The Simfile Quality Debate

[kaiten123]

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.

[kommisar]

Re: The Simfile Quality Debate

why does everyone play uber rave even though it sucks

[Reincarnate]

Re: The Simfile Quality Debate

Everything associated with simfile quality is subjective -- that's pretty much all there is to it.

[kommisar]

Re: The Simfile Quality Debate

that could be said about anything in life

[stargroup100]

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.

Never said fun factor was an inherent property of a chart. The feeling of fun is the result of effective applications of techniques that are by nature inherently more fun than other approaches.

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.

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.

The reason these standards are set this way is because that's "just the way it is." The fact is that putting notes on amplitude peaks is more fun than not doing so, so a chart is objectively better when it follow this technique (tl;dr charts are more fun when synced properly).

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.

and arguing from "common sense" is silly since that is subjective too.

In what universe does the notion of common sense fall into a subjectivity?

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.

[justin_ator]

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.

[stargroup100]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.

[stargroup100]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.

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.

Standard chord progressions sound good to many people, but they don't sound good to ALL people. That's why you're going to derail the thread by calling it an "objective standard" because you're trying to imply that there is something that EVERYONE likes no matter what.

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>

[stargroup100]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.

[kaiten123]

Re: The Simfile Quality Debate

Never said fun factor was an inherent property of a chart.

yea, but the fact that it isnt means its not objective

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.

this is exactly my point. all of your arguments about music/simfile quality involve how it is perceived (fun, etc.).

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.

In what universe does the notion of common sense fall into a subjectivity?

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?

common sense is subjective because different cultures and different time periods have different "common sense" and none have any objective claim over all the others to being "the 1 true common sense".

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.

The problem is, you still don't have a good idea of where to draw the line between subjective and objective.

if you had bothered to read any of my posts you'd know that objectivity is based on whether it is a property of the object being observed or the subject observing it.

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.

[Reincarnate]

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.