Daily Reminder that there are no objectively good or bad games.

/v/ cant' accept that people do not care about their opinions because they are just that, opinions. People that are smart won't be triggered because someone brings up the fact that quality is sibjective. Get a clue you gargantuan buffoons.

>>376935189
Games that are technically broken or outright just don't work are objectively bad games.

>All that matters in the grand scheme of the industry is financial success.
In that case, MN9 was a failure. After four million United States Dollars ($4,000,000 USD), it still needed a publisher a year down development, and now Comcept has about $800,000 USD in financial capital left.

Pretty sure Playtonic is doing fine though. Can't say anything for Bloodstained.

>>376935567
Not an argument.

Why do you keep spamming this thread, faggot?

>>376935660
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.

>>376935542
>People that are smart won't be triggered because someone brings up the fact that quality is sibjective.
The classic copout statement of a delusional brainlet.

>>376935567
You're a retard if you think people judge a game just like you or should. Games can have glitches yet still be fun.

Opinion discarded.

Also Maybe you missed the part where I said there are no objective GOOD or bad games. I'm not defending or criticizing MN9, Yooka Laylee, or whatever. Learn to read.

>>376935660
Stating an objective fact about objectivity is not an argument. It's stating a fact. Facts don't argue, they inform.

>>376935742
Not an argument.
>>376935817
>The classic copout statement of a delusional brainlet.
The classic copout statement of a egomaniac because they convinces themselves their opinions are facts.
>>376935853
No, it's your opinion and THAT is a fact. There are no objectively bad games.

>no bad games

Sonic 05 begs to disagree

>>376935817
How is it a copout statement when it's true though? You can't be that stupid. It's not even a defense or critique of something, you're just mad because you can't refute it.

>>376935823
>game crashes to desktop
>hahaha! wow! this is so fucking fun!

>game causes PS3 to overheat and shit itself
>oh, you! I didn't expect that to happen!

>game is a slideshow 90% of the time
>what a blast from the past!

>>376936095
It's Sonic 06 you imbecile. And it's not a bad game because people don't enjoy it. It was only bad because it was financially unsuccessful. Most games /v/ shits on are nowhere near failures like Sonic 06
>>376936118
>People in this thread outright say that it's wrong to think games being good and bad are opinion based
>Completely ignoring this

You're beyonf retarded

>>376935965
Your opinion regarding facts is an uninformed opinion

>>376936538
Not an argument and also incorrect. My post is entirely factual.

File: wroong.jpg (83KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x720px

>>376936704

File: 1494786472352.jpg (86KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1200x675px

>>376936809
>being this assblasted that you lost an argument
SAD

File: 000.jpg (54KB, 427x484px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 427x484px

>>376936936
>someone telling you that you're incorrect is them being butthurt

Tell me about your projection. Why does he wear the mask?

>>376936243

didn't 06 sell really well all things considered

Rise of Lyric is the one that performed terribly

>>376937145
But you are projecting. You're an army of triggered retards getting whooped by 2 people that actually have common sense.

>>376937279
Not an argument

I agree with everyone in this thread.

>>376937349
This is an infinite loop of denial of denial etc. and projection of projection etc. initiated and perpetuated by you. You are wrong, you are in denial, and beyond the help of reason. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

>>376935189
>>376935542
>>376935567
>>376935660
>>376935742
>>376935817
>>376935823
>>376935853
>>376935965
>>376936095
>>376936115
>>376936118
>>376936243
>>376936538
>>376936704
>>376936809
>>376936936
>>376937145
>>376937279
>>376937349
>>376937428
>>376937898
samefag

>>376937898
Not an argument

/v/ can't handle opinions.
That's why they use various tools to deal with opinions that conflict with their own

If someone likes a game they don't, that someone must be a shill.

If a game is too hard for them it's because those enjoying it are autistic.

If a game is popular, it's because of casuals.

They find ways to escape conflicts because they are weak. Watch as they use the freshest meme now in order to avoid conflict.

>>376931774
Fuck you

>>376941134
If someone says a game is bad they're wrong because it's just their opinion. Especially if it's a mass marketed game that caters to casuals, it must be good cause I liked it and it sold well

That's how modern /v/ handles dissenting opinions and anyone who likes more than just surface level games

Someone post the nude edit

>>376937898
Are you retarded? You're this triggered and in denial that someone would know that quality is subjective. Your opinion has been discarded. Go make some friends fuckface

>>376935189
I still don't know what's the issue with Yooka Laylee. It was made to emulate shitty games from the 90's and it is a shitty game, mission accomplished.

>>376941459
But that is what you're doing

>>376942272
Eh. It wasn't a bad game per se, but it was a far cry from excellence compared to the game it was trying to emulate. If they took more design inspiration from just Banjo Kazooie instead of the collect-a-thon hellholes and arbitrary shitty minigames from other games, it probably would have done better.

>>376935189
>there are no objectively good or bad games
>A game is good as long as someone liked it
You're contradicting yourself.

Someone liking the game means only that: someone liked it. It doesn't make it good. Accordingly, everyone could like the game and it still wouldn't be good. "Good" is an opinion.

>>376943587
But you're contradicting yourself. Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it's bad. If someone likes it then it is a good game to them, what matters is that the game is a financial success which is objective unlike your opinion. You're a fucking babbling retard if you think your OPINIONS are more important than financial success.

>>376944369
>Just because you don't like a game doesn't mean it's bad.
I never said that. Good and bad are BOTH opinions. And not being bad doesn't mean it's good. You can't assess something's qualitative value without it becoming an opinion.

>If someone likes it then it is a good game to them
Sure, that's their opinion

>what matters is that the game is a financial success which is objective unlike your opinion
What matters to whom? I highly doubt it matters to the players whether or not a game they're playing is a financial success.

>>376944973
>>376920437
I'm one of two people in this thread who understands this. How clueless are you.

>And not being bad doesn't mean it's good.
Not an argument. It does to the people who like it. There are no objectively good or bad games


You don't think the creators of a product value money more than internet opinions? You fail to understand the importance of financial success in general and why qualative value is subjective.

>I highly doubt it matters to the players whether or not a game they're playing is a financial success.

Opinion

Some people like to eat feces, that doesn't make it a good meal.

Fuck off.

>>376946407
>shit eating analogy
Stay classy /v/

>>376946050
>It does to the people who like it.
Which is an opinion. How dense are you? You're constantly contradicting yourself

>You don't think the creators of a product value money more than internet opinions?
Which is why I asked you "to whom?" OF COURSE it matters to the creators whether or not the game makes money. I haven't failed to understand the importance of anything. YOU'VE failed to clarify what "what matters" means when you left out who it matters to.

Something's importance is also an opinion.

Yes, I don't care whether or not the games I like are financial successes. It's not important to me. This is my opinion on the importance of a video game's financial success, and I assume that other consumers feel the same way. This is an *assumption*, not an opinion. I could conduct a survey and have objective data to show you that most people do not care whether or not games are financially successful and it would then be merely factual.

We seem to be mostly in agreement and you're too stupid to realize it so I'm going to leave you here to continue contradicting yourself and pretending like you have a real argument, you pedantic nitwit

>>376946772
Wrong. I clarified plenty of times. You idiots got triggered by the fact that there are no objectively good or bad games.
>Yes, I don't care whether or not the games I like are financial successes. It's not important to me. This is my opinion on the importance of a video game's financial success, and I assume that other consumers feel the same way

This is just your opinion. financial success is objective and cannot be disputed.

>I could conduct a survey and have objective data to show you that most people do not care whether or not games are financially successful and it would then be merely factual.
No it is still subjective because it's based on opinion.

Sorry you're too stupid to accept that your opinions are just opinions and don't take precident over objective financial success. Stop with the assumptions and come up with an actual argument instead of assumptions and contradicting yourself

>>376946772
You don't need to conduct a survey to realize most people don't care about /v/'s self important opinions on games. And people not caring about the game's financial success doesn't make it any less objective compared to your opinions.