>this game is OBJECTIVELY good
Is there a worse buzzoword? 11 years of /v/ and all you have done is find a fancier, subtler way of saying "my opinion is fact"
>>315635963
>Is there a worse buzzoword?
Yeah, "b-but subjective!", "it's just your opinion!", and "I'm entitled to my opinion!"
>Is there a worse buzzoword?
Pretentious and edgy are arguably worse. Still, I agree with you that people who say that something is objectively good are always shitposters.
Literally
Soulless
Comfy
Charming
Personality
Meme
Edgy
>>315636086
These aren't buzzwords and you're retarded.
>>315636296
>they're not buzzwords, they're buzzphrases which are so much better
Kill yourself you idiot.
>>315635963
>Is there a worse buzzoword?
Fun is just a buzzword when you can't actually think of any real reasons as to why a game is good. Don't use it.
>>315636270
You forgot about weebshit, autistic, tryhard and fedora.
>>315635963
>11 years of /v/ and all you have done is find a fancier, subtler way of saying "my opinion is fact"
Well it is.
>>315636270
I like comfy and charming. They means something to me although ymmv desu senpai
>>315636357
They aren't buzzphrases either. They're just obvious responses that people give to highschool dropouts who think that art/quality can be objective measured.
My opinions are valid, therefore I am valid!
>>315636390
>You aren't allowed to say that you enjoyed your time with a game
>You must make an in-depth analysis, otherwise your opinion is invalid
I agree that people should elaborate more on why they like something, but this is getting overboard.
>>315636439
Oh yeah, not to mention
Rehash
Shill
Artificial
Forced
I really think games are worse than drugs. They really fuck with people's minds and form even worse addictions than drugs. Look how much hate a derisiveness they cause among users. How ridiculously strong it makes people feel.
>>315636804
It's like that with every artistic medium though.
'Buzzword' has become the king of buzzwords and no I'm not trying to be cute.
>>315636949
I read that as "Autistic medium" at first, and I'm still not sure that I was wrong.
>>315637068
You aren't.
>>315636978
You made me think about it, and you're completely right..
>>315636804
There's people who kill themselves because their soccer team lost, so I don't think that video games are that bad. You just think so because sports are more socially accepted than vidya. Also, movies, TV series, books, music, anime, sports and many other forms of entertainment cause the same type of reaction that you're speaking of. Vidya isn't special in that regard.
>>315637342
Meant to >>315637068
>>315635963
dumb frogposter
>>315637528
I think frogposters are qt and always have interesting things to say :3
>>315635963
It's a perfectly sound phrase.
I don't like Starcraft, but that doesn't mean that I can't see why others would.
>>315638459
But your example is the very definition of something being SUBJECTIVELY good, not OBJECTIVELY good.
>frogposter thinks games can't be good
>frogposter thinks people can't see that a game is good without actually liking it
Next you'll be saying fun is a buzzword too.
>>315638459
>objective
>subjective
Are you stupid?
>>315638459
>>315638890
Do you people just not know the definition of "Objective?" Because what you're saying makes no goddamn sense if you do.
>>315636390
Fun is literally the ONLY valid reason to play a game, you stupid fuck.
>>315639034
If it has fun gameplay, good music, good atmosphere, well-written story, good graphics, etc it is objectively a good game. Sure, people have opinions. You may dislike a game that is objectively good, that's normal. But a game can be objectively good.
Objectively and subjective can go fuck themselves they always sound like a pussy trying to tip toe around their feelings
>>315639357
>If it has fun gameplay, good music, good atmosphere, well-written story, good graphics, etc it is objectively a good game.
That's based on opinion/personal perspective and not on any kind of objectivity, you goddamn retarded. The only thing that you listed that isn't completely subjective is graphics, and even then it still can't be measured in an absolute way.
>>315635963
depends, if the game you're talking about is:
>pretty much bug-free and wasn't programmed with shit tools
>interesting and doesn't leave anything out on the story side, comes full circle
>high accessibility, not too steep learning curve, good controls, etc.
>doesn't fuck you sideways with stupid dlc bogus, microassactions
it's objectively good.
if it revolves around the concept of fun, characters, good music, muh feelings, you-know-what-else:
its quality is subjective.
it's not that hard, people.
>>315639357
The problem is, the quality of a game's gameplay, music, atmosphere, story, and to a degree, even its graphics, are all SUBJECTIVE measurements of quality. It is by definition impossible to quantify the sum total quality of a game in an objective way. Ergo, it is impossible for a game to be "Objectively good."
What you think is good music, another person might think is ear-rape. What you think is a well-written story, another person might think is juvenile, predictable schlock. What you think is a good atmosphere, another person might think is hamfisted and forced. You really need a better understanding of how objectivity works, because it's pretty clear from your argument that you just don't get it on a base level.
>>315639683
Those things are all based on your personal criteria of what games should do in order to be good, many people will disagree and they wouldn't be any more wrong or right than you in doing so.
Also
>>interesting and doesn't leave anything out on the story side, comes full circle
>high accessibility, not too steep learning curve, good controls, etc.
Again, that's extremely subjective and cannot be objectively measured.
>>315636270
>>315635963
I would like to add
>bad ai
There isn't a game on the planet with perfect, complex ai. Video game ai is inherently bad due to hardware restrictions, so whenever I see someone critique a game for bad ai, I immediately disregard the poster as an edgelord trying to seem intelligent.
Also, whenever I ask them to post games with good ai, I NEVER get an answer. Funny how that works.
>All these highschool dropouts thinking that art can be judged in a absolute way
Hilarious.
>>315640114
>you can't complain about ai because all games have bad ai
fuck off
>>315640114
Going by your logic, you also can't complain about writing because all games have bad writing.
You can be objective about specific things, and often about flaws (since it's impossible to be perfect)
"Objectively lazy" you might be able to get away with regarding re-used assets or design depending on the context, for instance.
>>315639357
Let me give you a lesson in objectivity/subjectivity, because you seem to need one.
"Red is a warmer color than blue." That's an OBJECTIVE statement. It is strictly factual, and not based on my personal feelings or opinions.
"Blue is a better color than red." That's a SUBJECTIVE statement. There's no factual basis for what I'm saying, and the statement is completely centered around my own preferences.
A game's story, for instance, cannot be "Objectively good." It can be well-written on a technical level, and it might become critically-acclaimed, but whether or not it's a "Good" story is still a matter of subjective opinion.
Even literary "Classics" such as Moby Dick are not objectively good - they're very popular and have stood the test of time, and you can make some inferences about their quality from that knowledge prior to forming your own opinion, but you might still read Moby Dick and just say "This is a stupid story, I don't like it." Your opinion would not be "Wrong" in that case, because whether or not Moby Dick is an enjoyable read is not a matter of objectivity.
To be honest my family I agree with you *shake my head*
>>315640324
>can't refute an argument so I'll just shitpost
Nah, go fuck your mother
>>315640441
Writing is subjective fucko, ai programming is not. 99% of games have simple programming for their ai, which is basically "see the player, b-line for it and kill".
In modern shooters, it's "see the player, hide behind a wall, and try to kill the player".
So yes, complaining about something inherent to video game programming is retarded. When you play videogames, you absolutely know what to expect from enemies. If you want dynamic, intelligent enemies, you play multiplayer against live players.
