There are no bad games. Only games you don't like.
superman 64
Big Rigs
Ride to hell retribution
Uncharted 4
>>337228149
What is ride to hell retribution?
Objectivity is real nigga
Castlevania 2 is one of the worst games ever designed.
>>337228149
>There is no objective morality
>Only morals you approve of
Such a dumbshit way to live. If you believe in and stand for nothing you should seriously just be put to work in gulags for the rest of your existence since you're too stupid to be left to your own devices.
Fire Emblem Fates tho
>>337228149
Kys my man.
What about games that outright call themselves bad games?
>>337228403
Why is it bad to kill? Because I wouldn't want to get killed myself you say, but what if I have brain problems and want to get killed?
>sonic boom
>>337228605
So kill yourself, retard.
>People still think you can judge things "objectively"
Stop.
Still, because you can't judge anything that appeal to your sensibility objectively anyway, it just means that calling something "bad" is OK. Since it's necessarily a subjective statement. There are absolutely no differences between saying "This is bad" and "I think this is bad". It's just expressing your subjective opinion.
>>337228605
Because most everyone's life is precious. It seems yours isn't.
You're not so smart, huh?
A dull fellow?
A misguided soul?
A little dumb pumpernickel?
>>337228683
>People still think you can't judge that ride to hell retribution is a bad game objectively
>People still think objectively is a buzzword
>>337228403
If you live in a country where gulags are a thing, chances are you'll end up there regardless of what you believe in.
>>337228809
The only "objective" data you can give about a game is its framerate, the number of polygons used for models, and so forth.
You can establish comparisons using this, but that's about it.
"Consensuses" are not objective data. And
there isn't anything wrong with that, except for faggots like you who denature the meaning of the word because you think that if everyone agrees to something, it makes it magically "objective" and thus more of a solid argument.
>>337228732
>Because most everyone's life is precious.
Do you have one single objective fact to back that up?
>>337228149
E.T. or Action 52 for example
>>337228149
There are no bad people. only people you don't like.
>>337229216
>he hasn't heard of cognitive neuroscience
I get that you're in high school, but please stop breathing.
>>337229216
>I haven't played ride to hell retribution
okay stop posting
>>337228732
>Because most everyone's life is precious
Stop listening to that nigger chinkaboo in TWD.
>>337229338
>there are no logical fallacies, only strawmen
>>337228149
revolution 60
Even the worst game ever made can become fun with friends and a lot of booze.
What about bad games I like?
>>337229338
No shit.
>>337229254
We evolved. We evolved from the beasts into people who could reason and live together and love together. If you degenerate back into a beast and don't respect the life of another human, then you don't deserve any better treatment than a wild beast would get.
>>337229434
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.
>>337229431
I have played it (for a few minutes before it crashed) It was awful. It's my opinion, and thus subjective.
If someone played it and found it good, it would be his opinion, and thus subjective.
We could exchange ideas about that. I would probably be able to convince him that the game is actually not good. I could show him games I feel are better. He would probably agree with me.
Everything about this is subjective. I really fail why you see a problem here.
>>337229351
That's hilarious. You have absolutely no idea what neuroscience actually does, right? Please, keep posting.
>>337228149
Driv3r.
>>337228149
Duke Nukem Forever.
Defend it.
>>337229216
fuck you and pretentious bullshit, media can be judged. ride to hell: retribution has 100% dislike for a reason.
>wonky controls
>non-sense and offensive story
>horribly outdated graphics
>shallow ass mechanics
>glitches galore
>>337229680
>I-I-I was just pretending to be retarded!
Kid, I'm an actual scientist. Reading the wiki page for five seconds doesn't mean you suddenly know anything.
>>337228589
Bad Rats.
>>337229626
Killing another person does not degenerate someone back into a beast. It would not take away your ability to reason, nor inherently take away the ability to live with and love others.
You're not using objectivity to draw your conclusions, which is the entire point of this line of discussion
>>337229680
Nice refutes and buzzwords, totally not underage.
>>337228207
First post best post
>>337229905
Now you're objectively sounding like a high school student.
>>337229821
You do realize that some people would see those things as enjoyable?
If the developers think it's a bad game then it is
>>337228149
Don't be a fucking retard. Sure, everything's subjective, but there is shit writing, ways of developing characters etc.
>>337228149
There is no bad anything. Only stuff you don't like.
>>337228149
note that this means there aren't any good games either. Only games you like.
There are bad games you like. There are good games you don't like. Explain this, faggot.
What makes a good game, what makes a bad game? Are there any objective criteria into defining what constitutes a good game?
>>337228683
What if I came over to your house and brained you with a stone. Then I walked over to your pet and cut it's head off with a cleaver. Then I poured gasoline on the floor and lit a match. Do you think anyone in their right mind would say that those weren't objectively bad things to do? No, of course not. And the people who disagree and say "Well there must have been a reason, you can't just say that was an evil person, nothing can be judged objectively" would be out of their fucking gourds. Eat shit.
>>337228337
If you're gay.
Castlevania 2 is fun
>>337230049
Author intentions or opinions don't matter.
Van Gogh hated his paintings, yet people like them.
>>337229995
In the same way some people see scat fetish as enjoyable.
At some point you have to draw the line and disregard these people as brain damaged. Not all opinions have equal merit despite what relativst fuckwits who label everything as "subjective" would like to tell you.
>>337228683
>game is ugly
>controls badly
>and makes your ears bleed
>it's not bad you just don't like it!
I fucking hate you faggots.
>>337228149
By the logic there are no good games, either.
>>337229821
So? I never said you couldn't judge something. I'm just saying that judging the quality and enjoyment you get out of something as a "person" is necessarily subjective.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Also, do you realize that the stuff you mentioned is part objective, part subjective? You can actually prove from analysis that the controls are wonky or that there are a lot of glitches. Programs can do that. However, they can't prove that the story is bullshit or that the mechanics suck.
>>337228149
Charlies Angels
>>337229947
Of course not. I should have been clearer. If you kill someone to save them from a slow death or worse fate because it's all you can do in your power, then that can be accepted and forgiven. If you kill someone who has chosen to die, then that can be understood. But if you kill someone in cold blood for literally no reason, or personal gain or pleasure, then that does make you a beast. A horrible, hideous beast who isn't capable of basic human emotion or understanding.
>>337230154
ISIS would applaud you
>ISIS IS NOT SANE
In yourrr opinnniooonnnnnnnnn~~~
>>337228149
games that i don't like are bad, this is an empirical truth and cannot be disputed.
>>337230351
ISIS also blow themselves up in crowds of hundreds. Eat a fucking dick you contrarian bastard.
>>337230328
Of course not.
There are games that many people liked, so much so that people accept them as "good".
>>337230098
Good Performance is actually the most important thing. It need to function properly for it to be a good game. Controls are 2nd. If you can't control it, it's objectively a bad game. Gameplay is more subjective than these two, but things like heavy amounts of microtransactions are generally seen as bad.
>>337230351
What if you were the muslim and I was the infidel. Would ISIS applaud me then? Stop moving the goalposts.
>>337230335
>part objective
If something doesn't respond to your controls, you make an objective claim about that being bad. If you enjoy that, you're just a retarded faggot. It doesn't change its objective shittiness. You can like bad things you dumb faggot.
Twin blades is legit the worst game I have ever played
Followed closely by X blades
>>337230345
>then that does make you a beast
it objectively does not, anon
you're not speaking rationally, you're either being poetic or emotional, which doesn't have a place in a discussion about objectivity
Speaking hypothetically here, why is it objectively bad to kill someone for personal gain?
Here's something you need to understand:
You can enjoy a game that is bad
You don't have to 'prove' to anyone that your game is good and worth enjoying. Have fun with it. If you can put up with a game where half of the highly touted features didn't work at launch, and another fourth of which got taken out in 'patches', then good on you.
But trying to make it seem perfect and without flaw by appealing to subjectivity just makes you look stupid.
I enjoy bad movies. I understand they are bad movies, but I still find myself enjoying them.
I've enjoyed bad games. I understood why they were bad, but they were fun to me! (TOR, Civ 5 (at release))
The idea that 'if I enjoy it then it's good because subjectivity!' needs to die, though.
>>337230442
Why's that a bad thing? If you didn't want human civilization to end (your subjective goal), that's bad according to your subjective judgement, but ISIS likes it.
>>337228403
But there is no objective morality. Morality is an invention of man so that we can live together in a semi-peaceful society. It's just a social agreement innit.
>>337228732
>most everyone
How about you learn to speak English you fucking Yank cunt?
>>337230456
People who claim subjectivity almost never admit that though.
The subjectivity argument is almost always used to dismiss critisism and dissent towards bad games. It basically boils down to "this game I like can't be bad, because everything you say about it is just opinion"
>>337230514
I'm not moving the goalpost you retard, I'm trying to explain to you that the world is subjective.
In that case, ISIS would still applaud because the muslim didn't join to fight ISIS.
>>337230098
Shut the fuck up dweeb.
>>337230617
That's only if you think of "good" as an objective term though, which is not.
"Good" in this situation is swappable with "enjoyable", which fits your description pretty well.
>>337229521
Enjoing a game ironically won't suddenly turn a bad game into a good one.
>>337230881
IT CANT BE BAD TO YOU IF YOU LIKE IT
>>337229995
People enjoy games with glitches and poor mechanics because it's ironic and funny. It just proves that games can be objectively bad.
>>337230460
>Good Performance is actually the most important thing.
Brainwashed PCuck detected.
The most important thing in a game is that there is no one most important thing. Some games solely rely on gameplay and are good, some games have shit gameplay but are good because of the characters, writing and atmosphere. Some games require 60fps in order to be even playable. Some games become timeless classics despite running at 320p 20fps.
There is no ONE thing. Generally speaking a game is good when people who worked on it put their soul in it.
>>337230154
I see, murdering a human and another sentient creature in violent ways, prematurely robbing them both of life and liberty, and then burning down their domicile are the same thing as liking a video game you don't like. I hadn't thought of it like that before.
>>337228149
>There are no bad games. There are only bad genres.
>>337231048
Yes it can. A bad game doesn't become good because someone likes it.
>>337231086
That's because they believe in something being objectively bad, despite having a positive subjective experience.
>>337228149
>DUDE SUBJECTIVITY LAMO!
>>337231504
>despite having a positive subjective experience.
Under the pretense of irony.
Most rationale human beings are able to recognize that going out of your way to lower expectations doesn't change the quality of something.
>>337229947
PTSD would disagree to some extent. There's a way to get out of that stuff, but (especially if it's not done for a valid reason) the road is slim.
>>337231459
So if every sentient being on earth honestly thought "X is good" despite X being "objectively bad", X would still be bad?
>>337230875
>argument not provided
>>337228149
I agree I personally think Dark Souls has some of the shittiest combat in ARPG history,yet the majority of people enjoy it.there is no objective in personal taste or opinions
>>337231634
In some cases yeah. But most reasonable people don't resort to appealing to the extreme in order to prove their point.
>>337228732
>life is precious
Ahh, good one anon. That joke never get's old.
There are bad games that I like, and good games I don't like
What now?
>>337231504
>I got kicked in the balls but had a good laugh because I was with friends
>it was painful
>that experience was subjectively good because we laughed
Want me to test out my hypothesis on you? You dumb faggot.
>>337231618
If they were liking it ironically, they didn't honestly like it then.
Tell me, what makes a game objectively bad and objectively good, and when exactly does the game cross that line?
>>337231756
Congrats, you can rub two braincells together unlike OP and the rest of the relatvists ITT.
>>337231757
If ballbusting is your fetish and you're a masochist, I don't know why you would like to have your balls kicked.
Language, morality, etc, things that you can argue about, things we do cooperatively to create a functioning society are purely conventional, used as a purpose of convention. As a tool to convene.
Something is purely conventional, something you don't need to worry about taking seriously.
What we don't all want to admit is that we're all a little sly and out for ourselves, so we have to pretend we're selfless pillars of morality that only desire the best for society and the world, when in reality we'd rather convene with people in the sense of just peacefully getting along with everyone while we leave ourselves to our own devices.
But some people really can't drop that, they keep forgetting what game it is they're playing and continue through the motions until they take the mindset of an authoritarian dictator that has some belief of objectivity or whatever.
Just come off it every once in awhile and remember what you really are.
>>337231796
>If they were liking it ironically, they didn't honestly like it then.
Which they did in order to derive a "positive subjective experience" experience with it.
aka Enjoying it ironically
>Tell me, what makes a game objectively bad and objectively good,
Plenty of anons have already given you answers to this question. >>337230460 is a pretty decent starting point.
But you're just being pedantic for the sake of arguing there are no bad games to defend games from being bad, so there's no point in reasoning with you
>>337231756
That's only because you believe objective good and bad exists. What determines objective good? Could an alien race find the pure elements of goodness and badness in our society?
>>337231087
>if you care about performance at all you're a brainwashed PCuck
Are you fucking retarded?
Nobody claimed PCMR standards of peroframnce is what matters fuckhead. Every game is technically playable if it can't reach 60fps and just hits 30. We're talking about sub-10fps and constant crashing, so fuck off with your OoT memes and technical standards from 1995. A literally unplayable game is a shit game no matter how much you want to bring your console war memes into this.
Also there are plenty of shit games that the developers put their soul into. For every Deadly Premonition there are hundreads if not thousands of low quality indie games and kusoge made by untalanted people working at the best of their ability. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>337230460
Gameplay is the single most important thing to a videogame. If it doesn't have gameplay it's not a game.
>>337232005
That criteria is totally subjective.
If you like a game, you liked it. If you didn't, you didn't. There are no good or bad games, there are games many people like and many people dislike.
>>337232230
Also to clarify I consider performance a part of gameplay as it directly effects it.
>There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so
.t William Shakespeare
The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks were having an argument about it. One said, “The flag is moving.” The other said, “The wind is moving.” They argued back and forth but could not reach the truth. The sixth ancestor said, “It is not the wind that moves. It is not the flag that moves. It is your mind that moves.” The two monks were struck with awe.
>>337232230
That's your subjective understanding of what you subjectively believe a video game is and your subjective expectations for what a video game should be.
>>337232275
That's just your opinion.
See what I mean? There's no reasoning with you when you're going to shut down every single argument with "that's just subjective!" Case in point: >>337232390
There are good and bad games. No amount of self-flaggulation over your pretentious sense of subjectivity will ever change this.
ACKSHUALLY both the wind and the flag are moving or more specifically the flag and air molecules are moving.
>>337228683
>>337231796
>what makes a game objectively bad and objectively good, and when exactly does the game cross that line?
It obviously depends on the genre. A MP shooter with random spread and awful maps is a poorly designed shooter. This is obvious from the gameplay that can't get flowing because the characters are sitting around spraying inaccurately, the spawns are shitty, etc.
A game with fantasy action is shallow if the combat is only single button spam.
These are both evidence of games that play poorly because of their design -- that's evidence. The opposite can't be said about evidencing subjectivity -- it's just a claim to nothingness.
My opinions are objectively correct.
>>337232552
"Moving" exists only in the mind.
>>337232207
I think everyone agrees that a game crashing or constantly going under 10 fps is simply broken. This is so obvious it's not even part of the debate. Usually when you bring up performance is to bitch about muh 60fps because your youtube overlord told you to.
I agree that standards are ever evolving and with currenty technology 1995 standards are unaceptable, I just wanted to point out that such technical aspects are usually secondary if a game is good it will be good even if it runs like shit thereof, performance isn't the ONE AND ONLY CRITERIA FOR A GOOD GAME as you claimed.
>>337230175
Paintings aren't interactive.
>>337232390
It's not subjective. A game is a concrete thing that can be defined. There are criteria that have to be met in order for a game to be a game. This is objective. I said nothing about whether or not games with you more game play are better than games with a focus on story, only that games need to have game play to be games.
Life is an objectively shitty game.
Only a literal retard could enjoy it.
>>337232090
Rejecting the very idea of objectivity is the philosophical equivalent of saying "lol I dunno, what if like, it's all in your head?????"
>>337228149
There are no good men. Only boys you don't like.
>>337232915
That's pretty apt, objectively all your senses of objectivity arise from perceptions of cause and effect, which are not timeless and always have ends.
If something is not eternal, how can it be objective?
>>337232675
>I think everyone agrees that a game crashing or constantly going under 10 fps is simply broken. This is so obvious it's not even part of the debate.
Brainwashed PCuck detected.
In all seriousness there are people ITT who are actually arguing that broken games are not bad games because subjectivity. So it clearly is part of the debate.
>Usually when you bring up performance is to bitch about muh 60fps because your youtube overlord told you to.
This is your fault for making an assumption instead of reading the actual post.
Again, nobody brought up muh 60fps but you. Just because someone brings up performance being important doesn't mean they're doing so to bitch about 30fps = unplayable.
>>337230345
Except killing for no reason is a human trait, animals rarely kill because killing is fun.
>>337230098
>>337230460
>>337231796
>Are there any objective criteria into defining what constitutes a good game?
Yes.
Equal amounts of 3 things: energetic effort, concentration, and mental quietness.
Controls are fine if they promote and allow these 3. Nothing is unnecessarily problematic if it can be played actively and with concentration and with silence.
>>337230996
No I'm talkinga about good games. A good game is enjoyable by definition, and I mean actually enjoyable not ironically enjoyable or under some twisted set of standards where gamebreaking bugs and unplayable = good game
Look dude, you can wax poetic about the subjectivity of value judgements all day long. But you're just coming off as a prick to anyone who is trying to discuss or debate the quality of a video game. Especially when subjectivity is almost exclusively used to deflect criticism from and defend bad games.
>>337231634
That is literally a nonexistent idea.
>>337232275
>That criteria is totally subjective.
This is why they didn't bother answering your question of "what makes a game objectively bad and objectively good". You were already prepared to dismiss any given answer despite what response you got.
>>337232823
>most detailed open world
>entirely player driven economy
>tons of players
>bad
>>337232526
You could say science and reason are objective, but there is subjectivity in the roots of science as well.
You can't objectively disprove solipsism, which is the disbelief in the existence of an outer world and the belief that the world exists in the mind of the solipsist.
Objectivity therefore is a foolish thing to look after. The scientific method tries to separate the elements of our existence into the purest forms possible, but this relies upon the subjective belief that the outer world exist.
I'm not a solipsist, but to say objectivity exists when you can't even prove that objectivity objectively exists, is stupid.
The one objective thing about life is that objectivity doesn't exist. Everything is relative and even if we ignore that those fundamental beliefs are beliefs, quantum physicists say that it's possible, but unlikely for things appearing out of thin air or disappearing.
Anything could happen at any time. It's all about the odds. Those odds are so small that we ignore them all together, but that just proves that belief in solipsism is no different from objectivity, except that objectivity can't prove itself.
I have a subjective belief that an outer world exists. Life is more convenient for me that way.
Objectivity and subjectivity, both are useless. One or the other, you have no eyes.
>>337228149
Super Mario Bros 2
>>337233390
>95% of players are retards, cunts or both
>shittiest gameplay out there, mostly grind
>incredibly heavily luck-based to the point where you may as well stop playing if you get a bad start
>>337233390
>all the jobs are shit
>time literally equals money
>stat distributed randomly
>can't even reroll
>no respawn
>mechanics are all over the place
>character creator takes 9 months and is largely random as well
It's shit m8
This may be the most pretentious thread I've seen on /v/
>>337228149
There are no good games.
>>337233628
Arguments about fundamental metaphysics tend to be perceived that way.
>>337233432
tl;dr post discarded
Have fun being a pseudo intellectual asshat regurtitating shit you learned in sophmore philosophy courses in order to defend a bad video games on a mongolian shitposting board
>>337233628
Have you never been to an "Are da vidyers art????" thread before?
>>337233734
But that's a subjective opinion isn't it?
I feel this way about Final Fantasy. I've never played a FF game that I thought was bad (I've played VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, X-2, XII, XIII, and Tactics), just ones that I like less than others.
>>337233734
Probably because this is a video game board and using arguments over metaphysics to defend their quality is beyond desperate.
>>337233751
that's a big strawman `,:o
>>337233783
No I ignore those because they look like they would attract extreme shitposting.
>>337233857
for you
also go look up what a strawman is before making an ass of yourself next time
>>337233751
I philosophized this on my own and found that other people agree.
>>337228563
>kys
Is this some sore of Danish meme I'm unaware of?
>>337233803
Absolutely.
>>337233948
It's too late he already looks like an ass.
>>337233948
That would be "A sham argument set up to be defeated" which is kinda what you did pretty much exactly.... objectively :')
>>337233390
>no game balance
>a lot griefers
>RNG character creation
BG no re
>>337233847
If someone likes a game, they don't have to defend their opinion if that's what they truly think. I don't like the Witcher 3, which is the most awarded game of all time. I don't care.
>>337231087
There's common psychology. Motivation is plenty of definition for what a fun game is made of, because those are the same reward systems that define depth and further interest.
>>337233751
Now that you're losing you're pulling out the biggest fallacies you can to ignore the truth.
I don't care that you disagree. I want to exercise my argumentation skills and see if someone can beat me.
>>337233039
Except, there's no defined evidence in this conversation for if anything or everything is eternal.
>>337228149
there are no retard post. Only retard people making post
>>337234498
Try again without using nigger tier grammar
>>337233432
Except
>>337232570
>>337233149
>>337234318
They win the thread.
>>337234697
Your criteria for grammar is entirely subjuective.
It's getting spooky in this thread.
>>337234896
>subjuective
Now you're just trying to trigger me
>>337234414
>Now that you're losing
In your opinion.
You already admitted to making arguments in bad faith for the sake of testing your "skills" and now you're accusing ME of ignoring the truth and pulling out fallacies?
Oh I am laffin.
Also I love how relativst fuckwits try to shut down every counterargument by labeling them as subjective while regarding their own poorly formed opinions as "the truth".
And no retard, I'm disregarding your psuedointellectual rambling for the tripe that it is. Nobody, NOBODY will ever take you seriously. You lost from the very beggining of this argument. There is no save for you. Proceed and kys.
>>337235552
Remember that you're playing a game.
>>337234179
That point was already made long ago earlier in the thread >>337230617. It was dismissed becuase muh subjectivity.
Still doesn't change the fact that retards ITT are using subjectivity to defend their shitty opinions.
>>337235762
In a way proding a shitposting retard and wathcing them shit their pants could be considered a game I guess.
>>337234061
The original argument was a sham argument to begin with. Ironically you are making a strawman out of his post.
>>337234860
The common misconception with all three posts is that they claim there's no such thing as subjective taste, because everything falls under an objective good or bad. What I'm saying is that sentient beings and humans are the ones that decide what's bad or good.
I have a friend who only has 6 fingers. He can still play video games, but he's not as dexterous as someone with 10 fingers. Some control schemes are totally incompatible with his condition. Some games are bad for him to play, some games are good for him to play.
You could argue that those games are still "objectively good" or "objectively bad" because of the intentions of the developers, but does that mean that his feelings are totally meaningless because he's incapable of having the same experience as you, or do you unintentionally accept that subjectivity exists and that "author" intentions don't matter by counter arguing that "ohh there's also games that are objectively bad or good for people with 6 fingers"?
>>337235552
The nature of arguing for subjectivity is that the argument is beyond reason.
Lets take a page from Plato's cave metaphor. You're in a cave getting scared of your shadows. I'm outside on a hill and it's pleasant there. I come down to the cave and tell you "come out, it's cool at the hill". You always counter argue "If it's cool at the hill, why are you in the cave?". I'm here because I can't tell you why you shouldn't be here if I'm fucking not here.
Name ONE (1) fucking video game better than Witcher 3.
>>337228149
No, pretty sure weebshit and SJW trash are so devoid of actual gameplay because they're too busy trying to pander to their niche, predictable demographic.
>>337236070
>The common misconception with all three posts is that they claim there's no such thing as subjective taste,
Except none of them actually claimed that.
This is a stupid thread as even if you could prove a game was badly designed and was shit overall, it is still perfectly possible for someone to love it like crazy.
In the end people are stupid and can have opinion over things proved to be against their beliefs.
>>337236232
>it is still perfectly possible for someone to love it like crazy.
And it's perfectly reasonable to disregard that person as an irrational retard.
>>337236325
People only do what makes sense to them
>>337236070
>The nature of arguing for subjectivity is that the argument is beyond reason.
You pretty much confirmed everything I've said. There's no reasoning with you and you're making arguments in bad faith for the sake of being contrarain.
So how are you not losing again? Other than racking up these undeserved (You)s I mean.
>>337233432
Contrary to belief, science is about objectively disproving things. Even if your hypothesis is 100% objectively true, humanity could spend its entire lifetime testing that hypothesis, yet can never 100% absolutely and objectively true. There could always be one outlier which nobody discovered that shows the hypothesis to be false.
You could perform an infinite number of experiments and you will never ever objectively prove something to be true. However, it only takes the results of one experiment to prove something to be false.
>>337236325
True, I'm just saying you can't stop them from having that opinion or stop them from thinking they are right.
Even then there can be a lot of factors that make a game appear as good outside of the game itself.
>>337228149
even revolution 60?
>>337236207
They all try to give an objective definition for a good game, or define the way how a game is good.
You got 2 idiots thinking about what makes a game good and 1 idiot thinking that because some psychologists narrowed down what makes a game "feel good", therefore there is an objective good.
Some people are masochists, pain is what they consider positive, while dopamine and the such are things that other people consider positive.
>>337236169
witcher 1
>>337236426
If liking bad games makes sense to you then you are objectively retarded.
>>337236621
Dare I say... objectively wrong?
>>337236454
Jesus Christ you're retarded.
>>337236780
that seems to be your subjective opinion :'v)
>>337236614
And nowhere in any of those posts did they claim that subjective taste does not exist. I know this might be a simple concept that you're struggling with to understand, but objective standards for good games and subjective taste are not mutually exclusive.
>Some people are masochists, pain is what they consider positive,
Good for you, go be an idiot somewhere else.
>>337233390
Too bad I can't stop and go do something else instead.
>>337236780
I'm not the one who admits to making arguments beyond reason.
No, you are actually fucking retarded.
>>337233991
Kill YourSelf. It's not that difficult, faggot.
The truth? I guess its a subjective term.
>>337237078
t. alberto barbosa
>>337236070
>>337236614
Isn't refuting the claims.
>>337236489
Their opinion has no merit or worth, so nobody cares. Retards are free to have bad opinions and the rest of us are free to disregard them.
>>337237057
Because the thing that we base reason on is not objective.
There is no way to prove that an outer world outside of an individuals head exists or that the results of scientific tests can be trusted. We ignore that for the sake of convenience. Reason is ironically built on top of that ignorance, anything that exists on the subjective system of reason can be reasoned, but my argument that reason is subjective is beyond, or to be more accurate, beneath reason.
>>337237303
>Because the thing that we base reason on is not objective.
Not proven, especially not in the context of criticizing games.
>There is no way to prove that an outer world outside of an individuals head exists or that the results of scientific tests can be trusted.
' '.
>>337237303
>arguing against reason
This is why nobody will ever take you seriously >>337233751
>>337237183
>Opinions have no merit in few numbers.
This is quite frightening really because the inverse can become true.
Like what if everyone in the world except you shared an opinion on something that you proved to be wrong? With that many numbers they'd never believe you no matter what you said.
>>337237303
>Reason is ironically built on top of that ignorance
>but my argument.... is beneath reason.
This sounds like what someone unreasonable would say.
>>337237578
Imagine 65 people in the entire world see the sky is blue but the other 7 billion see it as lime green
>>337237578
>>Opinions have no merit in few numbers.
Not what I said. Nice strawman though.
>>337237627
>>337237452
>>337237434
How fucking stupid are you people? Are you afraid to realize that there's no objective reason for your existence?
>>337237720
But without objectivity I feel empty and that scares me on several existential levels
>>337237720
an attempt was made
2/10
>>337237814
>>337237906
But that's how I really feel
>>337237647
Yeah, and 7 billion people would barely be swayed by what 65 people are saying.
I specifically meant just an opinion, not one with evidence or reasoning or anything.
>>337237701
But they don't though? An opinon literally is nothing if no one agrees with you, if you have evidence that is different, but a baseless opinion could be easily seen as fact if enough people shared it
>>337234860
Still not disproven.
>>337237973
Sure buddy.
Have another (You)
>>337238041
What's wrong with you
>>337238073
What's wrong with (You)
>>337237991
>but a baseless opinion could be easily seen as fact if enough people shared it
That still doesn't make it a fact.
Also I never said anything about the popularity of an opinion. You've twisted the argument to the point where it no longer even resembles what I originally posted.
>>337238001
I don't have to, I am above reason. The truth is subjective unless it suits my argument.
>>337238260
I'm not arguing with you. I was just putting something out there.
And no it doesn't make it a fact, but it can't stop them from telling you it is one.
>Retards are free to have bad opinions and the rest of us are free to disregard them.
I'm just saying imagine a circumstance where you're deemed the retard because everyone else sees your opinion, even if factually true, as wrong, and therefore your the retard that is disregarded.
Its scary to imagine a scenario where you can be right be deemed the retard because your the minority.
>>337238631
not how contemporary research functions
tomb raider ange of darkness is objectively bad. The controls are a fucking disgrace and i like tomb raider
