Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4010415-20141223120240/@comment-24.119.132.71-20150605193130

LiveandSound wrote: That's just bullshit. Liking one thing doesn't mean it's flaws dissapear and said thing is automatically good. Many things, both in fiction and real life, are of terrible quality. But anything will inevitable have at least someone that likes it. It doesn't mean it is good, it just means it's enjoyable.

And yes, there's a huge difference between "enjoyable" and "good". A work can be full of narm and horrible, questionable plot decisions that ruin all suspension of disbelief and any dramatic moment. But, there will be people that just can't help but laugh at the complete absurdity of it all, and as such enjoy it despite it's blatant flaws (or at times, because of it's flaws).

1 example: Child of Eden, one of the few kinect games that actually works. The game suffers from repetitive, very simplistic gameplay and is about 1-hour long. Literally. However, millions of people worldwide enjoyed playing that game, and many still do. As a game, it sucked for the most part, but it was still an enjoyable experience, as anyone that played it will tell you. when did I ever say that being good meant without flaws? I would say that if good writing isn't the same as enjoyable writing than what is the point of good writing? what merit does something being good have? your example I would say that it is proof that something doesn't need to have complex gameplay, un-repetitive game play, or be very long to be good. or if you prefer just substitute the word enjoyable with good as if they aren't one and the same I don't see the point of the word good. seems to me that something in that one hour game must of been done very very well and made it a very good game.