![]() |
The Simfile Quality Debate
Any medium in which preference is involved tends to have undercurrents of the subjective/objective debate. Most people tend to avoid addressing it directly, but it pervades discussion. In food, in music, in movies -- people like something. They know that someone else likes something they really don't like. They have two options: if their liking is specific to themselves, then they have to tolerate the existence of the thing they really don't like. But if they assume universality and promote their preference to a truth status independent of themselves, they have grounds to dismiss anyone and everyone who likes that thing they really dislike.
I will elaborate on my view here later. But first, I need to establish the Rules of the Debate. Yes, there are rules. In discussing this issue you will be making arguments. Arguments are bound by formal and informal logical rules. If you want to be Right, you need to religiously avoid the fallacies extremely common to this sort of discussion: 1. You cannot ad hominem; this means you cannot argue by attacking someone's character/intelligence/sense, nor can you attack their motive for making the argument. In other words, you cannot attempt to invalidate someone's argument by discrediting the person making it or the reasons they may be making it. The rightness or wrongness of an argument is completely independent of the person making it. If you discredit the person, you haven't actually proven them wrong. To give an obvious example, if a person who makes a mathematical proof also turns out to be a Viagra spammer, the truth of his math proof is unaffected by the horrendous annoyingness of his hobby. I've noticed that the more subjective the medium, the more arguments tend to be appeals to authority -- food critics being the worst. In any case, if you want to be right, you cannot argue this way. 2. You cannot argue through analogy. You can support your argument through analogy just as you can support your argument with examples, but the terms of your argument must stand by themselves without any equivocation. 3. Your argument cannot be simply rhetorical. Linking me to something you think is really bad and asking me a rhetorical question beginning with "do you really think..." does nothing to prove your point. What if I do really think that? Your course of action is then to ad hominem me, which violates the #1 rule of the game here. By calling these "rules" I am being somewhat misleading. They are "rules" with respect to being right/wrong, in that you can't be right and violate #1 or #2. You can ad hominem or equivocate all you want, you'll just be wrong. With that said, I'm going to let everyone else state their case first. The assumption of universality (read: quality) is, in fact, an assumption that needs to be proven before you can even begin to talk about "quality" anything in art. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Subjectivity and objectivity need to be separated and are distinct from each other. You can like something that is of poor quality, and you can also dislike something of good quality. Quality does not correlate directly with subjectivity. Preference does not correlate with objectivity. You can't say that music is subjective because everyone likes different songs, because this assumes there is no difference in quality between a really good song and a really terrible one. You can't say that food is objective and the food is either good or bad. People have different preferences, and if the food doesn't fit their tastes, they have trouble eating it.
However, there is a universality in all kinds of mediums. The most important concept is the idea of "strong" features. Excluding some very special exceptions, universal appeal applies to anything that is of good quality but does not have any strong features. For example, take food for instance. Excluding some outliers and people who are allergic, almost everyone enjoys (or at least does not mind) food such as eggs, rice, potato, etc. because these foods do not have strong flavors. Foods like tomatoes, cinnamon, coconut, these have very strong distinctive flavors by themselves, which is why there is a polarization between people who like it and dislike it. Now at this point some of you might be saying "Wait, tomatoes? Cinnamon? Coconut? These aren't strong flavors, I love these foods!" You're missing the point. Someone who has never had a tomato in his or her entire life will probably not enjoy eating a tomato for the first time, because the flavor is so distinct. Most people probably like tomatoes, but that's because they've been eating them since they were young. Some people are more open to new flavors because they tried a lot of them when they were younger, and so are used to the wide range, but the same theory applies. That doesn't mean that tomatoes are bad in quality, it just means that preference towards it is a bit more varied. Likewise, the same can be said about music. Pop music is popular because there is nothing weird about the sounds, no particularly strong sounds. In this case, the "strong" features or sounds could be atonal melodies, dissonance, glitchy effects, etc. Not everyone enjoys these elements, so music that do contain them won't be as popular as pop songs. That doesn't mean that music with any of these elements is bad, but not everyone will enjoy it. Charts are the same deal. Some people like dumps and some people like QED's work. That doesn't mean they're good, it just means that some people like them. Again, charts that are more universal don't have anything weird about them, no strong patterns or recurring themes. For example, Drove Through Ghosts to Get Here from DCP is very polarized in terms of people who like the chart and people who don't. It's a chaotic piece and chart with lots of quads in the climax for intensity and miniholds all over the place. Normally, people will immediately dismiss the chart and song upon hearing this description, but upon closer inspection, people who do like it probably understand how the layering and themes fit with the style and intensity of the song. ==Planet KARMA== is almost universally liked because it doesn't contain strong features that the community is unfamiliar with. I say "unfamiliar" because there are some strong themes, but these are ignored by the community because they have seen a lot of it already, and people who don't understand the game can't tell what's actually going on, but they do know it looks pretty. This is also why a lot of people are opposed to the new "art file" movement from post-DCP. The style of these charts encompass lots of features such as color notes and some complex layering techniques that only people who have been playing the game for a while can pick up on and appreciate. To people who can't figure out what's going on, it just looks like a mess of colored notes just to look pretty. There are rules for each medium to achieve the type of universality I've described, but going past this is a little bit more complicated and there are some gray lines, but in most cases, the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is pretty clear, and should be treated as two different concepts. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
There will never be such thing as a perfect simfile that everybody likes in everyway and should be the roll model for future simfiles to be made. Quality is almost entirely subjective most of the time but in the case of simfiles it is subjective so there really isn't anything to debate.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Icy, I'm going to challenge your assertion that there is nothing to debate.
the fact that i'm challenging this assertion gives something to debate (the accuracy of your assertion). therefore there is something to debate and your assertion is wrong. any attempt to rebut my claims will merely be debating and prove me more right. though i'm sure that there are other (more interesting) things to debate as well since subjective =/= undebateable. while i can't imagine the existance of any ultimate file everyone likes in every way, saying that its not possible seems like nothing more than an argument from ignorance. as far as i am aware there is no fundamental law of the universe preventing everyone from liking a single file. Stargroup, one problem with what you're saying is that i CAN say music (and simfiles, etc.) are subjective. you talk about people being able to like things of "bad quality" or dislike things of "good quality". but your measure of what is good or bad quality is merely your own subjective opinion (or the opinion of someone else, or a group, etc.) to begin with. unless you have a purely objective way to measure quality in such things a lot of your arguments become little more than your own subjective opinions. (though there may be some useful observations in there, particularly on what things commonly gain mass apeal) if anyone has a suggestion for an objective measure of quality for simfiles, i would love to hear it lolol. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone that thinks music is purely subjective, I always give them the same argument. Compare the following two songs: http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/419392 http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/71906 Not a single person can tell me the second song is NOT better than the first one by a mile. If you argue that music is subjective and both songs have their merits, then I'm sorry, you're either deaf or you lack common sense. If you really want to dissect, the first contains no merits, the vocals are simply an improvised track of random syllables with no thought and the background accompaniment consists of nothing but a bassline which is of poor instrument choice, poor production, and no construction of identifiable theme or concept. The second song, while not musically brilliant, at least does not contain any particularly strong sounds (at least to our generation). The chord structure is boring but solid, and there was a lot of effort put into the production (which is a whole another category of stuff altogether), and the instrument selection had a wide variety of frequencies and tones for balance. Recurring themes are prevalent and there is a traditional song structure, giving the piece a more complete feeling. Charts are no different. They follow the same line of thinking, same qualities, same ideas, same concepts. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
There's no such thing as a universally-bad simfile unless it completely misses everyone's mark. There are just different types of simfiles for different types of people. Some types will be more popular than others and you might find that there are, perhaps 3-5 distinct megaclusters in terms of simfile preferences.
The quality of the simfiles therefore measure how well they live up to the expectations of those clusters. Talking about "objective" judge metrics doesn't make sense when we're talking about preferences. It'll make sense if we're talking about, say, how synced the steps are (a mathematical argument), but that won't necessarily have sway when it comes to perception of quality (at least past a certain point). I think simfile quality is different from music quality because we judge them differently. Some songs can be horrible to listen to but are hella fun to dance/grind to, whatever. We can recognize that certain charts may be "better-stepped" for whatever reason, but are they as fun? Simfiles boil down into different perceived metrics of "quality," so I don't think it necessarily makes sense to talk about objective quality unless we're discussing something similar to g-factor in IQ (something that explains the most variance in a factor analysis, in which case we could show statistically which elements constitute the highest degree of "objective quality" where "objective" is really just another form of "strongly-weighted subjective assessments"). |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Yx-ztwrpw Of course, the educated listener might enjoy this, but a majority of people would find this kind of music boring. Similarly, the educated rhythm game player would find "art files" fun, while a majority of players won't. Unless you mean "better-stepped" a different sense, such as a chart that manages to layer every instrument but not necessarily be playable. This is not a standard for quality, so it would be an irrelevant (and incorrectly described) case. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
saying that quality is subjective therefore one should not try to apply objective metrics is a pretty stupid proposition IMO
I'll make an analogy to difficulty. Difficulty is fairly subjective. Some people are better at some files than others. I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that therefore we should not apply difficulty metrics is stupid. So what objective metrics do we use for difficulty? NPS? It works okay but we should be able to agree that it's not perfect (jacks vs rolls, etc). Even if we are to refine an objective method it still isn't going to fit with everyone, especially when difficulty is somewhat subjective. Even if you take the same song and speed it up, there are edge cases where it actually makes the song easier to play. I remember a time where I actually had a hard time FCing slow songs because it was so hard to concentrate when the NPS is low enough. Another issue is the area between wristjacks and vibrajacks. I remember when hitting jacks at 140bpm 16ths was harder than 160bpm 16ths. Back when I played one handed, I remember there being parts of songs with holds that were easier to hold when the song was sped up. Likewise for the quality of a file can be judged by judges (who knew?) by simply having them give a rating to the file. There is your objective metric on the quality of a file. It certainly isn't completely accurate, but it definitely is not completely inaccurate, which is what makes objective metrics on the quality of a file useful |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I'll reply to more of this later (girlfriend has made this Harry Potter Day :p) but Yesssss's reply touches on something key to this debate:
Quote:
In Psychology, you can usually measure the social usefulness of an otherwise arbitrary metric, which is how psychometricists have been able to defend the concept of g (read: IQ) from attacks. In other words, even if it's totally not what everyone thinks is intelligence, it still measures something useful. But with stepfiles there's nothing you can correlate it with. What could you possibly correlate it with? Popular opinion? If that were the case, you'd open yourself up to a Pandora's Box of scenarios that would take a huge dump on the very idea of quality you're trying to protect. And if you tried to get out of it by correlating it with the existing simfile "elite", you'd end up with a circular correlation: "high quality simfiles are high quality because they correlate with people who think they are high quality." So when I say "simfiles are subjective" I'm not saying you can't find a way to measure it, I'm saying that any attempt to measure objectivity will just be a means of systemizing your preferences -- you can't transcend arbitrariness because you're still using preferences as a base. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Different styles of files will always cater to different crowds. This is why there are separate communities developing their own style of simfiles. Though there has always been one globally accepted pattern: structure.
Any file that has a decent structure and has consistency is usually more appealing to the player. Regardless of if musical relevancy or anything of the sort is followed, as long as the file has a specific pattern and follows a set structure for the song, its fun value is already increased tenfold. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
But what do you mean by structure? In the PIU and O2Jam communities for example, the structure preferred by the playerbase is extremely loose.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I think that most people tend to cater to the "elitism" files because they are considered the most accurate. Although there is no rules saying this arrow must go here etc., it feels to some as if it would be playted like this is the computer keyboard were actually the instrument (pitch relevancy...).
I know for a fact that almost every song put out today could be made more fun to play. It could flow better, for example. The problem people have with it is that with many of these patterns it opposes what would be pitch relevant or it could miss a note or two. What I think has happened is that we began with the idea of making it "accurately" represent the song and people enjoyed the idea. However, we quickly made this style into a habit. The reason the people like the files that certain way is because those files feed their habit. It may not have the most fun patterns possible and it could be filled with one-handed trills, but it sounds as if the song would be played in that way. Now it would seem especially strange to skip notes somewhere or play a roll from right to left when the notes go from lower to higher. Just my thoughts on it. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit: whim: http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic subjective: http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Here's where I'll step in -- a lot of simfiles offer a unique AND "stable" pattern structure. If you step away from trying to be as accurate as possible in the transcription of the chart, you're able to control a LOT more. PIU takes -huge- advantage of this, which is why I'll use it to make the example. - a specific chart difficulty - compare the start point to the choir that comes in, which adds a menacing difficulty spike in accordance to the "drama" or -theme- that the song conveys at this point of the song - a controllable structure - compare the verse and the chorus; here, the chorus has less musical value, but in an effort to keep difficulty constant, the chorus is overstepped with a clean and consistent structure. However, there are other factors that make a file replayable. - speed driven sections - this speaks for itself; the patterns aren't relevant to the song, but they are incredibly diverse and give a player something to not only remember, but strive to be good at. - gimmicks - while most players try to be great at songs that are clear and straightforward, others go for the challenge of memorizing a song -- some even go as far as using songs like this to immobilize certain players in tournaments. While pad play has boundaries for what is doable and what isn't, files that are objectively structured properly (and yes, there is an objective property in pad structure because the threshold for what is and isn't doable is considerably different than keyboard) have limitless choices for what can and can't be done. Imagine what can be done when lifting a good majority of those limitations when playing keyboard -- and imagine what can come of 6/7/8 keys if people were just drawn into it properly. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Apparently they're both subjective? Is there no word for "similarities within the biological responses of the human population?" |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
debit has it. the pump example goes well actually. they use video/lyric relevancy to accentuate parts of the song.
First thing that comes to mind is i'll give you all my love cz/nm, the end stream goes on while she's running, kinda to simulate the video etc. since there are no keynotes in stepmania, it's nice to have the feeling you're actually playing the songs with different accentuations. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I'm going to first just outright summarize my view: I don't think you can make an "objective metric." An objective metric is something that is a true indicator of something, independent of preferences. I don't think this applies here.
How can we possibly say "this file is objectively better than this file"? No matter what metric you choose to compare across two files, that metric will boil down to a user-preference which is inherently subjective. Even "structure" is pretty subjective. I don't think we can treat opinion and quality as completely independent concepts. We usually define a high-quality apple as high-quality because it's healthy, tastes better, looks better, and doesn't make us sick. These all tie into things that give us utility. The question then becomes "Could we recognize a stepfile as being high quality even if we hate it?" Even if I find Gone With The Wind to be utterly boring, can I still admit it's a quality movie? I think that's what we're really looking for here -- something that we can acknowledge as being a widely-accepted metric of utility regardless of our own particular preferences. But whatever that answer is, it's not going to be objective. It's going to be "subjective but widely agreed upon." |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
The simple fact is that the earth is round no matter what. The fact of the matter is that second song is more pleasing to the ear than the first song. No general consensus or opinion changes that idea. aka you're wrong |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
So I am confused, please help me out.
Pertaining to the songs stargroup and kaiten123 are talking about; I haven't listened to either song, so no one can say that one song is better than another, right?. Because there is no proof that its true? Its the same when I see posts about files. Until I play a certain file, no one is right, correct? Because at that point all I am reading are opinions about it. And so, the file becomes completely subjective (unless there is something mathematically wrong with it, like offset or the song is of poor audio quality), right? I think that having something that doesn't have anything special about it (sg provided Planet Karma as an example) still wouldn't appeal to everyone, because of the fact that it doesn't have anything special about it: Quote:
Since it is impossible to please everyone at any given time, there can be no basis for something to be factually better than something else. Or did I completely miss the point? Remember, I don't quite understand everything within the debate, so I probably screwed up somewhere. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
any criteria for quality you make based on something being "pleasing" will inevitably be subjective since pleasure is a subjective experience. Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
In the case of Planet Karma, I did say that there wasn't any strong features, but there were some aspects that made it a little bit different from other charts. For starters, rather than being one really long song, it's more like 5 smaller completely different movements, which is easier to keep the player engaged. In addition, there are small details that add significant appeal, such as changing backgrounds and panning effects. In this sense, the chart is a little bit more than just "a boring chart with nothing special about it."
My point however, is that if there were strong features, there would be no way it could be a popular chart. Pop songs are the same way. It could be an unoriginal song with nothing special about it, but the fact that it doesn't have strong features is what makes it popular. Let's take another comparison. A chart can be "objectively wrong" if it's off-sync, as in the BPM and rhythms are wrong. Now the question is, why is this considered objectively wrong? It's not because it's impossible to enjoy. It's because it's a standard that we have set. Why is this a standard? We understand that lining up notes with the amplitude peaks makes a chart inherently more fun. Likewise, finding other patterns can also make a chart inherently more fun. Positioning the notes on the columns in relation to specific frequencies (pitch relevance) is an example. Does that mean a chart that does not follow pitch relevance isn't fun? No. However, doing so does help make your chart inherently more fun. In this way, "objective" qualities of a chart are really no different from "subjective" qualities. Art is subjective in many ways, but without objective rules and standards, you just have a chaotic subject of absolutely nothing that can be taken seriously and studied. Another reason why a lot people think a lot of things art-related are more subjective than they actually are, is because of the psychological inclination to be more open-minded and liberal. People think that by saying everything is subjective and there are positive qualities to everything, they will become more open-minded and seem more intelligent. A bad song could have a positive quality to it, but it doesn't make the whole song overall any good. However, this inclination to subjectivity is flawed because it lacks common sense. The ability to logically and emotionally interpret a piece of work is obstructed by the need to appear open-minded. You can verbally express that you dislike a song and still recognize its positive qualities, but it doesn't change the fact that you hate the song. But the fact that you can recognize this means you already can tell the difference between quality and preference. In such a way, the distinction does exist. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Since bufang and Yesssss made the same point re: bpm, I'll just save time and address Yesssss's:
Quote:
Also, this brings up an interesting point: Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
It tends to be objective when you get to be used to the technical parameters involved in the game, such as the rythmic tropes in the music. Anybody that plays DDR on pad for instance will not naturally be concerned about that because the chart is directly focused in the vibes and not on "musical details". The difference with KB chart is the fact that, with the time, it became more and more centralized over the "actual" sounds of the music stepped and thus, founding a "technical" aspect of the game.
So yeah it's really just a matter of experience but the community tends to have a few opinions (such as the technical accuracy of stepfiles) that became canonical for whatever reason. When I get back to playing some files I used to love when I began to play the game, I just feel like they're not of my taste anymore since I conditioned myself to play "correct/modern packs" for a while. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Even communities go through preference changes when the charting authority changes and they're expected to get used to a different style. The methodology for determining what was a "good" 8-foot chart in the Tournamix era of DDR is now very, very different. Back then you were expected to be inventive with rhythms, and going to the song's main melody (what they called "karaoke") was frowned upon. They would even welcome double steps, which are something of a sin to some stepping styles now. Largely due to ITG and the influence of charters like Chris Foy/DukAmok/Omid, the DDR community's ideal 8-footer now would be, at best, a 3/5 in the Tournamix view due to being too "karaoke" among other things.
It's attractive to always imagine that our current state of doing something is an improvement on some previously worse state, but you have to establish that there's actually some form of progress happening. The food world can be an enormous victim to this false-progress mentality; the fashion world is at least honest about it. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
sorry but the only objective measure of simfile quality is how many people play it
by my Objective (tm) measure: Legend of Zelda Remix is the best ffr file A Kidney Stone is the best ts song (but An Exaggerated Simulation of Plasma Particle Trajectories hard is the best chart) 星の器~STAR OF ANDROMEDA (ANOTHER) is the best bms Bad Apple!! is the best osu beatmap MAX 300 is the best stepmania online file |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
it is impossible to make a file that everyone will love
it is only possible to make a file that everyone will hate because there are in fact very, very basic standards to be met in making a file there is no place for objectivity in creative processes and continuing to make discussions such as this will only promote the idea that there is via reverse psychology or some similar means |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
stargroup, fun-ness isn't an inherent property of the chart and the fact that different people experience different amounts of fun from the chart is sufficient to prove that. by definition this makes in not objective.
objective does not simply mean following some set standard. for something to be objective it must be an inherent property of the object it's self completely distinct from how the object is experienced. and arguing from "common sense" is silly since that is subjective too. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
why does everyone play uber rave even though it sucks
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Everything associated with simfile quality is subjective -- that's pretty much all there is to it.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
that could be said about anything in life
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
I could walk a mile and say that it felt really short, and another person could walk that same mile and say that it felt long. That doesn't change the length of the mile, it doesn't mean that our opinions are wrong, it just means that the length is one mile but might feel like something different. Quote:
Math is similar. People consider math an objective field, but that doesn't mean that everything in math is proven to be perfect. For example, the very definition of an axiom of mathematics is a mathematical proposition that is not proven but simply taken for granted because it is self-evident. Scientific theory works in a similar way too. It's an observation you assume to be true based on evidence, but does not need to be proven rigorously (that would be a scientific law iirc). Just because maths and sciences are more pure than social sciences doesn't mean that there aren't objective conclusions drawn and applied from the social sciences. The concept of what makes a chart inherently more fun than another falls in the area of social sciences. Art is simply an organized approach to using what we know about we inherently like and then applying it to a piece of work. Without these objective criterion, you wouldn't have art. Quote:
Subjectivity means that different people have different views on the subject, but the definition of common sense is a set a propositions and beliefs that most people agree is of sound judgment. How is this subjective? I mean, by your reasoning, everything in the world is subjective because everything we feel and sense is simply a set a electrical signals wired to our brains through our nervous system. For all we know, everything we know to exist and to be true could just be an illusion created by the neurons and the signals they send. Therefore, since nothing is objective, we might as well not even use the concept of objective and subjective. The problem is, you still don't have a good idea of where to draw the line between subjective and objective. Heck, why bother calling things "natural" and "technology." Human beings are part of nature, so why isn't technology, which is made by humans which were made as a result of nature, part of nature? Let's just throw out the idea of nature and technology because everything is natural. The reason we have this distinction is because of the standards that we have set. Stop trying to over-reason things. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I don't really understand why there is so much of a debate over this topic. I mean, honestly every bit of this game is opinion. If someone decides they aren't going to play FFR that's most likely because in their opinion it isn't worth the time.
ps, I liked Planet Karma. It was an engaging file, and had, as stargroup said, several segments to it that keep things from getting repetitive and boring. Not a big fan of long songs though. I like short songs. I like files that are on sync. I like files that have more than one pattern in them. I don't like awkward patterns like the bursts in Hardkore Atomic. I like jumpstream that doesn't get repetitive. etc, etc. It's all opinion... edit: I fight with my girlfriend about music in general like this all the time. She's like, 'this band sucks' and I just look at her now because she knows my response to that is, 'no, you just don't like it.' I don't like country, but that doesn't mean it is bad music. Very similarly with stepfiles, just because I don't like the jacks in Einstein Rosen doesn't mean that the file is bad. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
There is this much debate because we're trying to determine what objectives makes a chart fun. If we can figure out the answer to this question, we could make more quality charts more often.
But the argument is more focused on the distinction between the two rather than the application of the concepts. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
It's because you keep trying to call it an "objective standard." That's throwing off this entire thread.
If you want to define "objective standard" as "a standard that can apply to a large cluster arising from segmentation" then fine, but it's not really "objective." It's like asking "What makes for a quality winter wardrobe?" The answer will depend on who you ask and what year you're asking it. Standards change all the time, so you're going to waste time in this discussion by trying to call things "objective" when so much changes from one iteration to the next across various groups. You may touch on a few things that remain ever-present even among all iterations, and that's fine -- but calling it "objective" is going to be incorrect. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
But that's just what it is. I can't think of a different way to describe it.
Why do pop songs use standard chord progressions? Because it sounds good. Why does it sound good? The intervals are considered to be consonant. Why are those intervals more consonant than others? They just are. No other reason. They just are. "Objective standard" are the only words that come to mind to describe this. If you can think of a better way to describe it be my guest. But that's just how it is. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Okay but I am telling you right now, you're misusing the word "objective."
"Objective" means something that is NOT influenced by feelings, bias, prejudice, or personal interpretations. It's true for me, true for you, and true for everyone. If you're making a statement that is based on opinions and not facts, it can't be objective. A better phrase to use might be "core standards" or something. "Core" implies something central, important, and widely-present, but not necessarily universal and hard-set in its truths. Quote:
And we actually do understand why certain progressions sound better than others to different people -- and why we enjoy music to begin with. It ties into the nature of harmonics and the mathematics of language and how it weaves into various biological processes that are associated with utility-increasing metrics. Since these metrics will largely differ from person to person on a biological level, that's why we have different tastes in music. </gross oversimplication but the central point here is what matters> |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
But it doesn't change the fact that an octave is going to be inherently more consonant than a minor second. This is fact and it is objective. You can build guidelines on top of that that get more and more subjective as they get more and more advanced and specific, which deals with a issue of preference, but it doesn't change the basic principles. In this case, the example of an octave being more consonant than a minor second.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
An octave may have all sorts of nuances and differences when compared to a minor second, but that has no bearing on an objective quality standard with respect to human perception. That's like trying to argue something like "This type of apple X will have more sugar than apple Y and therefore, based on this objective fact, I can extrapolate to an objective standard saying that everyone will like apple X." That's just a fallacy in itself.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I mean, okay, using your own example:
Consider a comparison between Jaws (minor second) and Somewhere Over the Rainbow (perfect octave). Using your logic, EVERYONE will prefer Somewhere Over the Rainbow to Jaws. Correct? You'll probably go "No, because there are all sorts of subjective overlays on top that change one's perception of the songs!" My response to this is "that's the point." Even if one particular combination of sounds has a particular appeal over another in a vacuum, that doesn't mean they are objectively better. Trying to change, for instance, Jaws into a song that exemplifies the perfect octave over the minor second would result in a totally different song that lacks the same appeal. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
Quote:
whether the mile is "long" or "short" is subjective because it is based on one's perception or experience, the fact that it is "one mile in length" is an objective fact as it is an inherent quality of the path walked. in the same way, whether music/simfiles are "good", "bad", "fun", etc. is subjective since its base on one's perception or experience, though we can say objectively that "this simfle has its notes placed closer to amplitude peaks in the song" or any number of similar statements as they are inherent properties of the chart. Quote:
also, i was talking about trying to argue that something is true because it is common sense which is silly because common sense is based on nothing more than the views of a large number of people. there was a time when it was "common sense" that the earth was flat. Quote:
example: saying "file A has a BPM closer to that of the song than file B" is objectively true/false since it is about a property of the files/songs. saying "file A is more enjoyable than file B" is subjectively true/false since it is dependent on the person playing. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
At any rate, my overall point here is that the best you can do is figure out the "clusters." What are the 4-5 different types of files that people like to play? Based on that, we judge quality based on the standards of each cluster.
In other words, it's like asking "What makes a quality song?" The answer will depend. A person who listens to only techno music will have a very answer from someone who likes classical and will have even yet a different answer from someone who likes rock or pop or death metal. Across all clusters, though, I'd say the steps need to make sense. If you're throwing out weird patterns to a song as if you hadn't even used the music as a guide, I think it's safe to say most people wouldn't like it. In other words, I agree that structure is pretty important, but to me it's almost a self-evident tautology. The whole point of a simfile is that it's a bundle of both a song and stepchart. The two obviously need to coincide with each other in at least having the steps FIT to something from the music. It's like asking what makes a good sandwich by saying "Well, I think whatever is between the two pieces of bread should be edible and go with the bread." Similarly, the file that goes with the music needs to be playable/sensible. Past that base level of having a playable file with steps that are fit to the music in some way, it all depends on which cluster you're making your file for. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Wow. I think you guys are trying to dive deeper than the subject can let you go! I've tried to follow the conversation, but lost track around page 2.
You seem to be looking for the constraints that would make a universally good chart. To me, that's like asking yourself what you need to implement in a song in order to make it succesful. How can anyone know the answer to those questions if it's all based on subjectivity rather than pure reason? |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
The question can't really proceed until we identify those clusters, because then it's all speculation. Unless of course, we wish to speculate. I think the main clusters would be split between pad and keyboard files, but the subclusters would be harder to define. Please watch this video so you get a rough idea where I am coming from, because this is how the food industry was transformed and this same logic applies here. I know it's 18 minutes long, but there are a lot of interesting insights in here (mainly in the second half, as the first half is pretty obvious to most of us). |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Subclusters are not difficult to define among keyboard charts. If I wanted to take the time I could do a very heavy breakdown. But I won't because I don't see a need for it.
Another misconception is that people keep thinking that we're looking for a universally fun chart. No such chart will probably ever exist, but that doesn't mean you can't come close. The points that I have mentioned simply describe what makes certain works in different mediums popular. The concept of subjectivity and objectivity are simply used to help describe this. In no way am I saying that you can use objective facts about making charts to make the perfect chart that everyone likes. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
I love how the commercial at the end is completely against what had just been said
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
To this extent, subcluster breakdowns are vital and there is most definitely a need for it. Again, please watch the video if you still disagree. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
-___-
I'm not trying to get close to the perfect chart. My point was the quality and subjectivity both exist in chart making, it's not 100% subjective. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
You watched that TED Talk too? I've seen Gladwell's talk like, four times. I even bugged my girlfriend into watching it. It's ****ing great.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Yeah, TED talks are pretty sweet.
Completely random aside about Gladwell irrelevant to this discussion: I don't know if you've ever read Outliers (cool book by Gladwell, even if broad in generalizations and not very rigorous/academic), but at one point he discusses the effects of luck + hard work etc, and mentions the "Smartest Man In America" -- a man with an IQ over 200 who was held back because of lack of support. If that alone doesn't ring warning bells, I should add the finishing touch, here: I've actually *debated* him before. He's a religious nutcase who's very ignorant of science, abusive of mathematics, untrained in jargon, unnecessarily verbose, and downright condescending. |
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Well if the simfile is on sync, then I think it's mostly based on opinion and a person's playing style. I've recently tried changing to spread, and I enjoy different simfiles now due to that change. I don't have a lot to say because I barely even understand the subject at hand, I just wanted to toss in my opinion.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Quote:
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
Some files are easier to play with certain playstyles over others (FOTBB is loads easier on index, for example, whereas I have no idea how you'd play, say, Pants on index very effectively). I agree that if a file is very biased towards one playstyle, then someone who plays with a different style is going to view your file very differently.
|
Re: The Simfile Quality Debate
At this point I am addicted to most anything which has a high level of dissonance while still having an internal logic.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution