How to Talk About Games #3

[Falseprophet]

Remember when gaming was about enjoying a passtime rather than whining about everything that isn't to one's precise liking? Yeah.

No, because gamers have always been like that. But before the web, you almost never heard the opinions of gamers in the next city/state/province/country over, let alone the other hemisphere.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Remember when Critical Miss was about funny comics, not sounding condescending and elitist all the time? Yeah.

Well that is your opinion and opinions can never be wrong.. so yeah..

 

[Amir Kondori]

I don't get the last bit. So you're saying that a subjective opinion can be wrong? That sounds like one of those 'people' who says "I can objectively prove that this game/band/movie is bad". No you can't.

When you are debating the moment you fall back on "well its my opinion and opinions aren't wrong" is the moment you've admitted you don't have any evidence to back up your opinion.

An opinion is great. If you think The Room was a wonderful movie no one can take that away from you.

But if you are going to claim that The Room was a wonderful movie and try to prove it to someone you better have something better to say than "its my opinion"

 

[DrOswald]

I don't get the last bit. So you're saying that a subjective opinion can be wrong? That sounds like one of those 'people' who says "I can objectively prove that this game/band/movie is bad". No you can't.

Saying "it's just my opinion" is not a Get Out of Challenge Free Card for that opinion.

When talking about whether a piece of art or media is good or bad how can you challenge that opinion.

And don't tell me that 'oh it has shitty controls' or something like that because then we're back to square one with 'bad is subjective'.

The problem here is that we often misunderstand what we are saying. We have often been told that opinions cannot be wrong. This is true (though they can be stupid, but that is a discussion for another day.) However, we often claim this shield when we are not stating an opinion because we often misunderstand what an opinion is.

"The controls are bad." is not an opinion. It is a conclusion and therefore claims at least some measure of objectivity. This demands evidence to back it up and it can be incorrect. And there are plenty of ways to measure "bad" in tons of different cases. Using the case of "The controls are bad" you can talk about inefficient button mapping, difficulty of use, failure to conform to accepted practices, and much more. You may claim that they are bad from a certain perspective, or give specific examples of control failure that could have been averted.

"I did not like the controls." Is an opinion. It claims no objectivity and therefore requires no defense but also cannot be defended. Stating an opinion is essentially telling everyone interested in debate to ignore you because you are not prepared to defend your position. This does not mean that you are not contributing to a discussion. Often the search for evidence starts by attempting to backup an opinion. On the other hand, simply comparing opinions can help people broaden their perspective of a work.

In conclusion, words have meanings. If you intend to express an opinion then make good and sure you are using words that indicate opinion rather than objective statement.

 

[MowDownJoe]

Nice to see the satirizing stick broken out again.

 

[DataSnake]

Why is the game fun? Because it features cats snorting cocaine, that's why!

And honestly, what more do you need? Except maybe ninjas, am I right?

There are 57 of them in that panel.

 

[Erttheking]

So when I say that I like Metro Last Light I need to explain why I find the atmosphere deep and complex instead of just saying "lol my opinion"?......*Pulls pants down* Nope.

Not exactly. What is said here is that unless you give evidence your opinion is completely baseless. Never try to prove to someone that a game is good because you like it.

Look at it this way. Lets say there is a thread that said Metro Last Light was a terrible game. You like Metro so you decide to defend the game. Your post starts like this:

"You are incorrect, Metro Last Light is a good game."

At this point you are claiming objectivity. You are claiming that your conclusion is more correct than the other conclusion. And any time you claim objectivity you should be prepared to back up your statement with evidence. In this specific case you are pretty much required to provide evidence or be a jerk that no one likes.

There are, however, 2 perfectly fine things to say where in you do not have to present evidence to satisfy the demands of not being a moron. (Note that the verbiage does not need to be exact. Just make sure there is no room for misinterpretation.)

1. "I think Metro Last Light is objectively a good game but I am unable to give evidence to this point."

In this case you are claiming objectivity but fully admitting that you have no evidence. This is polite because it is pretty much tantamount to telling everyone to ignore you. But it does get your voice heard. It may seem like this hurts the discussion but it can actually contribute to it greatly. A person who thinks the same but has their reasons more clearly thought out may decide to respond to your post. On the other hand, someone on the opposite side may decide to see what you think about their reasons for not liking the game.


2. "I Like Metro Last Light but I claim no objectivity on the matter."

Again, this only acceptable because it is basically asking everyone to ignore you for purposes of the discussion. So long as you are not claiming your opinion is better than anyone else's (and you are not annoying) you are perfectly fine expressing an opinion.

You do know that I was making a joke right? I was deliberately acting like the guy in the last panel for the sake of comedic effect.

 

[Foolery]

Remember when Critical Miss was about funny comics, not sounding condescending and elitist all the time? Yeah.

Whoah, whoah, hold up. It was never funny. Until crack cats and the last panel, that is. Anyway, I enjoyed the comic today. Just for that. The rest I ignored. Like I usually do.

 

[Smertnik]

Your comics start to remind me of Winston Rowntree.

 

[DrOswald]

So when I say that I like Metro Last Light I need to explain why I find the atmosphere deep and complex instead of just saying "lol my opinion"?......*Pulls pants down* Nope.

Not exactly. What is said here is that unless you give evidence your opinion is completely baseless. Never try to prove to someone that a game is good because you like it.

Look at it this way. Lets say there is a thread that said Metro Last Light was a terrible game. You like Metro so you decide to defend the game. Your post starts like this:

"You are incorrect, Metro Last Light is a good game."

At this point you are claiming objectivity. You are claiming that your conclusion is more correct than the other conclusion. And any time you claim objectivity you should be prepared to back up your statement with evidence. In this specific case you are pretty much required to provide evidence or be a jerk that no one likes.

There are, however, 2 perfectly fine things to say where in you do not have to present evidence to satisfy the demands of not being a moron. (Note that the verbiage does not need to be exact. Just make sure there is no room for misinterpretation.)

1. "I think Metro Last Light is objectively a good game but I am unable to give evidence to this point."

In this case you are claiming objectivity but fully admitting that you have no evidence. This is polite because it is pretty much tantamount to telling everyone to ignore you. But it does get your voice heard. It may seem like this hurts the discussion but it can actually contribute to it greatly. A person who thinks the same but has their reasons more clearly thought out may decide to respond to your post. On the other hand, someone on the opposite side may decide to see what you think about their reasons for not liking the game.


2. "I Like Metro Last Light but I claim no objectivity on the matter."

Again, this only acceptable because it is basically asking everyone to ignore you for purposes of the discussion. So long as you are not claiming your opinion is better than anyone else's (and you are not annoying) you are perfectly fine expressing an opinion.

You do know that I was making a joke right? I was deliberately acting like the guy in the last panel for the sake of comedic effect.

Nope. I did not catch that. The problem with satire or sarcasm through text is that unless you specifically label it as such it is almost impossible to distinguish from sincerity because there is almost always someone crazy enough to say the thing sincerely. This is known as Poe's Law which states satire is difficult or impossible to distinguish from extremism. And what you said wasn't exactly an extreme thing to say. Plenty of people on the internet think that way. And the obvious (and successful) attempt at a joke is not sufficient evidence of satire. Lots of people like to express sincere opinions in a comedic manner.

In any case, even though you were being sarcastic or satirical I am sure there are plenty of people in internet land who would benefit from having all of this explained. Maybe one of them will read it.

(If you would like some evidence that Poe's Law is a real thing feel free to ask. I left it out for the sake of brevity.)

 

[Reynaert]

Best of this series so far (I don't know how many more will appear). The Holocoaster drawing is magnificent. I think a lot of work (and love) went into this, and it shows.

 

[burningdragoon]

I don't get the last bit. So you're saying that a subjective opinion can be wrong? That sounds like one of those 'people' who says "I can objectively prove that this game/band/movie is bad". No you can't.

Saying "it's just my opinion" is not a Get Out of Challenge Free Card for that opinion.

When talking about whether a piece of art or media is good or bad how can you challenge that opinion.

...by having a discussion about how and why you've come to the conclusion that [THING] is [YOUR OPINION OF THING]. Kinda what the current miniseries has been getting at.

Oh well, I enjoyed playing it so I think it's a good game. Now try to argue against that. Maybe I can't explain why I enjoyed it but you can't argue that I didn't enjoy it. Or do you want to argue that a game you enjoy is a bad game? I can't think of a better metric for a good game or bad than that.

Edit: Unless it's a game that's not trying to induce enjoyment, like say a sad game.

"I like it" and "I think it's good" are not the same thing. Now if it's your opinion that they are the same then it would be my opinion that you are not expressing yourself very well whenever you use them interchangeably.

And if you can't explain why you like something, that's okay, but own up to it being something you can't articulate.

 

[BX3]

Remember when Critical Miss was about funny comics, not sounding condescending and elitist all the time? Yeah.

No. Most of the time it's both.

I don't get the last bit. So you're saying that a subjective opinion can be wrong? That sounds like one of those 'people' who says "I can objectively prove that this game/band/movie is bad". No you can't.

As technically true as this is, you can still argue how a game is pretty poorly or sloppily made using relativity or a basic knowledge of functional game mechanics.

For example: Unlike a looooot of people here, I liked Sonic Unleashed. I got a good amount of enjoyment out of it (until near the end, anyway). I felt like the aesthetics were pretty, the music was boss and the boost mechanic a great addition to the series. HOWEVER, the game had a cornucopia of flaws that make everyone else hate the game completely understandable.

The fighting mechanics were lacked the fluidity of the beat-em-ups it was copying, with these wierd animation pauses being forced on you everytime you punched something. The day stages were a test in trial and error and Sonic's feet have way too little traction for the player to realistically control him at top speeds. The Warehog stages were greatly dampened due to being artificially lengthened by its unnecessarily long fight sequences. Also, the difficulty is all over the place; The main stages follow a simple tier system (the earlier you unlocked the stage, the harder it is), but the side missions, which you're required to play to progress, range from dirt-easy to nail-bitingly difficult with no clear pattern.

I thought unleashed was good, cuz I had fun with it, but its development was pretty sloppy and the game's littered with flaws. But because not everyone has the time or interest to go into these lengthy elaborations, and not everyone looks at the words with such a literal eye, we use "good" and "bad" to give a basic idea of the game's functionality. Its less of an issue of proving subjectivity wrong and more of a problem of language.

 

[DrOswald]

The problem here is that we often misunderstand what we are saying. We have often been told that opinions cannot be
"I did not like the controls." Is an opinion. It claims no objectivity and therefore requires no defense but also cannot be defended. Stating an opinion is essentially telling everyone interested in debate to ignore you because you are not prepared to defend your position.

You mean I'm not prepared to get into a discussion about whether a game is good that will devolve into nothing but contradicting each other? Oh no. One person thinks it's good one person thinks it's bad, hard to talk nuance when they disagree strongly.

You ever try to convince someone a joke they heard was funny? Yeah it's pointless isn't it, unless they don't get the joke but if they do, waste of time. People can look at the same thing with the same mindset and reach different conclusions.

I am not sure what your point is. I hate to be that guy, but your grammar (and possibly word choice?) is so poor that I really don't understand what you are saying. Sorry. I will take a guess, let me know if it is wrong: "It is pointless to debate opinions because they are subjective. Without evidence there will quickly be an impasse."

This is correct. But it is still possible to discuss and compare opinions. A discussion is not a debate. There is no need for one side to convince the other of anything. There is no need for one position to be right and the other to be wrong in a discussion.

This does not mean that you are not contributing to a discussion. Often the search for evidence starts by attempting to backup an opinion.

I met a woman who doesn't like gore for the sake of gore in movies. I can enjoy gore for the sake of gore so long as there's more going on in the movie than just that. Basically Tarantino movies would be worse in my opinion if they cut out the needless scenes of brutality (or cut away at the last second). She doesn't like seeing those. Impasse again.

And here we are, a perfect example of what I was talking about in the sentence directly after the one you quoted. What I said was this: "Simply comparing opinions can help people broaden their perspective of a work." Comparing opinions can help people to understand an opinion that they do not hold. This can give them a new perspective on a work. They may not like the work but it may help them to understand the value that the work has despite their own opinion.

Debating opinions is pointless. Discussing opinions is not.

 

[Flying Pilgrim]

I dont know, I like the idea of being a DOUCHE-TITAN!

Without further delay; Strategy gamers are vastly superior to all other gamers.

For the Douchecanicus, Praise be to the Omnidouchessiah

I actually spent a minute just trying to figure out how the hell you'd even pronounce those words... anyhow, back onto the topic: this was a rather amusing strip. This may seem to be following the popular opinion, but I think I enjoy the notion of being a DOUCHE-TITAN. I would emanate a vast amount douche-e-ness, all from the comfort of my gigantic, armored form. Oh, I can already imagine the confidence I would hold; stomping on any who dare to defy or oppose my opinions -- the law of the land.

 

[Yopaz]

So you're saying that a subjective opinion can be wrong?

Of course it can be wrong.

Hitler's opinion of the Jews was wrong, for instance. (Yes I did just drop a Godwin's Law bomb on this thread.)

That's totally relevant when talking games.

Although not everything Hitler said about Jews was a matter of opinion.

All right, how about this:

If one were to say "Road to Hell: Retribution" is the best game ever made, because it's the only video game they've ever played, I would say they were wrong.

It could be argued that it was shorthand for "Their lack of experience makes their shallow and unconsidered opinion a worthless reed in the windstorm among the forest of mighty oaks that is the wise and nuanced opinions known as the collected perceptions of their fellow gamers", but saying that repeatedly grows tiresome without a macro.

Or to phrase it another way, not all opinions are of equal value.

If in considering which game to buy, someone accepted the opinion of the hypothetical "played only 'Road to Hell:Retribution' person" as having equal weight with that of the collected opinions of every game critic and virtually every person on game-related message boards, I would think less of their intelligence.

If their reply to my thinking less of their intelligence was to say that was only my opinion, I would feel safe in disregarding anything further they might have to say.

Well, if you were to call any game the best game ever made it doesn't really matter if the game is good or not. It's not an argument in any case. It will always be an opinion. Now here's for my opinion. Tales of Xillia is the game I have been anticipating the most this year. Now this is clearly my opinion, but I am aware of that. It's not a fact, I won't treat it as an objective fact. Is it wrong simply because the majority of the world does not share my opinion?

Saying that a game is good in my opinion isn't a valid criteria for judging the game, but it isn't really wrong to like a game that the majority think is terrible. It's just wrong to present your opinion as a fact which is what your example did. I don't think you'll find many reasonable people who will disagree with you if you say that opinions aren't facts, but if you claim opinions aren't valid in terms of liking something you'll have to explain why we don't all like the same things.

 

[burningdragoon]

I can explain why I like it/think it's good but that's not going to convince someone who's played the game and doesn't like it.

You realize the little series Grey and Cory are doing is called "How to Talk About Games" and not "How to Convince People Your Opinion is Correct" right?

 

[Mahoshonen]

These comics are awesome. I know this is supposed to be the wrap-up, but I highly encourage you to continue the series.

 

[xaszatm]

snip

You're overthinking it. Saying "I like it because I like it" is fine. That quote is more meant towards those people who will attack others because they feel the opposite about a movie/tv show/video game. You know, people who go "How dare you like that game!?! You are a horrible person because of it." And when asked why they simply reply "Because I love it."

Like, say you have two people talking to two each other about a game they just played. A likes it. B hates it. A tries to convince B that he has the game. When asked why B has to like the game A says "Because I liked it."

Pretty much "Because I liked it" is not a good reason to convince people to like the game.

OT: I really loved this series. Thanks a lot!

 

[Reeve]

Whatever you say Grey, I'm still going to go and enjoy my video games anyway...

Whether or not something is good or fun is subjective though.

I'm sure there are psychopaths that could explain why murder or stamp collecting are fun, for example. And why the Phantom Menace is a good film. See: Movie Defence Force.