- Mar 22, 2010
Actually no, they aren't implying anything of the sort. What they are implying is that their judgement (which used to be synonymous with opinion) is that these games are bad. This means that they will be required to qualify this judgement before others, not just have everyone accept it as fact.b3nn3tt said:If that's where the discussion lies then the thread should be 'Well-received games you didn't like' or something to that effect. By claiming a game is bad, the poster is implying that their opinion is more valid than someone else's, which is simply not the case.
What kind of world do we live in where people can't make definitive statements and speak with purpose and clarity for fear of driving others out of their own opinions?
I think it shows far less respect for others to assume that they can't defend their own points of view from being usurped by an essentially anonymous online post, than to assume superiority in judgement and providing reasons why.
This is easy to qualify. While it is true that we cannot dictate to people what they like or dislike we can (in a way roughly analogous to diet and health) recommend what is good or better. I can't tell you that you don't like doughnuts, but I can tell you (even if I'm not a doctor) that too many doughnuts are bad for you, why not try, say, an apple?I also rather take issue with this sentence:
What are 'better, more enjoyable games'? Because, as you already stated, we can't tell people whether they liked a game or not. That sentence really sounds like you think people have the right to tell others why they're wrong to like the games they like and to tell them they should like 'better' games. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's how it sounds.Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?
It is also easy to distinguish what is better or worse from a position that has knowledge of both states. If someone has experienced two games, and another two people have only experienced one of those games each, who has a superior judgement on the relative quality of said games?
It is obvious and uncontroversial that someone with knowledge of both has a better judgement than somebody who has knowledge of only one. This is why we have game reviewers, people expected to be better qualified to judge games based on merits, not solely on likes/dislikes.
Finally, I'll point out that your position of letting everyone have their say conflicts to a critical extent with you calling anyone else out on their observations. By saying that we each have opinions which can be aired unqualified and held as equally valid you cannot, without contradicting yourself, correct or criticize anyone else's opinion on anything. Your position of relativism is self-referentially incoherent, meaning that a derived point of your argument is that someone who disagrees with you is as right as you are, and therefore you hold that you are wrong. Needless to say, this is a compromising position, and as I said before, it is rather insulting to assume that someone can be bested out of their own opinion simply because someone states something without prefacing it with 'This is just my opinion'.
How do people expect video games (or anything else for that matter) to improve if we don't establish some points of contention where one thing can be judged superior to another? The method of counting numbers or money leaves us with dull and drab 'by-the-numbers' gaming, something I think all of us can do without. We can disagree, sure, but lets make it interesting shall we?