If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for

>>384780732
what definition?
thats not the definition of "good" thats sure

fantastic, goodbye you oversensitive mongo

Millions of flies eat shit every day.
That said, I will acknowledge that /v/ goes full retard when people start calling TLOU and Dota 2 garbage. At worst they're average.

File: SPxeXEcksJMUehVDiF5g2S[1].jpg (613KB, 1200x696px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1200x696px

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
Except when they immediately return it because when they actually play it they find out that it's garbage.

>>384780732
Because it drags down the standards of the industry, you insufferable troglodyte, and that directly affects me.

If nobody had bought Halo and Call of Duty we wouldn't be in such a fucking casual mess right now.
So I exercise my right to call the game shit and your taste shit.

Kill yourself immediately, nigger, no excuses.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
No Man's Sky proves this wrong.

File: pool.gif (567KB, 300x456px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 300x456px

Not my fault everyone has shit taste but me.

>Everyone has the right to have an opinion
>Except people that make me feel bad

Fucking pussies.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it
This falsely assumes that every purchase somebody makes is appreciated, which is a ridiculous premise since you can't fully judge a product until after the purchase is made. And lots of people will purchase something they don't like without necessarily going through the trouble of returning it.

>>384780732
>Image touts you should let people enjoy things
>OP does not want /v/ to enjoy having an opinion he disagrees with
Really makes you think

>>384780732
not how it works

Psychological manipulation to trick people into buying it does not make it a good game
salefags are retards who don't understand marketing, psychology, neurobiology, neurochemistry, and all the shit that goes into selling games.
Yes, all that shit does go into selling and designing games if you're not an indie.


In short you're stupid and your tastes are probably shit and you got butthurt when someone called you out on this.

>>384781536
>>384781796
>>384781998
>>384782194
So you are the people going into the threads of games you haven't played or don't like posting "this game is shit xD" and then leaving.
How is that like?

File: debate straw.jpg (45KB, 206x279px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 206x279px

>>384782503

>>384782503
because casuals and retards who fall for marketing should be shamed into having better taste or suicide

>>384782503

And you are the kind of faggot that ikes a shit game and all he does is bitch to people that don't like it instead of playing the game.

>>384782503
>How is that like
You might as well tell me while you're busy projecting.

>>384782674
Since there's no game in existence where this doesn't happen it's really hard to be bothered by it. It's just background noise but it does make me wonder.

>>384782732
What did he mean by this?

>>384782910
>>Since there's no game in existence where this doesn't happen
grand strategy, dorf fort, factorio, divinity:OS and probably the other divinities, etc
Never seen a faggot complain about them

Are you sure your taste isn't garbage?

>>384780732
Sales not equal quality though.
There are very good games that sell bad and very bad games that sell good.
Also, the number of people liking something doesn't make that something good or bad. It might be indication of a spread cultural problem, like lack of basic knowledge or ability to make proper criticism.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
Appeal to Popularity

>>384783004
grand strategy, dorf fort, factorio, divinity:OS and probably the other divinities, etc

All of these games are complete trash.

Kys

>>384782910

>I don't care, I just wonder

You created a thread you little bitch, you care enough to come and cry, fuck off.

>>384783212
>this buttmade he couldn't even quote
I bet you play blizzard games or something

>>384783212
>look at me mom im contrarian!

>You created a thread you little bitch, you care enough to come and cry, fuck off.
Heh

>>384783249
Btfo

>>384783212
Good one.

>>384783231
>>384783249
>>384783327
What's the matter can't handle an opinion?

File: image.jpg (68KB, 550x394px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 550x394px

>>384780732
So what you are saying that following things are amazing since they sold well?

Fifty Shades of Gray
Twilight
Game of Thrones
Big Bang Theory
Funko POPs
PewDiePie
Meme PC games

No OP, you are just a pleb.

>>384783425
Don't forget Fidget Spinners and Trump

>>384783106
>>384783425
Maybe it's just not good to you? As long as someone enjoys it, it's a good to that person. What really matters is how successful it is for the people that made it. Did they make a profit or lay the foundation for a sequel? Sales are more objective than quality. People forget this is a business.

>being such an autistic faggot that you don't realize most of the time people here are just taking the piss out of things they enjoy

I think I get why you like shit games.

>>384783412
why should anyone take your opinion seriously when its made in bad faith

>>384783545
t.Human Trafficker.

>>384783412
>What's the matter can't handle an opinion?
>he literally creates this thread because he can't handle other people's negative opinions.

>>384783545
Why would the consumer care about how much money a studio makes?
Why would a consumer want a studio to sacrifice game quality for the sake of mass appeal and ruin the actual product they consume?

>>384783562
It appears you still living in the past. By now half the people here are dead serious.

File: 1485805464270.jpg (52KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x800px

>>384780732
Sorry OP, the game that you like really is garbage just like someone on /v/ has told you.

File: objsubj.jpg (55KB, 624x230px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 624x230px

>>384783545
Hello, do you know the word of our Gods ans Saviors Subjectivity and Objectivity ?

>>384783545
Average person is an absolute idiot that barely functions in society, they consume garbage because they cannot process anything else.

Same with anime moeshitters, they just want pretty pictures to look at.

>>384783602
>>384783651
You just got out debated. Just give up and cut your losses bois. You favorite games are indeed shit.

>>384780732
>popularity = quality

>>384783545
>What really matters is how successful it is for the people that made it
Not to me as a customer you fucking mong. I don't care if the creators tricked a bunch of people into buying their garbage if the final product is shit.

>>384783663

Redditors are not people.

>>384783672
There is no such thing as an objectively bad game

>>384783795
Quality is subjective

>>384780732
The part that actually sucks is when a game do SOMETHING right that attracts a large audience, but it's full of flaws, and the developers copy EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE FLAWS, while letting the part that actually made the game sell untouched.

And this been happening over, and over and over and over and over again.
Modern games are a mixture of everything wrong with mario 64, zelda (specially OOT), halo, shenmue, pokemon, half life, Call of duty and GTA, and basically none of it's qualities.

File: 1495782439181.jpg (26KB, 458x458px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 458x458px

>>384783834

>>384783763
Your posts are so fucking bad I don't even know if it's you or someone else false-flagging as you.

>>384783834
>>There is no such thing as an objectively bad game
Yes, there is.
A game that is not a game - i.e. david cage movies - is a bad game because the point of a game is gameplay.
And an average game is something with little depth, a low skill floor and ceiling designed to appeal to the average person.

And even good can be measured using neurochemistry and studying the various neurotransmitter pathways.

You are dumb.
Accept this.

>>384783817
>>384783817
>>384783707
>>384783660
You don't think the creators of a product value money more than internet opinions?

What's good and bad is subjective and differs from person to person. Financial success is objective and cannot be argued. Your niche tastes are irrelavent.

>>384784000

File: werefuck.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>384783834
>There is no such thing as an objectively bad game
Exceptional claim need exceptional evidence.

>>384783412

lol

You are a little bitch and you will never change that.

>>384783918
>>384784068
TRIGGERED

File: 1455896133203 (1).jpg (110KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 640x360px

>>384783902
>Get completely assblasted in an argument
>fuck, people on /v/ that aren't buying my BS
>"there are objectively bad games and people that enjoy games I don't like are wrong. Also, game developers making money are wrong. My opinions that I convinced myself are facts are what is important"
>got em

>>384783952
>>384784009
But there are no objectively good or bad games. It is all subjective. Why are you unable to accept this reality, or are you just shitposting? It's not an exceptional claim when that's how things work. That David Cage example is absolutely ridiculous. There are people that enjoy his games, and if they are making money, then it's a successful game. Just because you don't like it does not negate that. How can you communicate with people outside of the internet?

>And even good can be measured using neurochemistry and studying the various neurotransmitter pathways.

Are you kidding? /v/ is filled with people that think their opinion is gospel. That's why you should take a break with /v/ and actually talk with people outside.

>>384783953
The only person that matters in terms of the quality of a product is the consumer.
Not the producer.
The producers goal is to make money, not to create a quality product.
It is easy to make money without making a quality product by using the various psychological and neurological sciences to design something that is something that looks like you want it from its first appearances.

Whereas the consumers interest is a product that is quality the whole way through.

>>384783953
>You don't think the creators of a product value money more than internet opinions?
Why would I fucking care what the creators of a product value. I'm not an EA executive, I'm a fucking consumer, I care about the quality of the end product. And Yes, there is such a thing as objectively bad.

>>384783763
But you didn't out debate anyone. All you did is call any game mentioned shit, games you've never played, and then tried to hide behind "it's my opinion!".

File: 1426275085925.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

When I see a game I don't like, I avoid it. I don't go into discussions about it and tell people they're wrong for liking it. For the most part I like to consider myself a level-headed person who leaves most people well enough alone. However, and this is the big exception, when you make threads on /v/ telling me how I have to play this game because you can't stop sniffing your own farts about how amazing and fantastic it is, you better be ready to open your cheeks and accept some hard criticism from an opposing viewpoint. It's what separates us from the animals and neogaffers and tumblrites. We need to be able to criticize things, even those things we love. When you effectively bar out all criticism in favor of blind positivity and safe-space mentality, you doom your product and your fanbase and all future discussion to circlejerks, mental masturbatory sessions, and stagnation, which ultimately leads to a dying franchise.

This is why I like the Metroid fandom in particular. Everyone calls them whiny and "never satisfied" but you know what? I'll take that any day over a bunch of manchildren jerking off Nintendo like a god who's incapable of doing anything wrong. And their 7+ years of criticism against Nintendo and refusal to settle for lower standards (ala Other M and Fed Force) has rewarded them with two new Metroid games. Whether they're good or not remains to be seen, but had they sat down and blindly accepted it, we'd be awash in Other M and Fed force sequels.

>>384784116
>>384784148
What makes a game good or bad is subjective and that all that matters in the grand scheme of the industry is financial success. Sorry you allowed yourself to convince yourself that your opinions are facts when they aren't.

>>384784108
For a start, david cage calls his games movies.
Not me.

Secondly the definition of a videogame is "A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device"
Something that does this badly, I.E. with little to no interaction, is an objectively bad videogame because it has failed to BE a videogame.

Also, again, the consumer is the only thing that matters.
Not money.

>>384784106
Not an argument. Neither is "lol u got out-debatedXD" for that matter. And I still don't know if you're actually OP.

>>384784224
Not to the consumer.
The consumer only cares about the consumer.
Not the industry.

Retard

>>384784108
I'm still waiting for your exceptional evidence, OP.

>>384783953
>What's good and bad is subjective and differs from person to person.
People's differing opinions only cement that their opinion is unreliable at best and worthless at most, this does not indicate that quality itself is subjective.
Financial success is no an indication of quality but business acumen.
If two people sell the same product at consistently the same rate but one decides to increase their pricing and cut production costs, the quality of the product has not changed but you will observe financial success.

>>384784224
>all that matters in the grand scheme of the industry is financial success
Why? Why would I give a fuck about that. Why should I?

>>384784164
>any game
Lol, not my fault that your favorite game happens to be in the list of objectively terrible games.
No need to get offended.

>>384784248
My post are too high level for you apparently. Please stop responding to my posts. :)

>>384784358
Again not an argument. It's fine if you can't come up with an actual argument by the way, I accept your surrender.

>>384784230
>For a start, david cage calls his games movies.
[citation needed]

People not enjoying his games do not make them bad games.

> the definition of a videogame
Appeal to the dictionary fallacy.

>Also, again, the consumer is the only thing that matters.
Consumers buying games is what matters. Money matters in this industry. Your opinions don't

>>384784353
You're delusional. Financial success is objective whereas what you think of the game isn't.

>>384784224
Are you kidding right now? There's plenty of ways to objectively show that a game is bad, whether it's poor optimization that leads to glitches, terrible framerate, and outright crashes, to content held behind massive paywalls which can be compared to games of a similar build that offer much more for a much lower price, and I don't need to get into hardware support that can affect whether the game will be available to a wider audience or not.

>>384784358
You got offended and took his list of games and called them objectively terrible games. Your bad faith opinions are not objective.

File: 1462162309357.jpg (24KB, 208x199px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 208x199px

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage

>>384784562
>>384784653
>they still not get it

>>384784617
You're a retard if you think people judge a game just like you or should. Games can have glitches and poor optimization yet still be fun.

Opinion discarded.

File: 1405153666259.png (291KB, 547x513px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 547x513px

>>384784710
>failing this badly at basic English

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.


No. Something can bring in loads of money and still be objectively bad. Take Batman v Superman for example. Yes it took in loads of money to make it a box office success, but critically, it was panned across the board by reviewers because of how awful it was as a film in general.

File: index.jpg (11KB, 199x253px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 199x253px

>>384784747
>Games can have glitches and poor optimization yet still be fun.
Humans can have fun with anything, especially when they're deranged enough to not care about the repercussions of such. "Fun" is a buzzword that people use when they don't want to think objectively.

File: 1334271079033.png (446KB, 598x564px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 598x564px

>>384784819
>falling for me expertly laid trap

>>384784582
>Financial success is objective
It's objective but it has nothing to do with the quality of a game.
Why do you think reviews exist? Because there is a way to determine the objective quality of a product.

File: trolled xd.jpg (335KB, 676x485px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 676x485px

>>384784895
>me expertly laid trap

>>384780732
>The older I get the more I fucking loathe this /v/ arrogance
>proceeds to make the most arrogant post in 4chan history
Good job buddy

>>384784875
>Humans can have fun with anything
He's almost there! HE ALMOST UNDERSTANDS WHY.

GANBARE ANON-KUN

>>384784947
>>384784850
Financial success is more important that critical reception though. Why would someone care about the opinion of the internet if the game/movie is raking in money?

>>384780732
>If post gets a lot of (you)s then by definition it is not garbage
We both know that isn't true, funposter fampai.

File: 1418181367957.gif (538KB, 285x375px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 285x375px

>>384784875
>"Fun" is a buzzword that people use when they don't want to think objectively.

>My opinions on video games are objective

>>384785034
But that is true. A truly garbage thread ends up ignored and doesn't get any replies. That's worse than a thread people care enough to reply to.
Also the OP can't get (you)s

>>384785203
>make a video game thread
>less than 10 replies
>make a /pol/ thread
>550 replies
wew

File: 1495764979071.gif (831KB, 500x487px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 500x487px

>>384780732
Dude. Did you just recycle my post?

Did my post just become copypasta?

>>384785030
>Financial success is more important that critical reception though
More important for what. What does it matter to me if a game is successful?
>what do you think about this game
>It made a lot of money
>but is it good?
>I don't know man but I heard it sold a shitton of copies
You can rate a game by how good its cover art is but it still doesn't say anything about its quality.

>>384780732
You're a bitch OP, kill yourself.

File: 1492452712205.jpg (46KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 514x536px

>>384780732
Yes, if someone says something is shit, they are in fact saying that their opinion is that they think it's shit, not that it being shit is a natural law. You god damn autistic faggot retard.

>>384785026
>>384785101
If I can back my opinions up with facts, then that makes them more objective. You can say absolutely nothing against me if I point out objective flaws that exist in the game. You having fun with them doesn't mean they stop existing.

>>384785270
All that means is that video game thread is shittier than the /pol/ thread.
If /pol/ threads are so shitty then maybe you all should stop replying to them?

>>384785589
Except you thinking something is a flaw doesn't make it a flaw to everyone. Think before you post you autistic moron.

>>384785589
I happen to have more fun in games that have bugs, glitches and crashes.

You pointing these out makes the game more appealing to me.

File: 1407496045414.jpg (119KB, 435x435px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 435x435px

>>384785589
>your opinions
>objective
>flaws
>objective

>>384785674
>>384785673
>>384785647
I'm sorry, but if you seriously argue that a game running at 10 FPS is fun, or that a game that constantly crashes is fun, then I'm afraid you're having the wrong kind of fun. You have a wrong opinion.

>>384785480
Nah this is the internet buddy. Nothing is understood implicitly on written fucking text. You are either clear and concise, speaking common language with common terms or you get interpreted the way your writing skills allow.

Now get your meme fucking images and stick them up your autistic fucking ass.

File: 1498418484163.jpg (23KB, 278x278px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 278x278px

>>384785783
>you're having the wrong kind of fun.

>You have a wrong opinion.

>>384784875
No one can think objectively. Everyone has their own biases including you.

>>384785795
The fuck does this even mean?

>>384782503
I'm only the messenger of chaos

>>384780732
Selling copies is not a measurement of being good. Pre-orders make that clear.
I could make the perfect GAME with the best dedicated fanbase. It could be praised by everyone as the pinnacle of gaming by normies and /v/ alike. I could then hype up a sequel which would get an immense amount of pre-orders. Then I'd release a piece of shit game under the name GAME 2. No one in their right mind would buy the game after watching any review or let's play. Not even fanboys would defend it. But people pre-ordered and the game sold well. Does that make it a good game? No. It makes it a hyped game.

>>384785925
That's not true. Objectivity is the ability to recognize your own bias and remove it from your thought process. If you can't think objectively, that means you lack the ability to logically process problems.

>>384785994
Subtleties that would be communicated in normal conversation can't be communicated through text only? Are you retarded?

>>384785994
Well, for example if you know that Americans browse the board you're posting in you should remember to add NOT or /sarcasm at the end of every joke or they might not get it.

File: 1490350651663.jpg (90KB, 773x773px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 773x773px

>>384780732
>TFW your opinion is so bad that people actually made it a bait tier copypasta post.

When I originally wrote this post it was a reply to someone that claimed that most well sold games are shit.

What I wanted to argue was that for the people that actually buy the games they aren't shit. Thus they are actually liked and enjoyed by people. So they have a right and reason to exist.

I got sick of /v/ always claiming that if they personally don't like a game that it shouldn't have a right to exist or that it impacts their life personally.

Sad that the comment had to be pulled apart from the context and used as bait but it shows how badly written and formulated my opinion was anyway.

>>384786106
So did you reply to the wrong post or something? That Anon wasn't talking about subtleties or implications. He was simply stating that of some jackoff on the Internet says something that is opinionated, then it is opinion. Just because someone thinks their word is law, and writes their opinion as such, doesn't make it true. What the fuck?

>>384785925
>>384785859
You can't imply that glitches are objectively fun. If you enjoy them, that's on you, but to show anger at someone for not liking them just makes you look autistic.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
Just because somebody bought a game doesn't mean they like it. It's impossible to know whether it's good until you play it and see for yourself, which you can only do (legally) after buying it.

>>384786197
Randomly responding to a post with no context from said post isn't very funny. Unless the confusion caused by the post is what you find funny, in which case you're welcome because I'm the only one that bit the bait.

>>384780732
My issue is that they NEVER shut the fuck up about it.

I'd see Untertale shit in threads that weren't even remotely related to the fucking game.

>>384786212
That's still retarded
Everyone wants game to be catered to them, casuals whine about stuff that is too complicated and enthusiasts and fans whine about casualization
It's only normal that in a board with so many enthusiasts and fans the general consensus is that casualized games are bad and inferior to other games

File: butthurt.jpg (42KB, 490x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 490x322px

>>384780732

>>384786334
>You can't imply that glitches are objectively fun

No one did? The entire argument is that someone can find them subjectively fun and thus you can't claim that they are objectively bad.

>>384786485
And I even discussion on Sharia Law in so much as video games instead

>>384780732
Popular things are popular because the VAST majority of people ignore the good stuff, as they already spent too much time in work/ socialicing, so they can't (or just don't want to) invest in finding the actual good games/ films/ books/ whatever.

In other words, popular shit is popular because it has good marketing, it has NOTHING to do with its quality.

>>384780732
>It's not garbage to the people that bought it
>You, and everyone else that didnt like it DON'T COUNT
What a solid argument, cuck.

>>384786334
No one is implying that though. What's fun is purely subjective, just because you don't enjoy them doesn't make them objectively unenjoyable.
Financial success is objective, and matters more than your personal opinions. If you don't enjoy popular games that's on you,. But to show anger at someone for liking them and saying shit like "you're having the wrong kind of fun" literally makes you autistic.

>>384786604
>someone can find them subjectively fun and thus you can't claim that they are objectively bad.
That's not how that works. At all.
What kind of Looney Tunes world do you live in?

>>384786829

But that's exactly how it works you fucktard. You can criticize games all you want, but when you think your opinion is fact, that's when you get lauged at.

File: 3c7.jpg (192KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x1200px

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

lol

What if I bought it and immediately regret it? Stays in my backlog forever from how infuriatingly bad it is? I've got at least 3 games I got fooled into buying this way.

>>384786780
>>384786604
>the entire argument is that people can find glitches fun, that means they're good
At the risk of invoking a food analogy:

>dude, who cares if people are getting food poisoning from your food? I like being sick! It means i can stay in bed all day! Stop complaining!

>>384786103
Human beings are not and will never be rational. All our decisions are largely based upon emotion and impulse and they affect our decisions even when we think we are being objective.

>>384786938
>the entire argument is that people can find glitches fun, that means they're good

No it's not. How can you not grasp the concept?
I find glitches fun, other people are free to disagree. You know a standard OPINION. Not objective not a fact.

File: 1274312945009.jpg (12KB, 317x330px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 317x330px

>>384786938
That's not what anyone is saying you fucking mogoloid. "Good" and "Bad" are subjective qualifiers, and comparing a game you don't like to fucking food poisoning is beyond absurd.

You can't admit that you're opinions are just that. You just ranted about how wrong people are for not thinking like you.

>>384785030
Because a movie making loads of money =/= it's a quality film. It just means it was marketed well and built up hype that got people interested in seeing it. The ones that are critically successful usually end up being the ones that get remembered by history and are more likely to be watched again by future generations. If I had a kid and wanted to show them Batman movies, I'm not gonna show them Batman Forever or Batman and Robin despite them making money at the boxoffice when they came out. They're shitty movies that aren't worth the time watching.

>>384787104
>>384787129
There are some things you cannot have fun with. I don't care if you think you're having fun, you're not. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it. This isn't you liking a certain genre of game and me disagreeing. This is you openly wanting a game to not function as advertised, and then claiming that your brand of "fun" is somehow valid.

File: 1473561474417.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>384787357
>I don't care if you think you're having fun, you're not.

Stay classy /v/

>>384787357
>There are some things you cannot have fun with
>>384784875
>Humans can have fun with anything,

So which is it?

>>384787543
I know you don't like the analogy I posted earlier, but tell me how it doesn't apply here. You want the product to not work as advertised. If a game has 100+ hours of game time, but it ends in 2 hours with no side content or replayability, you're saying that's ok. You're defending false advertising, and that's where your fun stops being fun.

>>384787623
Humans can supposedly have "fun" with anything, but that doesn't make it actually fun. It just means you're fooling yourself into thinking it's fun.

>OP has left the thread and yet spergs are still arguing

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
What.

>>384787748
More like you making weird random scenarios up in your head.
No man's sky didn't live up to most peoples expectations. Yet there are people who's favorite game is no man's sky. It's not objectively bad. The same is true for every other game.

File: 136256819892.jpg (30KB, 555x644px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 555x644px

I'm better than everyone else, and my opinion is the only one that matters.

But seriously, sales and "but I liked it!" aren't a ward against criticism, and bemoaning people expressing their opinions about video games on a video game image board is fucking retarded. Delete your shitty thread.

>>384787901
No Man's Sky may not be objectively bad, but it has objectively bad flaws, like the planet and fauna generation system which we were lied to regarding its specifications and how it worked. Trying to defend that aspect and saying you had fun with it is a wrong opinion, because we were shown a completely different product from what we actually got.

Having fun with anything else in the game, I understand. But blatantly defending the lies and false advertising will net your "fun" a one way trip to the garbage bin.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it
>If people believe in something that makes it true

Theologists everyone. The bottom line of humanity is retarded and hates effort, be it in action, or in thought. "Everyone does it so it must be good" is a wholly flawed philosophy, but you already knew that, and wanted to make a shitpost thread. You are a dreg.

>>384786898
I don't even know where to begin with people as bizarro minded as you. I feel you require a complete re-education on logic before you can even grasp what's being discussed.

Objective points do not stop being objective just because someone pops up and gives a subjective opinion about them.

If a game dev intends to make something function a specific way, say for example the balance in a fighting game, and it gets fucked all to hell in execution then upon evaluation it can be observed by competent minded individuals aware of the design elements of the genre and even those unaware but using comparison of the statement from the dev to what's produced that it is objectively BAD game design qualitatively.

If some twat happens to like how broken a character is since it lets them cheese their younger siblings out of bets on who does chores or some nonsense, that shit is fucking irrelevant to everything and anything. Their small context of experience and evaluation speaks nothing on the whole.

They have no concept, context or remote grasp as to how fucked the glitch is to the function of the game because they do not understand it or actively choose to ignore it. They have no critical capability ergo anything they think or say has zero substance in the argument of the quality of the game.

And no matter how much you dislike the pomp of someone who actually makes any attempt to observe the initial effort and final result, the single component and whole composite, the inherit properties of something beyond just their like or dislike, they were, are and always will be more objective and therefore closer to being correct on the subject.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to replay the award winning* classic Superman 64.
*Several spots on Worst Video Game In a Category

>>384783834
Most of the Action 52 proves you wrong flat out.

>>384788169
I don't see how it's even relevant what the devs said. Someone out there thinks that the fauna and planet generation is exactly how it should be. It's still opinionated.
Surely most people would say it's a bad thing but it's still only most.

>>384780732
>having a taste is bad thing
buttblasted indie dev detected, I bet you think fast food is good too because armies of lards buy it in bulk.

>>384788279
So most would say that this is bad but there are some small amount of player who would think otherwise?

Yeah that's called an opinion. By the way Superman 64 is my favorite game.

>>384788360
>Someone out there thinks that the fauna and planet generation is exactly how it should be
Then they're objectively wrong. Infact, it has been proven that it is physically impossible for the game to generate a world even slightly similar to the one "randomly generated" for the trailers. That was one giant animated bullshot. And have we forgotten the lies about basic features promised ingame, like multiplayer? "oh, but the chances of two people finding eachother are so small it might never happen". You're defending those lies.

>>384787748

You're retarded if you think someone liking a video game you don't is comparable to food poisoning. You're not even making sense at this point, how does a game have 100+ hours of gametime but ends in 2 hours? Nobody is talking about false advertising, stop moving the goalposts and trying to change the subject.

>>384788635
Again it doesn't matter how the game is advertised. It's a fact they lied. It's not a fact that the feature is objectively bad.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage
Bullshit. Twilight sucks, so does Harry Potter and Overwatch and numerous other things.

>>384788279
>Objective points do not stop being objective just because someone pops up and gives a subjective opinion about them.

Your points aren't objective to begin with, calling them objective doesn't make them so.

There are no objectively bad games. People that are actually intelligent don't need to be convinced of this because they know it's true. Retards like you are the ones deluding themselves into thinking this is wrong.

>>384788667
When a game has glitches and bugs and outright doesn't work, you cannot have fun with that. That's what I'm saying.

>>384788723
>It's a fact they lied. It's not a fact that the feature is objectively bad.
No, it's fact that the feature is bad solely because it's not what we were promised. False advertising like that is illegal for a reason.

File: 1410907742203.jpg (15KB, 281x350px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 281x350px

>Humans can supposedly have "fun" with anything, but that doesn't make it actually fun. It just means you're fooling yourself into thinking it's fun.

>>384780732
Smoke a little Timmy shut the fuck up and get out of here no one cares.

Just because something sells well, doesn't mean it's good quality.
Take those spinny toy things or fast food for example.

>>384788791
I disagree with you on glitches. The first pokémon games became better due to the glitches you could do in them.
Not sure if you consider unintended techs in Melee glitches but those also enhance the experience.
Even with bad AI, you can still have fun. Few 2D games need good AI. Look at 2D Mario games were most enemies just walk in a straight line and turn when they hit a wall, and yet some of the games are still great.
Fun is a pretty subjective term. Some people fin any HUD at all to sully their fun.

>>384788791
Guess what almost every game is advertised as being amazing yet if you didn't have fun with it it's still not illegal. Gee I wonder why that is.

False advertisement is completely irrelevant of the actual state of the game.

>>384788765
>There are no objectively bad games.
Fallout 4, 9 out of 10 indies, visual novels, HoMM 6&7, ME: Andromeda, half of the 'remasters', Deus Ex Invisible war, any FPS using only gamepad, WoW since cataclysm, RO2 etc. etc.
stop trying to pass off your plebeian unrefined taste as intelligence, it's sad to watch

File: twas a ruse all along.jpg (84KB, 600x894px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x894px

>So most would say that this is bad but there are some small amount of player who would think otherwise?
>Yeah that's called an opinion
Incorrect, most with any credible critical ability would use a process of evaluation to determine it's bad, but there are some such as >>384788530 who would think and say otherwise, believing ironic shitposting compensates for a lack of ability for discourse.

For example
>>384788765
>Provides no substantiated counterargument and defaults to invincible ignorance

>>384787206
Just because you or RLM don't like Batman movies does not make them bad. They're clearly worth the time watching for people who choose to spend their time watching it and paid for their tickets. You're a fucking babbling retard if you think the OPINIONS of critics are more important than financial success.

>>384789063
>>384788959
Again you're missing the point. You can have fun in spite of a game having issues. That's not the problem. But you can't have fun BECAUSE of the issues. You can say you're having fun, but that doesn't make it true.

Something more relevant to the convo, however, is that your own argument defeats itself. If you supposedly think that "my fun is more important than any analysis" then why do you get so angry when people disagree with you? What if someone doesn't find these glitches fun? Why make an entire thread telling them that they're "evil jaded assholes" for disagreeing with you? Sounds like you want the ability to be the sole arbiter for what's fun.

>>384789226
>process of evaluation
Yeah, that's called forming an opinion.
I played superman 64. It's the best game I've ever played out of over 2000 topranked games.

>>384788117
Calling a game shit isn't criticism, it doesn't even mean anything.

Deus Ex is shit.
Doom is shit.
A Link to the Past is shit.

I can say any of these things, and if anyone dares to disagree with me, I can just go
>he's literally defending shit games
and win the argument, fullstop. You can express your opinions on here all you want. But the fact is criticism isn't objective, there are no objectively bad games and this is a business. You're letting your massive ego interfere with common sense. Maybe you should take a break from /v/ for a little bit.

>>384788952
Quality is subjective
Whether or not it sells well isn't, and at the end of the day that's what matters. Video games are a business. Financial success takes priority over the opinions of critics.

>>384789349
Since when did I make the thread lol. We aren't even discussing the threads topic itself.
Nor did I use any derogatory term even once. I'm calmly discussing it with you.

Honestly sounds like you are projecting. Are you angry? I didn't think so until now.

You tell me I CAN'T have fun because of the issues and call me the sole arbiter of fun?
How can this be true if said everyone has his own definition of fun. That's why games are subjective by default.

Anyway I won't respond to this thread anymore but I'll gladly read your last reply if you feel so inclined.

>>384789539
>>384785320

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

I mean that's objectively untrue, just because you buy something doesn't mean you end up liking it.

What if it's advertised well and lots of people buy it yet hate it?

>>384789349
>But you can't have fun BECAUSE of the issues.

Yes you can. I already listed some examples, Pokemon and Melee are more fun because of their supposed "issues". YOU'RE the one missing the point.

>You can say you're having fun, but that doesn't make it true.
Are you serious m8? Who the fuck are you to decide whether or not I'm having fun?

>If you supposedly think that "my fun is more important than any analysis" then why do you get so angry when people disagree with you?
"U mad" is not an argument. Nice strawman though.

>Sounds like you want the ability to be the sole arbiter for what's fun.
That's literally the opposite of what we're telling you. Again you're missing the point, NOBODY is the sole arbiter for what's fun, because it's completely subjective and differs from person to person. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's objectively Not Fun or that their fun is illegitimate

>>384789226
>>Provides no substantiated counterargument and defaults to invincible ignorance
Says the guy responding with nothing but greentext and no substantiated counterargument whatsoever

I already explained there are no objectively bad games. What is fun differes from person to person. Sorry you can't accept this simple fact.

>>384789793
I'm >>384789643
I enjoyed reading your posts. They were certainly better worded than mine.
Good luck out there.

>>384789707
>>384783545

>>384788849
What are freeium cell phone games?

File: 1362793695003.png (16KB, 118x109px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 118x109px

>You can say you're having fun, but that doesn't make it true.

>>384789793
>>384789643
You can't defend false advertising, and you're objectively wrong for doing so. If you don't like it, leave the thread.

>>384790048
Cocaine is fun but that doesn't mean you should do it.

>>384790113
Nobody is defending false advertising you fucking faggot.

>>384790172
Video games aren't drugs.

>>384789396
the problem is that you're equating "calling a game shit" with thoughtful criticism. you might as well be saying "evolution is just a theory" because it's the same kind of rationale

>>384790172
It's objectively bad for your health, yes.
But whether you should do it or not is entirely subjective. :^)

>>384789974
>someone provides a counter-argument
>replies with the exact same post.
I get it that this is basically this thread in a nutshell but if you don't have an argument you might as well stop posting.

>>384790019
Games that are fun enough for people who spend money on them

>>384790352
That wasn't the exact same post. And you didn't provide a counter-argument, you just linked to another post that was already debunked by >>384789539

Video games are a business. That's why it matters whether a game or not is successful, whether the game will contiune to get supported or have a sequel. Financial success takes priority over the opinions of critics, because quality is subjective. Take your own advice, if you don't have an argument then just stop posting.

>>384790187
The entire argument is that "people have fun with glitches, so nobody is allowed to hate them or fix them because muh subjectivity".

>>384790257
Cell phone games are pretty damn close, the eat up your time/money and leave you with nothing. Most people I know the quit cell phone games exhibit the same type of regret as ex-junkies. The point I am trying to make is that not all forms of fun are harmless.

>>384790172
Ok but your argument isn't that you shouldn't do cocaine, it's that they're not REALLY having fun doing it.

>>384790345
>>384790640
Something being healthy is subjective. Some of us like having cancer and emphyzema.

File: strawman.jpg (22KB, 295x260px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 295x260px

>>384790632
>so nobody is allowed to hate them or fix them

Nobody said that.

>>384790714
Nice try

>>384790594
Febumked by what? A post that said the exact same things as the other post?
You keep writing the same thing over and over ignoring any argument or simply not understanding it. Posting in this thread is a waste of time.

>>384790714
Someone being healthy is demonstrable. You can't prove a game is good or bad based on anything other than subjective opinions.

>>384790785
>>384790797
>>384790867
Nope, sorry. "healthy" is a social construct. So you can't argue it as an objective fact.

>>384790851
>Febumked by what? A post that said the exact same things as the other post?
Yes, because it directly refuted your earlier post. I specifically outlined why it was wrong.
>You keep writing the same thing over and over
Because you haven't refuted it yet, instead just linking to old posts. You're the one ignoring the argument and not understanding it
>Posting in this thread is a waste of time.
Then leave? Nobody is forcing you to be here, you have no argument so you're clearly just wasting time.

>>384790851
>Posting in this thread is a waste of time.
If a thread have a lot of posts then by definition it is not garbage for the people that posted in it.

>>384790292
Actually the problem is you and the rest of /v/ are confusing "thoughtful criticism" with calling a game shit. The latter happens here while the former doesn't.
>you might as well be saying "evolution is just a theory"
You might as well be making a strawman. Scientific proof has absolutely fuckall to do with the subjectivity of game criticism.

Pretty much this OP, just play the games you like

Its hard not to let this place make you jaded, im only here because its funny sometimes, and the rare moment of actual discussion are cool

>>384789334
>They're clearly worth the time watching for people who choose to spend their time watching it and paid for their tickets.
What kind of backwards ass fucking logic is that? So now everyone who's ever paid to see a movie liked said movie? Jesus christ you're a retard

>>384780964
>Shit is shit, that said only I get to determine what is shit
Woah....

>>384780964
TLoU isn't garbage but it's incredibly mediocre through and through and the way the press and public treated it is fucking disgusting.

>>384784582
Finanacial success is an objective measure of financial success, not quality. Financial success can be attributed to many things other than quality.

>>384791227
What I said, and the thing you have failed to answer is why do sales matter. Sales are objective but are not a measure of quality. "This game was successful" does not refute "this game is bad" because it's a completely irrelevant argument.
What is financial success a measure of?

>>384791598
There is no objective measure of quality so this isn't an argument.

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

What if the game was memed to hell and back by marketing and people are stupid and fell for it?

>>384791779
>there is no objective measure of quality
>financial success is an objective measure of quality
Way to contradict yourself faggot

>>384791379
>Actually the problem is you and the rest of /v/ are confusing "thoughtful criticism" with calling a game shit.
no, i'm examining a single one of your posts. you are putting words in my mouth and painting an entire group of people with a broad brush. it's also ironic that you're essentially trying to critique the board by saying it's shit. your entire post is just doublethink

So what if YOU don't like /v/? Just means you need to post elsewhere.

>>384780732
a game can still sell well, but have terrible ratings and reviews. The opposite can be true as well. In fact any combination can be true. Do you know why? Because it's subjective stuff.

>>384791709
>What I said, and the thing you have failed to answer is why do sales matter.
Because they determine what games get made and which ones don't, while your personal opinions mean absolutely fuckall in the grand scheme of things. Again video games are a business.
>Sales are objective but are not a measure of quality.
The quality is subjective and differs from person to person so this isn't an argument. Financial success is objective.
>"This game was successful" does not refute "this game is bad"
Your opinions do not need refuting. Because they are opinions, not facts. And your opinions do not reflect the fact that the game is successful which is more relevant to game creators.

>>384791960
Way to strawman faggot.
Point out where I said financial success is an objective measure of quality.

>>384788731
Not for the people that like it (which are in the millions). It does suck for YOU but that's not relevant. Those things are still good for the people that buy it.

>>384790640
People spend their time and money in order to have fun with cell phone games. That's what they are left with.

And if you want to claim they're junkies and argue they're being psychologically tricked into it, guess what? That what game design is. All games are designed to "trick" you into having fun using systems that ultimately send dopamine to your brain. And their "fun" is no more illegitimate or wrong than your fun.


>The point I am trying to make is that not all forms of fun are harmless.
That's irrelevant to the thread though. Just beacuse you don't like popular games people have fun with doesn't make them harmful

>>384792241

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

Did I misread or are you just retarded?

>>384791502
It's not backwards at all. Just basic logic. If people didn't think it was worth their time to go see a movie they wouldn't bother to go see it. Nobody is forcing them to watch movies they don't like you retard.

>>384792575
I'm not the OP you fucking moron. And nowhere in that post did he mention financial success or measures of quality.
You literally quoted shit I never said and tried to argue against a strawman argument. Congratulations, you played yourself.

>>384792375
>they bought this game therefore they like it
>there are only two measures of quality: 10/10 or 0/10
Are you actually this fucking stupid?

>>384792241
>Point out where I said financial success is an objective measure of quality.
i'd point to your ass, because that's where you pulled it out of. but you'd just say that your own ass is subjective, so what came out of it isn't objectively shit. the toilet happily receives it, so clearly there's some merit to it

>>384792735
But you pulled it out of your ass. Because I literally never said "financial success is an objective measure of quality" you retard.
>you'd just say that your own ass is subjective, so what came out of it isn't objectively shit. the toilet happily receives it, so clearly there's some merit to it
This is all pulled straight from your ass you fucking hypocrite.

File: straw (3).jpg (75KB, 302x330px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 302x330px

>>384792704
>there are only two measures of quality: 10/10 or 0/10

Who are you quoting? Why are you pulling quotes out of your ass?

>>384792126
>while your personal opinions mean absolutely fuckall in the grand scheme of things.
Oh shit. And here I thought Ubisoft closely followed my shitposting on 4chan before making their new games.
Are you actually so retarded that you think anyone here is delusional enough to think their opinion matters to someone outside this board?
What is the point of this fucking thread?
There are no bad games because someone out there bought them? Fuck, Sonic 06 is a real masterpiece then.

>>384792578
>Just basic logic.
correction, it's basic circular logic

>person saw movie, therefore they liked it
>they wouldn't have gone to see it if they didn't like it
>because they went to see it, they liked it
>they liked it because they saw it
>they saw it because they liked it

>>384792687
>nowhere in that post did he mention financial success or measures of quality.
He literally said that if a game sells well then the people that bought it like it. It's literally high sales = quality game, you illiterate fuck.

You're just as retarded as OP so you might as well be the same person. If you're not conflating sales with quality then what the fuck is your point even? What the fuck does financial success matter to the consumer?

>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
Not true. I bought Mass Effect 3 and it was terrible.

>>384792953
>Are you actually so retarded that you think anyone here is delusional enough to think their opinion matters to someone outside this board?

The responses to this thread seem to suggest that they do.

That's the whole point. Your opinions doesn't matter at all to anyone outside of your little circlejerk echochamber shitposting boards. You literally do not matter.

>>384792850
>This is all pulled straight from your ass you fucking hypocrite.
so what? my ass is subjective, you can't prove what i said has no intrinsic meaning, because everything is subjective. you read my post, therefore you agree with it because you spent time reading it

>>384793010
>>they wouldn't have gone to see it if they didn't like it

Why would you purposefully go to movies you don't like?

>>384793424
>The responses to this thread seem to suggest that they do.
Then you actually are retarded.

>>384793502
>so what?
you are putting words in my mouth and conflating everything as subjective because you don't have an argument.

>>384793672
>just learn a new word
>proceed to use it wrong
You can just smell the underage

OP clearly made the sales = quality argument in the first fucking sentence. If you're not OP then you're going off on your pointless tangent.

>>384793109
He literally said that if a game sells well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it. That's not the same as saying high sales = quality you illitereate fuck

You're so fucking retarded you thought everyone replying to you was the same person, OP. ANd now you're trying to damage control and save face from your fuck up.
>If you're not conflating sales with quality then what the fuck is your point even?
It's been spelled out to you a thousand times ITT. You would know if you weren't so fucking illiterate.
>What the fuck does financial success matter to the consumer?
It decides what games get made for them to buy.
Unless you're a consumer of niche shit nobody give a fuck about like /v/, in which case tough luck for you.

>>384793508
how do you know you don't like a movie if you haven't already seen it?

in fact, quality is subjective. how do you know you dislike a movie even if you have seen it? if your subjective criticism isn't relevant to anyone else, maybe it's not even relevant to your own self.

>>384793508
being fooled by marketing?
going with someone else?

Can we all agree OP is wrong on the basis that his opening statement is a false assumption?

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
I'm sure all those kids who bought Takeshi's Challenge on Famicom will agree.

>>384794196
How is it false exactly?

File: kek.jpg (8KB, 300x220px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x220px

>>384780732
Do you realize how this post is retarded?

You're saying having opinions is retarded, as long as they're not positive opinions.

I'll have any opinion I fucking want about any fucking thing I want and there isn't a single thing you can do to stop me, fuckwit.

>>384794024
>He literally said that if a game sells well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.
I mean, that isn't true either. I bought Diablo 3 and I'm still mad about it.

>>384794250
I don't know what that is and neither do most people apparently. It's not a relevant and popular like the games /v/ likes to shit on.

>>384794397
Get out, normalfag.

>>384794016
How did I use any of the words in my post wrong exactly? It's ironic because you're underage enough to shove words in my mouth and assume OP made the sales = quality argument when this entire time we've been telling you Quality is subjective and can't be measured. All of your posts have been nothing but a pointless tangant based on your lack of reading comprehension

If anything the top-selling games of this year convinced me of how worthless "supporting" games you like is. I can buy great games all day but fuckwit retards buy Tom Clancy's Shitlands and Mass Effect Shitdromeda instead, effectively undermining my spending power with their stupid faggot decisions.

>>384794024
>it is not garbage for the people that bought it
That's a qualitative argument.

You're so retarded that you think two anonymous retards can't be mistaken for one retard, or that it matters at all for the purposes of the argument. Your personal argument has just been that "only financial success matters" which is a subjective opinion, and strays from the point of the thread if there's no qualitative argument to it.

That's still only a measure of sales. Consumers don't care how much a game sells if they don't like it, and they care more about a game's quality than its sales.

>>384794542

Just means you need to look elsewhere or your taste has become so niche that it isn't worth catering towards in which case you should do something else with your spare time.

>>384794537
>conflating everything as subjective
That's not how you use conflate, ESL.

>>384794270
Plenty of people buy games and regret it, hence : "If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it" is false.
This whole thread was basically "fuck /v/ for shitting on a game I like, you are all nerds".
I suspect OP is pretty new to this board if /v/s opinion bothers him so much.

>>384794270
>everyone who bought a game liked it
How can you even entertain this notion

>>384794537
>How did I use any of the words in my post wrong exactly?
it's okay, your post is still understandable. but you said "conflating everything as subjective" when you should have said something like "labelling everything as subjective". conflating means to combine things into one

>Quality is subjective and can't be measured
so is reality, that doesn't mean you can deny it

>>384794912
>>384794942
You have to be pretty retarded to buy games you don't like.

>>384795082
You have to be pretty retarded to be making this argument even in jest, let alone seriously.

>>384795082
>false advertising
>peer pressure by friends
>it gets good X hours in, anon
>shills
>sequel I've been waiting for

>>384795198
Really? I'm retarded for suggesting you shouldn't buy games you don't like, even in jest?

>>384794750
Saying it's a qualitative arugment doesn't mean it's an argument to objective quality. OP never said those games are objectively high quality because people bought them. Because again, quality differs from person to person.

You're the one mistaking two different people. That makes YOU the retard, not me. Not OP. If it doesn't matter then why are you trying to save face after being mistaken? Your personal argument has just been that "criticism maters as much if not more than financial success", the difference between our "personal" arguments is that only one of them is proven true by how the industry operates. Quality being subjective and financial success mattering more are not subjective opinions, they're flat out facts.

>>384795061
>but you said "conflating everything as subjective" when you should have said something like "labelling everything as subjective".
But the point remains the same. You were conflating things that are not subjective with things that are.

>so is reality, that doesn't mean you can deny it
Reality isn't subjective though. You're conflating again.

>>384795570
You have nobody to blame but yourself if you're buying games you don't like for any of those reasons.

>>384794425
Sorry nobody cares about your meme games. Stay mad autist.

>>384795821
How do I know I don't like them before playing them?
Same with movies.

>>384794912
I suspect it's some starry eyed philosophy freshman who just finished their first lesson on Socratic questioning or some bot, because they keep alternating between ineffectually regurgitating the same tired irrational fallacies and senselessly reversing the earlier remarks of others to Frankenstein the illusion of intelligence. Either way we find ourselves babysitting the byproduct of neurosis.

>>384794058
Watch trailers, pre-release footage, read a synopsis. You have plenty of resources to determine whether a movie interests you before seeing it.
>if your subjective criticism isn't relevant to anyone else, maybe it's not even relevant to your own self.
Yeah that's not how it works.

>>384794102
>all those people were tricked into liking something they don't like!

lol

File: Fedora.jpg (32KB, 500x471px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x471px

>>384796030
>I suspect it's some starry eyed philosophy freshman who just finished their first lesson on Socratic questioning or some bot, because they keep alternating between ineffectually regurgitating the same tired irrational fallacies and senselessly reversing the earlier remarks of others to Frankenstein the illusion of intelligence. Either way we find ourselves babysitting the byproduct of neurosis.

>>384796048
Trailers are specifically made to sell products and are often not indicative of the quality of the movie. Watching a synopsis and spoiling the movie for myself is an easy way not to enjoy it.
Also are you denying the existence of buyer's remorse?

>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

I'm late here but holy shit is your logic broken.

Let's say Half Life fucking 3 comes out, and let's say it sucks. Of course millions of people will buy it. That it sold a lot would not necessitate its non-suck status, anon.

>>384796351
I'd have preferred the bot.

File: IMG_1743.jpg (90KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 768x1024px

>>384780732
>If a game sell well then by definition it is not garbage for the people that bought it.

Seriously, how old are you?

>>384780964
>Millions of flies eat shit every day.
This is the "I'm 16 and my taste is fucking superior" mentality summed up

>>384796425
If you can't figure out whether you'd like to go see a movie based on trailer or any other information available to you, thats your problem.

>Also are you denying the existence of buyer's remorse?

I'm not denying it, but you're exaggerating its extent. It's unlikely that the vast majority of millions of people who bought a game or movie didn't like it.

>>384796048
>Watch trailers, pre-release footage, read a synopsis. You have plenty of resources to determine whether a movie interests you before seeing it.
you could even gauge its worth via the opinions of others

>Yeah that's not how it works.
who are you to say that's not how it works? maybe that's not how it works for you, but why should that be the same for other people?

>>384796587
Old enough to avoid buying shitty games while accepting people like things I don't

>>384781998
There's a difference between having an opinion on something and calling your opinion an objective fact

>>384781796
>>384782194
>>384783106
>I have autism and can't make basic inferences

>>384796760
>you could even gauge its worth via the opinions of others
Sure, as long as you acknowledge that its subjective, as opposed to its objective worth (how much the movie made).

>who are you to say that's not how it works?
A normal person who understand that personal opinions aren't objective.

>>384783952
>my criteria is the only criteria
Hello autism

>>384796030

Have you not been paying attention? I haven't done any of that you nimrod. You can criticize something all you want, but when you think your opinion is more than just an opinion, you get laughed at. Don't project your neurosis onto me.

>>384784182
>the animals and neogaffers and tumblrites.
>I am 14

>>384796709
>It's unlikely that the vast majority of millions of people who bought a game or movie didn't like it.
Is that why there are movies and games who have more negative user reviews than positive?
There are people whos entire job is selling shit to people who may or may not like it.

>>384797034
>as opposed to its objective worth (how much the movie made).
that's not objective at all. money only has worth because society has decided upon using a flexible medium for facilitating the exchange of goods and services. a $5 bill is intrinsically valueless. it has relative worth, just like an opinion

what if i decided to see a movie 10 times? is my opinion 10 times more important than the average person's?

>>384797613
Negative user reviews on some ratings site aren't representative of everyone who bought a popular game. People who don't like a game are more likely to leave reviews than people who like it.

Pretty impressed how a bait OP resulted in a genuine discussion with minimal amount of shitposting (for a /v/ thread)

>>384783834
Yes there is.
Games that lie to you about what the rules are, that lie to you about the failure state, that lie to you about the win state, and change those rules without informing the player.
i.e. a shooter where suddenly there is an arbitrary section where firing the gun causes you to lose for no discernible reason without it being a bug.

>>384797823
You're delusional.

A movie project is objectively worth how much money it makes. Money is objective unlike your opinions on quality. A $5 bill is objectively worth $5, not relative to opinion. And your opinion is not important to anyone other than yourself.

>>384797837
That's what people that are salty their favourite game reviewed poorly say.

>>384798173
I'm not salty or defending my favorite game. Just pointing out that what makes a game good or bad is subjective and that all that matters in the grand scheme of the industry is financial success. Sorry you allowed yourself to convince yourself that your opinions are facts when they aren't.

>>384798160
>And your opinion is not important to anyone other than yourself.
apparently it is, because opinions are quantifiable as they proportionally translate into real dollars. therefore, opinions are objective

>>384798325
>Sorry you allowed yourself to convince yourself that your opinions are facts when they aren't.
But I never did. I just don't think you can judge the worth of a product by sales.

>>384798405
>opinions are objective

You're retarded.

>>384795646
I'm just pointing out your autism in fixating on "I'm not the same retard" when it's irrelevant. Yes, quality does vary, but it has virtually nothing to do with sales numbers. OP is arguing that sales numbers substantially relate to quality.

>mattering more
Mattering to whom? Not the consumer. OP is making a consumer centric argument, you're going off on your own thing that the consumer gives no fucks about.

>>384798657
But you're the one who made that argument.

>>384796048
movie interests you =/= you like the movie after paying to see it

do you even believe your own bullshit

>>384780732
Why is someone stating their opinion a deterrent for you to hav fun?
That's on you, nigga.

>>384799875
No I didn't. I literally said your opinions are not objective.

>>384780732
>If a game sells well it must be good
That's subjective as fuck through and Through

>>384800617
>For the people that buy the game

You omitted a crucial point of the post.

>>384799697
I said that because you morons have convinced yourself that your opinions are fact. That's how this argument started. You should stop trying to argue if you can't even remember why you are arguing retard.

You're projecting your autism because you assumed two different people were the same person. You say its irrelavent yet you can't let it go and keep trying to one up me to save face after outing yourself as a retard.

>Mattering to whom?
To the people who make games. Games that the consumers end up buying. /v/ doesn't speak for consumers more than sales do.

>>384800676
Don't bother anon, these autists can only argue against strawmen of what OP actually posted.

>>384785925
But that's just your own personal opinion.

See what I did there?

>>384801308
That's just your opinion. Post invalidated.

>>384800003
I don't pay to see movies I don't like.

Thank god this is an anonymous site, so I don't have to pretend that it's a crime to have fucking taste.
All you populists are trying to do is carve out an excuse for the 1 or 2 things you like that you know are shitty (probably some eceleb, ASSFAGGOTS, etc.).
As defensive as you get about those things, you would never follow through with your own arguments and claim to support shit like in this post >>384783425.
And that's because you know you'd get laughed at by people who know better.
I don't give a fuck if it's objective or subjective, some people just know better than others.

>>384781796
Dude.... that was indirectly complayning about the main argument of console wars
>my game sold x more than yours. sony/nintendo is the best company ever.