You must choose

...

...

When I say 'good narrative', that also includes branching paths, moral choices, and the ability to roleplay. Or it could mean its a linear "cinematic AAA experience". Or even just a lot of entertaining flavor text, depending on whatever kinds of narratives you enjoy.

as long as there are no (permanently) game breaking bugs and it doesn't crash (very often) i'd take a good narrative or visual appeal over polish.

Looks like you're the casual here.

Subject to an individual's personal taste
Subject to an individual's personal taste
Subject to an individual's personal taste
The only objective point on this list
Subject to an individual's personal taste

Even if I choose 3/5, only 1/5 of the options could possibly create a universally good game. This means that my "perfect" game is likely something you can call shit and same when it comes to your garbage taste. This is why video games are dying; too many motherfucking cooks in the kitchen and too many "connoisseurs" asking for their personal tastes to be catered to.

Das a hard one, does not picking visually appealing make it a visual eyesore?

Depending on the genre though, don't want an RPG with a shit narrative.

stop pretending objective quality doesn't exist.
It might not make a game that is everyone's favorite but you can make a game that is objectively good at what it is.

Are you seriously suggesting that people getting the games they want is a bad thing?

this is why modern art exists

The most important for me is good narrative.
If the story is immersive, I'll play it regardless of it's numerous faults.

gomenasai casual-san, the joke is on you

...

That sounds dangerously close to Skyrim, pardon my french

read a book nigger.

...

Nigga, what?

Sorry, I pasted that to the wrong thread

objective quality only exists when examining the sum of the parts that comprise the game. On a technical level (does it run well, is it compatible with many types of hardware, is it responsive, etc) this is much easier to do. When it comes to shit like the narrative and graphics and various game mechanics, you can say that "this thing was executed well" but you can only ever say that knowing the literary/artistic/mechanical techniques that were used to create the system. In relation to another game's possibly less well executed series of systems, you can't sit there and tell someone, "your game is objectively shit because it doesn't look and play like this". I mean, you can say that, but it's your opinion against theirs, and you may be able to bring up objective points that either foster your opinion or destroy that of your detractor, but the argument itself is within the realm of subjectivity.

I never suggested that.

"Modern art" exists because there people who think it's okay to reject a well built foundation that provides the discipline and technique needed to take a great idea and make it into a great piece of art. Saying that the majority of elements that comprise a game is subject to the personal taste of the one who is consuming it isn't not also denying that you can scrutinize elements of such subjective aspects of the overall work and pick them apart for the poorly executed segments of work that make up said product.

I still don't get how the fuck this turned into a stupid debate about objectivity. This is about picking the 3 traits THAT YOU personally favor in video games, its a completely subjective question, stop trying to hijack my thread.

I'm not trying to hijack your thread. I simply reacted to your OP. Fuck you.