What is the Point in having High Standards?

[Kreekakon]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

The people with high standards are generally speaking more passionate than those with low ones. They spend a great deal of time on whatever the artform in question is and the criteria by which they judge have been refined by tons of experience and knowledge. Art means a lot to them and they wish to see the ways in which it can be improved upon and expanded. Therefore they seek out the very best movies/games/whatever there are and remain optimistic for whatever the future may bring. It's not possible for people like that to lower their standards.

What about in the case of "adjusting standards" to suit a piece of work depending on what it was aiming for then? Do you think what you said still applies here if a artwork was shooting towards a more unconventional level of standard to be properly appreciated?

To use one of my own recent experiences as an example: Pacific Rim. When I watched that movie if you were to judge it from a normal film story standpoint, you can easily see that it is extremely stupid in terms of its plot, and logic. However it was very evident that the filmmakers were not focusing on making an intelligent story, and perhaps even making it stupid on purpose to further glorify its self-aware "super fun dumb action movie" status (I think Del Toro said it was on purpose somewhere).

In this case I discovered that my entire appreciation of the film could be drastically different depending on if I chose to be bothered by the obviously-intended dumb plot, or not (I was even able to change this mindset on-the-fly during viewing of the movie). In the former I would find the film's story to be bullcrap, while in the latter I would just be having too much fun with the visuals to care.

What do you make of this? Anyone else who has thoughts too is welcome to answer!

If we're talking games, I don't think there is a "standard".

With me, I need to get hyped about a game before I buy it. Nothing with standards.
It's all about how it works. The concept.
Look at the Portal series. I'd never seen that concept before, and I got so hyped that I bought the number 2 right away... Or when my dad helped me buy it, cause I had no creditcard back then...

Mirrors Edge.
I didn't see anything about this game though, but as soon as I tried the first level I knew it was a good thing that I bought it. This game has great graphics but is from 2008. Talk about high and low standards as much as you want. I just want really enjoy the concept of being a runner.

Minecraft was also a great simple concept, but completed to the fullest. This could be low standards, but I bet it's the concept that pulled most of the people towards it.

I think your mindset of liking a "concept" is still very much to be dictated by standards whether you realize it, or not. You have an interesting concept which can draw you in, yes, but then arises the issue of whether the concept in question was executed any good.

Succeed, and you'll have a strong game mechanic; Fail, and you'll likely have a gimmick at best. How do you decide which is which? By having standards.