"The smart people", eh? Interesting. I don't like the idea of having a certain class of "smart people" (define "smart", anyway) who decide what us stupid people are allowed to remember several hundred years later. I always thought things were remembered after their time because of how popular they were at the time, the impression they made on the general people - not because some critics decided it was worthy of the honour.Archangel357 said:You're wrong. I can't put it in any other terms.Satsuki666 said:The thing is when you are talking about movies, books, games, or anything like that there is no objectively good or bad. It is all subjective. You might not like that but it is a fact. You are trying to push your own opinion as fact because you do not like item being discussed.
In my opinion Twilight books are better than Charles Stross, Haruki Murakami or Douglas Coupland. You cant argue against that because it is an opinion on an entirely objective subjective.
I also laughed that you actually said objectively good. Good and bad are subjective terms, you cant say objectively good because it contridicts itself.
Look, there is a reason why of the thousands of people who wrote books or made music in the, say, 17th century, we remember only a couple of dozen. It is called a "canon"; that's when smart people get together, ignore the hoi polloi, and decide what's good. And those are the things people remember after hundreds of years.
You see, Bach is objectively good. You can hear that in the way that he uses harmonies and counterpoint. Titian is objectively good. You can see that in the way that he uses colour and anatomical detail in his paintings. Petrarch is objectively good. You can see that in the way that he uses metre, rhyme, cadence and rhetorical styles.
The only people who actually state that there is no such thing as objectively good tend to be a bit thick - they're usually the ones who prefer Lady Gaga to Beethoven. Us folk tend to laugh at their expense.
Sorry dude, Nintendo already owns it. I hear that plan to buy Saturn off the profits of their next Mario adventure.twm1709 said:Wow, I wonder if there is any limit to the ammount of money Call of duty can make. Every year, it shatters previous records like they're nothing. By this rate, Modern Warfare 7 will make enough money to buy Mars.
"If I don't like a game, it shouldn't sell well at all! That will teach the developers for putting all that money in marketing! How dare they make such popular video games!!! Video games are not about the money, and if you make money, you're selling out man!"Sneaky-Pie said:"I don't like the game, therefore it must be bad."
Seriously everyone? Get off your elitist high-horse.
At least be happy that the medium of video games is having such a significant impact world-wide.
Excuse me? I thought it was a blast. Probably one of the best campaign sessions I've sat down and played. So if you're saying it's crap in general, then I have to disagree. A lot more thought has gone in to the campaign than people give it credit for, but that's besides the point.The Cool Kid said:Or, radical idea, it's a bad game which you can justify by comparing it to other games of the same genre!Rarhnor said:They won't. CoD is streamlining videogames and making them more popular with people. Many of them are people that nerds, geeks, whatever stigma they lie under, (want to) distance themselves from. Their hate for the game is their justification to further distance themselves from these people. At least from what I see. (See also Casual gamers vs. Hardcore gamers)Sneaky-Pie said:"I don't like the game, therefore it must be bad."
Seriously everyone? Get off your elitist high-horse.
At least be happy that the medium of video games is having such a significant impact world-wide.
OT: Not exactly surprised. Anyone slightly integrated in the gaming community knows that CoD sells like you'd think they were giving it away for free.
But it's good. It means more money to Activision, and more games to come.
I know, crazy thought, but what if...?
CoD is mass marketed crap. I dislike it because it is crap, not because it is mass marketed. Don't think they are inherently related.
It's what the fan boys want?The Cool Kid said:The single player was short, incoherent and poorly designed making it near impossible on harder settings due to sniper aiming through scenery AI and lack of cover.
The multiplayer was imbalanced and had terrible map design leading to cat & mouse relative to spawn points rather then anything to do with skill.
And the graphics are shit.
How exactly is it a great?
Yeah when I saw the sales figures, I lost all faith in mankind for ever and for the rest of time, until the universe implodes back in on itself. Let it be known that SaberXIII has lost all faith and that he has predicted the downfall of man due to the success of the CoD series. Never again can I regain my faith in mankind.SaberXIII said:Well, this is one of the reasons that I have lost faith in humanity. Like somebody's undoubtedly said 'haters gonna hate', and there's a good reason for that.