Wii Music Comments by Ellie Gibson

"why assign three review pages to a game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!"

:/

It's one of the best reviews I've read here in the last four years.

"Les is running a close seconds though.

Great stuff guys keep it up."

No probs, really enjoying it! :)

But why don't you come off the fence and add your 2 cents?

""The argument that scores are meaningless because everyone has different taste doesn't really hold water. A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it "rubbish"."

That doesn't work. There's no universal 'good', 'great', etc. So asigning a game the label 'good' is meaningless as good in itself is meaningless if the one that uses it and the one(s) that it's used for don't share the same definition."


It does work. The philosophical approach that everything is entirely subjective is correct, but doesn't really work in reality. There's a consensus between like-minded groups of people that is almost as good as objectivity, and we all rely on it, all the time. This is not as good a game as Portal.

why assign three review pages to a game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!

What a loser.

Excellent review Ellie, I'm glad you used the space you needed to get all points across. Very thankful that you brought some other people in as well, it made the article a lot more informative.

That being said, it'd be easier if the article was just one long page—but then, that's always the case here at EG, innit?

"There's a consensus between like-minded groups of people that is almost as good as objectivity, and we all rely on it, all the time. This is not as good a game as Portal."

We tend to gravitate towards groups that share our opinions. Therefore, subjective opinions forwarded by people in that group have a higher chance of matching your own subjective opinion. In that sense a subjective opinion can have value to a person: Instead of experiencing everything for yourself (which of course isn't possible due to constraints in time) you can limit your investigations to those experiences that have a higher than normal chance of being enjoyable to you. Still has nothing to do with objectivity though. And the mechanism can backfire.

@smelly

"What a load of garbage.. and it doesnt make her 6 years old either does it?"

Holy christ. Are you actually suggesting now that games aimed at 6 year old children should be reviewed by 6 year old children? Have you lost your mind?

@smelly

"The "hardcore" elitist snob gamer (the "indie music" fan who seeks out obscure bands) is the gamer who bought okami/psychonauts"

This thread is full of gems from you. Psychonauts and Okami were both great games. I did play them because of some hardcore delusion or aspiration. I played them because they were fun to play.

"Wii Music is an instant classic; people who don't like are saying more about their lack of gaming skills than they are about the game."

/sighs

On the subject of objectivity in game quality, I tend to differ a little from Dan in that I don't believe there are objective elements of quality present in games. It is a largely semantic disagreement though, and I have to break into pedant mode to explain why I think this is the case (which is of course water of a duck's back for a pedant like me :) ).

I do believe there are observable traits common in many games, but assigning QUALITY to those traits is a purely subjective exercise.

Saying that a particular game has good graphics is an entirely subjective statement, because at any time aomebody could come along and say "I don't like those graphics". Nobody can tell that person they are wrong, because their comment is subjective opinion.

Now we can observe commonly held subjective opinions amongst gamers. We might for example be able to find 100 million people who agree that Gears of War has better graphics than Jet Set Willy. However, all we are doing there is observing a majority collective opinion. That opinion is NOT made objective in the scientific sense, just because a lot of people share it.

That is why I say the following statement is not correct;

"A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one."

There are absolutely quantifiable traits present in Bioshock, and many people may agree in their assignment of quality to those traits, but the process of assigning that quality is NOT an objective exercise. NO MATTER how many people agree. There is therefore NO objective basis on which a game can be rated, only a subjective one, that perhaps accurately reflects the majority opinion.

/pedantry ends, until the next time... which is probably in about 14 minutes.

"Excellent review Ellie, I'm glad you used the space you needed to get all points across. Very thankful that you brought some other people in as well, it made the article a lot more informative."

Informative maybe, but relevant? I don't think so personally.

Still has nothing to do with objectivity though. And the mechanism can backfire.
ignore poster


It's closer to objectivity than it is to subjectivity, really, as far as the decisions we make every day are concerned. We use the consensus of like-minded groups - within limits - as objective guidelines. It's a moot point that everything is subjective.

"But still that groundwork is subjective. It’s the sum of countless subjective opinions, some of them canceling each other out but in most cases just enforcing each other until you get an elitist group opinion on what is art, what is beautiful, what is good, etc."

It's only elitist to people claiming that there is no objective value to some "pieces of art" (in the context of others) and that everything in this regard is subjective and that every opinion on this matter is equal (in other words, Scary Movie is as good as No Country For Old Men or even better since it made more money, etc). To me, it's called understanding of subject matter or, better yet, "knowing what the fuck you're talking about".

"All this ‘knowledge’ that is built up around works of art is in the end just history. It tries to explain the context of the works, the deeper meanings the artist might have had, etc."

Yes. And knowing it and studying it makes your judgement more informed. And that's just one of the requirements of a good criticism, others being intelligence, objectivness (as far as it goes, anyway), knowing how to write, being well versed in general, thinking for more then just a couple of seconds about the subject you're criticising, etc. It's not just something you pull out of your ass, which is what most people do and then claim "it's all subjective and equal".

"In the end, the only thing that should be important in the case of a piece of art is whether you personally like it or not."

To me (or any other particular person), yes. People can and should enjoy what they will. But that doesn't make my/their opinion as good (as worthwile to express) as someone's who cares and knows much more about the particular Art form I just ocassionaly glance at. It takes a bloated ego to say otherwise. To put it simply: knowledge > taste. And there *is* knowledge about Art forms as there is knowledge in medicine and mechanics and biology and so forth, even if you call it "just history" as you did.

I can already see you shaking your head:) It is a debate leading nowhere, I think. I believe in the Truth in Art, you believe in truths. And that's that I guess. From now on, mechanics should write books about movies, doctors should write about cosmology and some dork we pull off a street should write game reviews;)

That I quoted the "ignore poster" bit is not a subtle hint, but an accident. ;-)

To put it simply: knowledge > taste. And there *is* knowledge about Art forms as there is knowledge in medicine and mechanics and biology and so forth, even if you call it "just history" as you did.


Agreed. Though I'd say knowledge leads to a more cultivated/experienced taste/opinion. Which is why the "everything is subjective" line is often used as a sweeping killer argument by people who lack knowledge and experience in a certain area. The validity of a person's opinion to us is bigger if, as you put it, the person knows what the fuck they're talking about.

@UncleLou

"It's closer to objectivity than it is to subjectivity, really, as far as the decisions we make every day are concerned"

Well, some might say that is simply common misuse of the word. Stephen Hawkings might say that some things are absolutely objective, and may other things that we refer to as "nearly objective" are nothing of the sort.

Did I even last 14 minutes? :)

"That I quoted the "ignore poster" bit is not a subtle hint, but an accident. ;-) "

Haha. Probably valid either way :)


@Daymare

"To me, it's called understanding of subject matter or, better yet, "knowing what the fuck you're talking about". "

I think there is a degree of irony in your statement about "knowing what the fuck you are talking about". What you are describing is someone taking an objective stance when examining evidence. That is NOT the same as assigning subjective quality to an observable trait.

"Good" and "bad" are NOT objective values when applied to something like art. They just aren't. Unless we start changing the fundamental meaning of words that is, but what is the point of that?

I agree that use of language changes all the time, and a dictionary is a guide to use as a much as it is a list of true meanings. However in this case, your definition of the word "objective" already has a perfectly useable alternative. And that alternative is the word "subjective". Deciding that the two are interchangeable might suit an agenda of raising the profile of art and games, but it is otherwise pointless at best, and misleading at worst.

"We tend to gravitate towards groups that share our opinions. Therefore, subjective opinions forwarded by people in that group have a higher chance of matching your own subjective opinion."

I don't see it as gravitating towards "groups" but recognising that someone knows more about something then I do. Either you approach it like that and you might learn something or you just go "hey, my opinion is the best, what do these dorks know" and dismiss it all. I just don't see why Art, which is as important to society as medicine in my humble opinion, should be subjected to such subjectivism. If you don't see a lawyer when you're feeling sick, I don't see the reason why you shouldn't read a book about painting, written by an expert on this matter, instead of just claiming "it's all just an opinion". Stance like that means you just don't care enough to "dig deeper".

And there are only two groups anyway: people that know more and people that know less;) (half kidding, of course)

@kangarootoo

"Good" and "bad" are NOT objective values when applied to something like art."

They are not in any other case either, if you go by this philosophy;)

"However in this case, your definition of the word "objective" already has a perfectly useable alternative. And that alternative is the word "subjective"."

I can pretty much claim the same on every other subject your bring up. Which means that if you're a partisan of subjectivism in this regard, you must go all the way and be a partisan of it on all the other topics. There's no middle ground. Either everything is subjective or it isn't. I know where I stand.

@Daymare

Things are getting split down the middle a bit here. I don't doubt that someone can study art to a high level, and of course learn a lot about the various techniques and directions involved. And someone expanding their own knowledge (and subjective opions) of art could be aided in that journey by reading the books written by those who are more experienced.

All I am saying is that studying art to a high level does not qualify someone's preference over that of anybody elses. If I walk into a gallery and say "I like that painting more than that one" it is a nonsense for someone to say to me "that is wrong, and if you had studied art more you wouldn't think that way". Perhaps studying art would change the way in which I assign value to various aspects of a given work, but that would still be a subjective process.

I am NOT saying that just because opinion is subjective, the knowledge that someone has built throguh study of art has no value. I am just saying that what they have gained is knowledge, not authority to deliver objective definitions of quality.

"They are not in any other case either, if you go by this philosophy;) "

I agree. I am one of those people that tend to think that "good" and "bad" are subjective values of a moral society. A moral society within which I fit I might add. There are commonly held opinions (we can all agree murder and rape are bad, for example), but those are still subjective opinions based on our ideas about good and bad.

Was everybody who went to watch gladiators fight in ancient rome a "bad" person, or did they just have a different reference point for that particular aspect of life?


"I can pretty much claim the same on every other subject your bring up. Which means that if you're a partisan of subjectivism in this regard, you must go all the way and be a partisan of it on all the other topics."

All topics where subjective opinion is a factor, absolutely. But not all topics perse. Tbh, its not so much the topic being discussed byt the statement made about it ("that painting has been created using oils and a pallette knife" is an objective statement within the subject of art).

Example.
If I state the chemical composition of the Sun, that is not a subjective statement, it is a completely objective one. If however I simply say that the Sun is "very hot".....

I think it's very fair to say that if "most people don't like this" then it is not a good piece of entertainment.

The only social subgroup whose majority that I've found to support this product could charitably be described as extremist Nintendo supporters.

Indeed, this game more than anything else actually sheds them fully in the spotlight, whether they believe it of themselves or not.

I believe it is possible to be in a mental position whereby you can default to simply being unable to hold any other opinion or even realise that you cannot, exasperating as it is for everyone else who has to suffer.

I liken it to faith.

I also believe that when something irrefutable comes along it can make them actually go crazy.

@kangarootoo

"I am NOT saying that just because opinion is subjective, the knowledge that someone has built throguh study of art has no value. I am just saying that what they have gained is knowledge, not authority to deliver objective definitions of quality."

But doesn't knowledge imply "authority", on any matter? There is no authority per se, since noone can force you to enjoy something you can't or make you "consume" something you don't want to - even if you don't like what your doctor says, you can go look for a second opinion. I understand this "authority" as "someone with knowledge" - someone to turn to when you seek knowledge. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want, but they shouldn't claim they know as much as some expert on the matter at hand. Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art. Good criticism is not just an opinion, it's an informed one. You can ignore it, not agree with it but to call it equal to everyone elses is a wee bit ignorant. All opinions are equal in practical sense, yes, but if you want to learn something, you would want to turn to an opinion of an "authority", I hope? Whose biological theory would you take greater interest in: biologist's or mechanic's?

Ah, I'm going in circles. I believe in "authority" in Art, you don't (I don't know, maybe it's about how much we care about something). Everyone is Art's target audience but it's not for everyone, if you know what I mean.

Oh dear. The Wii is my favorite dust collecting item in my house this past year. And it will continue. This game bombed in Japan. If they wont embrace we certainly wont.

" Just don't see why Art, which is as important to society as medicine in my humble opinion, should be subjected to such subjectivism. If you don't see a lawyer when you're feeling sick, I don't see the reason why you shouldn't read a book about painting, written by an expert on this matter, instead of just claiming "it's all just an opinion". Stance like that means you just don't care enough to "dig deeper"."

I agree that art is important. Life would definitely be boring without it. I just don't think that you don't have to know 'what you're talking about' when forming an opinion on a piece of art or entertainment. The only thing that matters is whether you like it or not.

A professional art critic might write a more informative review about Guernica than someone without a degree in Art History but their opinions on whether the painting is beautiful are equally worthy (or worthless).

I personally like to know facts about pieces of art (e.g. speculations about who the people in Rembrandt's The Jewish Bride actually are) but those pieces of information don't make a difference in assessing whether or not that piece of art appeals to me.

"The only thing that matters if whether you like it or not."

This is the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

"Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art."

&

"All opinions are equal in practical sense, yes, but if you want to learn something, you would want to turn to an opinion of an "authority", I hope? Whose biological theory would you take greater interest in: biologist's or mechanic's?"

I agree, that's why I dubbed that knowledge 'history'. It's additional facts/hypotheses around a piece of art that might shed more light on what you actually can see/hear/experience. But this 'objective' (because falsifiable) knowledge is separated from the subjective enjoyment. It's information vs. opinion. If I want information, I go to an authority in the subject. If I want an opinion, I go to someone that I know in general shares my taste. Further credentials aren't really required in that case.

"This is the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)"

I guess so, but thanks for the intelligent debate! :)

Sorry, but lol

I'll get a Wii for my Mum, but I'm not investing for myself until the games in development start to appeal to me more.

@Daymare

You keep referring back to medicine as some kind of reference, but its a flawed comparison. Some aspects of medicine are objective, other are not. Art is the same.

A doctor telling you that you are have flu is making an objective statement. I doctor telling you that you look a bit peaky is making a subjective statement, and no amount of medical training will make the comment any less subjective.

An art grad who tells me who a painting was constructructed is likely make objective statements, but if they tell me a painting is "very good" they are making a subjective statement, and again no amount of art training or research will change that. IT JUST WON'T ;)


"Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art"

That is what I've been saying all along! When someone supplies factual information about what kind of melted rabbits feet were used to paint the ceiling of the an important chapel they are relying on knowledge, but when they tell you that the Mona Lisa is "teh awesum" they are relying on taste.


"I believe in "authority" in Art, you don't (I don't know, maybe it's about how much we care about something)"

Hehe. If I were feeling a bit cheeky, I might suggest that when people "care" about something a whole lot, it drives them to distort or ignore certain facts and definitions to suit their agenda. I LOVE art, I really do, but I don't let that change my opinion of what is fact and what is taste (just like I would totally LOVE there to be an afterlife, but that doesn't change my belief that there isn't one).


I'm glad we are still getting on throughout this chit chat, even if most of the "getting on" is me getting on your tits with my pedantry :D


Edit: so full of typos.

"I agree, that's why I dubbed that knowledge 'history'. It's additional facts/hypotheses around a piece of art that might shed more light on what you actually can see/hear/experience. But this 'objective' (because falsifiable) knowledge is separated from the subjective enjoyment. It's information vs. opinion. If I want information, I go to an authority in the subject. If I want an opinion, I go to someone that I know in general shares my taste. Further credentials aren't really required in that case."

Your stance is completely logical, since you percieve Art as something that's made just for enjoyment. Enjoyment (taste) is subjective, ergo whole Art is subjective.

But if, like me for instance, you don't submit to this kind of simple interpretation of Art, credentials are needed. I don't seek opinions to suit my taste (because I don't think that my taste is really that important in the big scheme of things), but knowledgable theory that will expand my understanding and ways of interpretations of particular Art form (games are not yet at that point, I might add).

"David Lynch knows more about movies than me" is an objective fact and would be even if I didn't like any of his movies.

My taste in particular game/movie/song/painting/sculpture says less about said piece and more about me and what I like. That's just one function of Art. You either care enough and move on from this point (becoming a fan or maybe, later, an "expert") or you make it a definitive point (remain a simple consumer).

You want like-minded opinion, I want some more. And there is more, wheter you care for it or not.

If it's all subjective, why do you even bother complaining over Bioshock and "how it fooled most gaming journos"? Yours and everyone elses opinion is completely meaningless, after all.. ;)

Return of the LOL

@Daymare

I'm not sure we are even talking about the same things at this point. My original point was purely about the subjective nature of "quality". I'm not saying that enjoyment is all that is important about art, or games (and I didn't introduce the subject or put the focus on quality of enjoyment). I'm simply making my pedantic point about the suggestion that "good" is anything other than subjective.

I attribute no value (or lack thereof) to this, I am simply pointing out the meaning of the word and its application. It doesn't mean I don't take art seriously. All these comments about me being a consumer, or a fan, or an expert are really neither here no there. You don't actually know anything about my background regarding art, but your suggestion that it would matter either way is kind of expected given the discussion so far.


"If it's all subjective, why do you even bother complaining over Bioshock and "how it fooled most gaming journos"?"

At not point did I ever say anything of the sort. I thought Bioshock was awesome (subjective) and had depth (subjective) and was engaging (subjective) and thoughtful (subjective) and lost a bit of momentum near the end (subjective) and it cost me ~£38 to buy (objective). Again, I am simply picking a hole in the semantics used previously in this thread, with Bioshock as reference (and I wouldn't look like such a pedant if people didn't keep trying to keep steering the subject around to support whatever other points they might want to make).

As a big fan of Wii Music, I have to say that this is the only negative review I've read which seems fair. Ellie's actually gone to a bit of effort here rather than playing it for a couple of hours and then claiming it's rubbish (I can tell the ones which have done this). Well done, Ellie.

@kangarootoo

"Mona Liza is a masterpiece" is an objective fact - if you say it's not it's just your subjectivness speaking. Hehe, I'm kidding, but, also, sort of not:)

"An art grad who tells me who a painting was constructructed is likely make objective statements, but if they tell me a painting is "very good" they are making a subjective statement, and again no amount of art training or research will change that. IT JUST WON'T ;)"

Yes, his opinion is still subjective (of course, god damned!) but it's more objective then mine, who's clueless in the Art of painting. It "holds more water". It might be equal to mine, in practical sense, but it *still* "holds more water". :)

Medicine examples are bad, I agree. I'll give another, even more extreme, hehe: if a blind person doesn't see the sun, does that mean it doesn't exist? This brings me back to my view that not everyone can understand Art (not everyone is "artistic" in nature). No ammount of persuasion will make others believe they don't see something others do but... BUT... well, you know where this is going and I know you completely disagree:)

Level of involvement defines the level of understanding. Gosh, I don't know in how many words can I write about my stance in this regard (without going into details) but I'm running out of them..

Please, save me and let's agree to disagree, PA-lease!!:)

/wants to go play Mirror's Edge

@kangarootoo

That post up there was for Les:) Sorry, my bad, should have made that clear.

"Yes, his opinion is still subjective (of course, god damned!) but it's more objective then mine, who's clueless in the Art of painting"

You see this is where I think it all goes wrong. And its purely about the definitions of the word. To suggest one thing is "more objective" that another is a fallacy. The words are directly opposed and mutually exclusive. Something is either 100% subjective, or 100% objective. ALWAYS.

The devil is in the detail here. "it holds more water" is a bit of a nonsensical statement, because it lacks the necessary object.

"Bucket A holds more water than bucket B" is an objective statement, a statement of fact, within which there is no room for debate or disagreement (it may be an incorrect statement, but it is 100% objective).

"Bucket A holds loads of water" is a subjective statement. Someone else could say "no, it holds barely any water" and that statement would be equally valid. The only way to introduce an object of reference and replace words like "loads" and "barely any" with definitive words like "more" or "less".

Maybe one good way to think about it is to ask whether a term can be applied in mathematics?

"5 > 3" is an objective statement. It is a pure statement of fact.

The subjective equivalent might be to write "5 >" to imply that 5 is simply a "big number". You wouldn't find that in mathematics (cue maths boffin with an example that says I'm talking knackers).

"if a blind person doesn't see the sun, does that mean it doesn't exist?"

Oh man, I'm not even going to answer that one. 'Cos I can't even begin to imagine what point you are making with that ;)

Oh, btw.

I agree to disagree :D

\O/

;)

"But if, like me for instance, you don't submit to this kind of simple interpretation of Art, credentials are needed."

Why is demanding that art be entertaining a simple interpretation of it? Creating something that people actually enjoy (in the broadest possible sense, so e.g. a sad movie can be 'enjoyable' too) is one of the hardest things to do.

Like I said, I enjoy getting to know little facts about an artist or a particular work. I value that knowledge itself. But no matter how many books I read or lectures I follow, I'll still think that Picasso's (or Braque's) cubist works look rubbish. While I would love Monet's paintings just as much if I never had visited Giverny or hand't read any book on impressionist art.

Art history thus is interesting but it doesn't tell us anything about why something is generally accepted as beautiful or not. Evolutionary psychology might shed a light on that subject. In the end, art is but one form in which humans strive for status and power.

"I don't seek opinions to suit my taste (because I don't think that my taste is really that important in the big scheme of things), but knowledgable theory that will expand my understanding and ways of interpretations of particular Art form."

I don't think my taste is important either in the big scheme of things but it is important in my life. If I'm investigating whether to get a book, cd or go to a movie or exhibition, I might look for a source that I know from past experiences shares my taste. If I'm going to invest my limited time in an experience I want to enjoy (and this doesn't rule out educational value) I want to reduce the chance that it will end up as time wasted. So in these cases I look for opinions that are likely to match my own but of course it's not a foolproof mechanism, which is why I stress the relativity of opinions in general (and game reviews in particular).

That doesn't mean however that I always look for opinions that I agree with (otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate). Dissenting or new opinions in general put one on the path of learning.

/is dragged right back in :)

@to both Les and kangarootoo, basically

"Art history thus is interesting but it doesn't tell us anything about why something is generally accepted as beautiful or not."

I wasn't talking so much about history (plain 'ol history and facts) but Art theory in general, where aesthetics and all sorts of things are discussed in lenght. Theory, yes, subjective, yes, but still infinitely better and more thoughtful then "Halo 3 is shit" statements. Knowing more about all that surely expands your horizons?

"You see this is where I think it all goes wrong. And its purely about the definitions of the word. To suggest one thing is "more objective" that another is a fallacy. The words are directly opposed and mutually exclusive. Something is either 100% subjective, or 100% objective. ALWAYS."

Yes, this is where it all goes wrong, the definitions and how we value what we defined:) I don't know how you percieve "subjectivism" but I don't percieve it as something arbitrary. Our subjective views are based on something; partly on our taste, yes, but also partly on our understanding and knowledge and there are other factors too. Factors as in causes, reasons. And this reasons, why we percieve something as we do, are more refined on subjects that interest us compared to topics we don't care about. When I said that one subjective view can be more "objective" than the other I meant that one can be "closer to the truth". The truth as in knowing what makes a work of Art "good". What we can't and will not agree upon is if there even *is* The Truth in Art so all this discussion is "rigged" right from the beginning:)

I can't give you a mathematical equation that would prove that one work of Art is better than the other. Is everything but what mathematics and science in general classify as a fact automatically subjective? Mathematical facts are all fine and dandy, but there are other truths as well, truths about human condition that you can wonderfully express with and understand through Art. And it's important How and Why a particular work of Art expresses something (if it even does so, that is) - in the context of its medium, as well as in the context of general history, artist's history and so on. Just because you can't scientifically measure that, doesn't mean it's all just "subjective", that all works of Art are "equal" and that everyone can recognize a good Art when they see one. They can't, just as blind man can't see the sun but it's still there. Blasphemous idea to you, I know, but that's just how I see it. I'm not entertaining an elitist view that Art is just for "special" people - it's for everyone - but some "see" it better then others just as some people are better mathematicians then others. And that's even *before* they start studying it for real.

I just don't believe that Art should be a "victim" of arbitrary people's tastes (by that I mean the vocal "everyone's a critic" mentality, prevalent on the internet and not the who does or doesn't "consume" what and why). It is, every day, but that doesn't mean that unconditional subjectivism is an objective fact of Art's value and meaning.

You two can basically paste your former replies and they would fit perfectly, since we're just going in circles anyway. :)

/limps away

I actually get physically nauseous when I see Mii's and that entire "art" direction now. A year ago it all seemed kind of interesting, streamlined, and the idea of integrating a users customized Mii consistently into other games seemed like a sensible idea. Now I see that the art style just doesn't have that kind of lasting appeal.

I really hope we don't see a similar trend now that there are "Avatars" on XBox. Please leave them on the dashboard, where I can ignore them.

P.S. I wrote this post before I had even begun reading the comments, and had no idea my "art direction" jab would come right on the heels of a whole discussion about the definition of Art. LOL.

"subjective, yes, but still infinitely better and more thoughtful then "Halo 3 is shit" statements. Knowing more about all that surely expands your horizons?"

Absolutely. Non-constructive comment drive me nuts, and say nothing good about the poster in most cases.


"When I said that one subjective view can be more "objective" than the other I meant that one can be "closer to the truth". The truth as in knowing what makes a work of Art "good""

This is where I guess we won't ever agree, which is cool.

I simply don't believe that that Truth exists. In my world, whenever we say a piece of art is Good, we are saying it subjectively based on whatever set of values we hold. Even values that are based on a great deal understanding and education still come down to taste in the end. We can observe quantifiable features within a piece of art, but at exactly the point where we start to assign value to each of those features, the matter becomes subjective. Thats wot I fink anyway.


"I can't give you a mathematical equation that would prove that one work of Art is better than the other"

I know you can't, and you never will, 'COS IT DOESN'T EXIST!!
;)
Hehehe (forgive that cheeky dig, if I'd said that face-to-face I would do so with a big daft grin on my face)

Seriously though, we have definitely branched out into the realm of philosophy here. I can see that in some ways, my assertions are based on a degree of faith as much as yours are.

Really, we are both stating "well XYZ is just true", when in fact what we really mean is "XYZ is true, because ABC is a given". And it sounds like it is actually on ABC that we disagree (if that still makes sense). Our views of the world differ just enough that we have a different foundation on which we base our beliefs (or lack thereof) in of the objectivity of art.

The cool thing is that we got to that point without calling each other a twat. I'll leave the matter now, but I'll check back in to see if you or Les have a closing comment (just so as not to be so pious as to assume the last word).

"I hope the Xbox Avatars become required for use in all 3rd-person action titles on Xbox360 games myself. "

Sarcasm or death. Pick one ;)

What a load of turd. //poops. "Oh look, its wii music!"

Ill jump in this masive objective vs subjective thing for a second.

Some art has been shown to actually cause visual disturbance and discomfort, called (appropriately) Visual Stress. This currently thought to be caused by people having a hyperactive response (in the visual cortex) to striped patterns. So some people are forced by their bilogical construct to not like some art as it gives them headaches etc!

link to the research is here:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/overla...

Anyway, back on track a subjective is a view, opinion or idea formulated on ones own. An objective view is a critical appraisal based on imperical measures. I think Kangarootoo has been closest to this concept in his/her comments.

this will be £15 in a few months time, Battalion wars went the same way and is £11 on amazon

"The cool thing is that we got to that point without calling each other a twat."

Yeah, I certainly enjoy(ed) having this 'lil conversation, 'cause I don't get many chances to get these particular points off my chest in any worth-while way, here on EG. Too much thoughtless "this is shit, that is shit, he's this, she's that" but I guess I'll just have to get used to all this unapologetic subjectivism running wild on the internet;)

"I wasn't talking so much about history (plain 'ol history and facts) but Art theory in general, where aesthetics and all sorts of things are discussed in lenght."

I do believe (as there's plenty of evidence that points in the direction) that the way our mind works makes it appreciate some forms, shapes, sounds, colours, etc. in art more than others (as Fleisch points out as well).

"And it's important How and Why a particular work of Art expresses something (if it even does so, that is) - in the context of its medium, as well as in the context of general history, artist's history and so on."

I agree they are important. But IMO they should not be the reason that makes the piece of art 'enjoyable'. If something looks/sounds bad, no matter how touching the story of the artist or powerful the message that he/she wants to convey, the piece of art itself has failed for me. I might still appreciate the story though on its own merits. E.g. in the case of Picasso, apart from his early work, that's the only thing that makes him worthwhile IMO.

This review is stupid.

You don't ask an arms specialist to review Halo.

You don't ask a war veteran to review Brother in Arms.

So why should you ask a musician to review Wii Music?

The real question is, is it fun. Cause it's a game.