just because you personally like this thing that is objectively bad doesn't make it a completely subjective topic. It just means your subjective tastes do not match up with the objective quality of the item.

Tastes are subjective, quality is not.

Subjectively I don't like it. Outside of edge cases like that, people can be extremely divided on the quality of a work, and it's not a matter of one side or the other being correct. The IMDB rating or RottenTomatoes score is not a measure of quality. It's a compilation of opinions. Is it just hyperbole, like "ironic"? I wouldn't have any problem with that, I just haven't seen much of that compared to all the people who still argue for the objective truth of their own opinions.

It's funny, I just did a writeup in a topic saying something was "Bad game, 10/10, highly recommend" so I do understand liking something that I think is bad. But it was nominated for The Game Awards so clearly not everyone agrees it's even bad.

Yeah I just think this is too multifaceted a topic where attempts to cleanly define things lead to reductive statements.

How about describing "objectively bad" things as flawed? If you describe a flaw, as in an element of a work you say is bad, the description of the element can be agreed on even when not everyone agrees it's a flaw. Flaws are what give us works that are "bad" and enjoyable. There's something in there that overcomes the flaws, even if it's just unintentional comedy.

I think there are works of art that are demonstrably unskilled - works by The Shaggs and the Tommy Wiseau's of the world. I think it's hard to argue against certain works being poorly made. But the moment you step beyond the genuinely incompetent, there are so many conflicting theories that nothing 'objective' can be managed. Genres like punk and metal exist in direct opposition to one another.

Leonhart4 posted...

Like if you're going to argue something is objectively bad, then you should be able to discuss the objective metrics that make it bad instead of just saying so or saying enough people agree to make it so. Otherwise it doesn't actually enhance the conversation and becomes a word that leads to topics like this.

And to be fair that's why I rarely do such things. But I do take offense to people trying to dumb it down and say that people who think Axiom Verge is ugly just don't like pixel art and that all NES games were just as ugly-- it clearly is not that. You'll note my first post in this topic was saying there are a ton of NES games that look way better than Axiom Verge 2.

If you want the first most glaring thing that makes it feel ugly to me it's the contrast and color choices. Everything sort of has a blurred together feel and the important elements don't pop enough (the latter is more functionally a problem, but the former is offputting particularly when the blurred together colors are shades of browns or these miserable baby blues). It's not really a discussion that interests me because the opposing side is saying "it's an artistic choice dummy" and I don't have the depth of study to articulate to them why they're wrong even if it is pretty obvious to anyone with eyes. And of course, they're going to double down with some random piece of art that was drawn entirely with poop browns as though that defeats the argument. It's just not worth my time. Just because people refuse to see why certain elements to the style are offputting to most people and because people who do don't care to refute every insipid counter-argument doesn't mean it's purely a matter of opinion.

Just because I don't have the energy or knowledge on the topic to explain to them exactly what it's doing wrong and why that's wrong, doesn't mean that it isn't clearly doing things wrong. Saying they're more "right" because they fall back on the "OPINION" defense is dumb.

Anyway yeah. It's fine, like, if you think the game looks great, awesome, but that doesn't mean it does. It means it doesn't, and you like it anyway.

Lopen posted...

Having a lack of self confidence is saying "b-b-b-but that's just an OPINION!!! MY ART APPRECIATION CLASS!!!"

Just because you don't have the knowledge on the topic to grasp why the thing you like objectively sucks doesn't mean it doesn't.

how do you write these two sentences right next to each other. you just need expert knowledge and then you'll know what art objectively sucks and what doesn't, but also learning about art in college is bullshit and leads to having the wrong opinions?

Kenri posted...

you just need expert knowledge and then you'll know what art objectively sucks and what doesn't, but also learning about art in college is bullshit and leads to having the wrong opinions?

Because art appreciation classes and art classes aren't the same thing?

I think art appreciation classes are generally bullshit. I think art classes are extremely useful.

By art classes you mean classes where you actually do art? Those are obviously important too but very few people are gonna have expert knowledge about even one art form if that's required.

Lopen posted...

I don't have the depth of study to articulate to them why they're wrong

And here you just... admit you don't have the knowledge required to support your opinion (which wouldn't even be required except that your own argument says it is) but also you're right anyway, and people who disagree with you are wrong even though maybe they do have this expert knowledge.

like... is this performance art you're doing right now?

paperwarior posted...

How about describing "objectively bad" things as flawed? If you describe a flaw, as in an element of a work you say is bad, the description of the element can be agreed on even when not everyone agrees it's a flaw. Flaws are what give us works that are "bad" and enjoyable. There's something in there that overcomes the flaws, even if it's just unintentional comedy.

I dunno, I feel like everyone agrees poor frame rate is bad/a flaw.

Disclaimer my opinion on art appreciation classes is not objectively true.

I mean it might be but I don't know enough on the topic to be sure.

MacArrowny posted...

I dunno, I feel like everyone agrees poor frame rate is bad/a flaw.

maybe for video games but definitely not for movies; lots of people think 24FPS looks much better than higher frame rates. unstable frame rates might be universally a flaw though.

here's a random example: https://gizmodo.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fai-5969817

Kenri posted...

And here you just... admit you don't have the knowledge required to support your opinion (which wouldn't even be required except that your own argument says it is) but also you're right anyway, and people who disagree with you are wrong even though maybe they do have this expert knowledge.

I'm saying there are things you don't need to understand or to be able to articulate to realize you're right about them.

To go back to physics there are hundreds of examples in your every day life that you could figure out through observation even if you haven't taken a single physics course. Like you don't need to know the equation for centripital force to know that clearly when you swing something around your head it's going to follow a specific path if you let it go. Similarly with art you're going to find that there are certain choices that when made are going to make the average person not really interested in it. If you need a class to explain why the average person SHOULD be interested in it, that's a bullshit class.

The only people who care about being able to articulate specifically why the art sucks are the losers who don't have anything better to do with their degree than win internet arguments. If you argue on their level you've already lost.

paperwarior posted...

How about describing "objectively bad" things as flawed?

These are different things. If someone says a game is objectively bad they mean one thing, and if they say it's flawed they mean another.

Oh neat, another "objective vs subjective" debate on board 8.

Sorry I have no objective value to add to this topic, but reading through it was rather entertaining!

Lopen posted...

Disclaimer my opinion on art appreciation classes is not objectively true.

I mean it might be but I don't know enough on the topic to be sure.

In a general sense, it's not. An art appreciation class would be more likely to bolster your statements of color theory and tuning being necessary for aesthetics.

However, in taking those concepts further, you can enter a range of appreciation for things that break normal aesthetic.

A painting in all browns might look like poop to you, but it could be a representation of a rose bush seen through a certain type of colorblindness, adjusted so people without it can understand what an image would look like.

A piece of music with instruments slightly out of tune could be meticulously tuned to evoke a very specific degree of dissonance that creates audible beats in the music, meant to be a part of the composition.

There are things that are made poorly that still have artistic merit (6th grade band, for example). Or any sort of composition or digital creation that someone made, was proud of, and improved upon.

Likewise, there are things that are made well that seem to have less - however, even when talking about the era of brown games, one has to take into account settings and mood - even if it's less aesthetic, a game on Mars might feel more like it takes place on Mars if it's mostly brownish red.

The issue at hand where the disconnect is coming from is where the line of good vs bad enters play - and that's a line that is not cleanly defined in myriad ways.

In other words, I think your point is clear, but it's too wide a concept to be meaningfully applicable beyond a certain threshold.

NeatoAnAccount posted...

These are different things. If someone says a game is objectively bad they mean one thing, and if they say it's flawed they mean another.

I meant in terms of their flaws. "Flawed" is generally a pretty positive evaluation as these things go.

Lopen posted...

And to be fair that's why I rarely do such things. But I do take offense to people trying to dumb it down and say that people who think Axiom Verge is ugly just don't like pixel art and that all NES games were just as ugly-- it clearly is not that. You'll note my first post in this topic was saying there are a ton of NES games that look way better than Axiom Verge 2.

This guy literally brought out his 500 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and flipped through them to copy and paste his argument that a shitty 8 bit system from the 1920s is capable of games better looking than Axiom Verge 2.

Can all adjectives be (or have the potential to be) objective?

I know, subjectively and objectively and unequivocally, in this universe and in every possible universe that have existed and or will exist in the multiverse, that Axiom Verge 2 (which I have never played and will not plan to ever play) is better looking than every game on the Nintendo Entertainment System.

GranzonEx posted...

I know, subjectively and objectively and unequivocally, in this universe and in every possible universe that have existed and or will exist in the multiverse, that Axiom Verge 2 (which I have never played and will not plan to ever play) is better looking than every game on the Nintendo Entertainment System.

I have fapped to Bubble Bath Babes on NES, yet I have never fapped to Axiom Verge 2. Therefore at least one NES game is objectively better looking.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

In a general sense, it's not. An art appreciation class would be more likely to bolster your statements of color theory and tuning being necessary for aesthetics.

However, in taking those concepts further, you can enter a range of appreciation for things that break normal aesthetic.

A painting in all browns might look like poop to you, but it could be a representation of a rose bush seen through a certain type of colorblindness, adjusted so people without it can understand what an image would look like.

A piece of music with instruments slightly out of tune could be meticulously tuned to evoke a very specific degree of dissonance that creates audible beats in the music, meant to be a part of the composition.

There are things that are made poorly that still have artistic merit (6th grade band, for example). Or any sort of composition or digital creation that someone made, was proud of, and improved upon.

Likewise, there are things that are made well that seem to have less - however, even when talking about the era of brown games, one has to take into account settings and mood - even if it's less aesthetic, a game on Mars might feel more like it takes place on Mars if it's mostly brownish red.

The issue at hand where the disconnect is coming from is where the line of good vs bad enters play - and that's a line that is not cleanly defined in myriad ways.

In other words, I think your point is clear, but it's too wide a concept to be meaningfully applicable beyond a certain threshold.

Good post.

I will say while I see the point on things with respect to like "Mars type" environments there are a lot of games with similar styles that do this better than this one does. It just comes off as lazy here. Like I don't want to put any details in the backgrounds so I'm just gonna turn it into a homogeneous blob of color.

Compare the Glacier levels in this game to Ice Man's stage from Mega Man 1 (later MM games get much better at this type of thing, but even the first try). Same general idea but Mega Man just looks a lot more crisp-- the enemies actually popping off the background probably helps a lot to make it feel like there's life but like yeah. I just get really bored looking at Axiom Verge 2 and I don't think this is because it's doing something that people can't understand-- it's just lazy.

Also I think the shade of brown it uses in some stages should pretty much just not be used with that prominence I don't care if the stage is a sewer or underground or what. Use greys greens or different shades of brown

TomNook posted...

I have fapped to Bubble Bath Babes on NES, yet I have never fapped to Axiom Verge 2. Therefore at least one NES game is objectively better looking.

this post was way funnier when i read it as Bubble Bobble