One sided and generic arguments that piss you off.

[WoW Killer]

COMPLEXITY.

A lot of gamers seem to be obsessed by it, like whatever is the more complex game is inherently the better game. That's wrong. Games should be deep, but they shouldn't be complex. A lot of complex games get likened to Chess. That's a good example, and an example that actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what people are intending.

Chess is a masterpiece of a game because it's base rules are so simple. There are the odd advanced rules like Castling and En passant, but the basic way the pieces move is easily explainable to a child. And yet Chess is a highly competitive event across the world. That's the ideal of game design. Games should be based on simple rules but create complex strategies. Games should be easy to learn but hard to master.

I'm not suggesting any revolution here; this idea has been around for frickin' ages. And this isn't just a gaming thing. This is art we're talking about.

Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art ~ Frederick Chopin

Depth makes a great game. Inaccessibility does not.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

More related to gaming, "All games that feature a white protagonist killing non-white people is racist." The game is usually being lazy, sure. And there are cases where it is true. But not every game that has a white protagonist is racist.

This one bugs me largely based upon the perception that killing a "minority" is inherently more awful than any other murder. Most games that involve killing someone of a non white race does so based on the following factors:

1) The game is based in a nation that is predominately home to non-white racess
2) The game recognizes that if one wants to hire a cheap army of gunmen, option for individuals from poor nations is more fiscally viable for a villain on a budget.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

"The gaming industry has gone to the pits/is deteriorating/isn't what it used to be/etc"

Well, of course. It's called change. Music isn't what it used to be, fashion and architectural design aren't what they used to be. Nothing can be frozen in one specific state. You can't point at anything in particular, in all of human history, and go "This is Sociocultural Object X. Sociocultural Object X will never change. Ever."

Like it or not, some of us will spearhead change or participate in it, others will be forced to follow along and others will be left behind. The industry *is* changing, but don't go and delude yourself into thinking you'll never find a worthwhile game to enjoy ever again. Certain trends currently dominate the scene, and they won't be the exact same way in five, six, eight or ten years.

Things change, and not everyone can be pleased. It's why nostalgia exists, and it's also why nostalgia isn't always the best counsellor. Some game mechanics are perfected, needless complexity is weeded out. It's not eliminated, as you can always go back and design games with "throwback" mechanics to appease more demanding consumers.

I'll pick a currently popular example. Say you hate the new Devil May Cry. New Dante's all gritty and edgy and shit and that pisses you off because you miss the more whimsical tone of the original. I don't but, hey - Devil's advocate. Rest assured, there will always be someone, somewhere in the industry, who will see you for what you are. That is, a potential customer.

Let's say "Classic" Dante is thoroughly evacuated and Capcom tells us to like the new one or go to Hell. All is not lost. There's always going to be other dev teams, even nostalgic dev teams, who are going to want to capture the lost feeling of what will have become a "vintage" Dante.

So the industry's in the pits?

I'd say it takes time, but the adage about basic chemistry goes for practically anything in this world.

Nothing is lost, nothing is created. Everything is possible.

 

[Jadak]

Anyone who tries to use this as the basis of their argument is missing the point.

Actually I think you're kind of missing the point..

The idea isn't that "Hey, if we make guns illegal to own/use/whatever, then criminals will stop using them too!"

But rather it's, "Hey, the vast majority of people who use guns aren't actually criminals, so if we restrict legal ownership/use/whatever of guns", then the overall demand for guns will go down, thus gun availability will be less widespread and therefore easier to track and control.

That's not to say it actually works out, or that all laws actually have that point in mind, but yeah... That's more of the general idea then simply hoping criminals will abide by laws...

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Anyone who tries to use this as the basis of their argument is missing the point.

Actually I think you're kind of missing the point..

The idea isn't that "Hey, if we make guns illegal to own/use/whatever, then criminals will stop using them too!"

But rather it's, "Hey, the vast majority of people who use guns aren't actually criminals, so if we restrict legal ownership/use/whatever of guns", then the overall demand for guns will go down, thus gun availability will be less widespread and therefore easier to track and control.

That's not to say it actually works out, or that all laws actually have that point in mind, but yeah... That's more of the general idea then simply hoping criminals will abide by laws...

I don't know what you think my point is but you must have the wrong idea. Neither of those points you just made are counterpoints to the problem I have with that picture and message.

 

[Jadak]

-Piracy is OK when the game company doesn't give me a demo to play. I've got to test the game out to see if it is worth buying!

And what's the problem there? I'm supposed to buy a game based on what, reviews and cool trailers? No fucking thanks, I'd rather try it out then buy every single one of the dozens of games released annually I might enjoy, most of which turn out to be a waste.

You've only got a point when referring to people who would make that argument, pirate a game, play it and love it, intend on playing the hell out of it for the foreseeable future, and still not buy it.

 

[Jadak]

I don't know what you think my point is but you must have the wrong idea. Neither of those points you just made are counterpoints to the problem I have with that picture and message.

Then what is your point? My impression was that you were saying that laws regarding legal gun ownership have no impact on illegal gun ownership. I was stating otherwise. If you were saying something else, please clarify.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hmm. When you put it that way, it makes sense. I'd imagine most people who believe all Americans are stupid have only heard about Americans that made their way to the news by doing something stupid. Or by how our leaders behave, but that's a whole other can of worms.

It's actually something that I was just reading in my Psychology textbook for school. It was something along the lines of people perceiving things differently from one another because of their mental framework that was molded by their experiences and how they were raised. So I guess it isn't too hard to imagine that the people who say those kinds of things have either little to no experience with the regular people who just go about their lives in the country they are referring too.

Still bugs me when someone does that though. :/

Well, to be fair, we do have a terrible primary education system, and most of our best colleges are off-limits to most people anyway (not just based on ability, but ability to pay, etc).

However, it probably comes down to a certain amount of confirmation bias. One might see all these lolamerica headlines (which we ourselves publish a metric crapload of), and go "Oh, America, you so stupid."

Doesn't much make it pleasant, but it is understandable.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I don't know what you think my point is but you must have the wrong idea. Neither of those points you just made are counterpoints to the problem I have with that picture and message.

Then what is your point? My impression was that you were saying that laws regarding legal gun ownership have no impact on illegal gun ownership. I was stating otherwise. If you were saying something else, please clarify.

At no point did I state that. In fact it's the very opposite of that. Basically that picture states that gun control laws won't stop school shootings because criminals don't follow laws. I disagree with that. If guns were made harder to obtain then it would be harder for perpetrators of these shootings to find guns to use.

Those that try to use this picture to illustrate their point like to suggest that if guns were made illegal or what have you then a black market would spring up to provide these guns. Hardened criminals will of course have no trouble acquiring guns from these sources. But, the perpetrators of these shootings are not hardened, career criminals. They are simply very disturbed individuals who will likely not have the contacts or know how necessary to purchase illegal guns.

 

[Something Amyss]

Then what is your point? My impression was that you were saying that laws regarding legal gun ownership have no impact on illegal gun ownership. I was stating otherwise. If you were saying something else, please clarify.

Actually, he was saying people who post that image (and others) are missing the point. In short, your idea seems to dovetail with what he's saying.

But rather it's, "Hey, the vast majority of people who use guns aren't actually criminals, so if we restrict legal ownership/use/whatever of guns", then the overall demand for guns will go down, thus gun availability will be less widespread and therefore easier to track and control.

Of course, this isn't the only thought process behind it, but it's a counterpoint to the notion that people profess when they post that sort of thing (which he criticised).

Personally, I prefer to simply say "then why bother outlawing murder?" but that's just me.

 

[ComradeJim270]

3.) "DLC is inherently evil"

Provided that the DLC is not released immediately after launched, DLC is really no different to a miniature expansion pack. If a company (such as Bethesda) releases DLC well after the launch date, you weren't being 'robbed of the full experience when you bought the game' because at that point the DLC didn't exist.

I'm not even necessarily opposed to launch-day DLC, since it's sometimes stuff that just didn't make it into the game by the time they had to actually start printing discs and ten years ago such things would have never seen the light of day. As a cash grab strategy it's obnoxious, but that's not always what it is.

"The gaming industry has gone to the pits/is deteriorating/isn't what it used to be/etc"

I also hate this one but for a very different reason. I believe it's patently false. Games are not immune to Sturgeon's Law. There have always been a ton of shitty games, but we don't remember the shitty ones, just the good ones. That is how nostalgia works. The industry is not deteriorating, you just don't remember how much garbage there was X number of years ago because really, why would you want to?

 

[Mocmocman]

People that state "you're just jealous." as an argument against animosity about an artist (so many a's) that they don't like. Criticism doesn't always stem from jealousy.

 

[AperioContra]

Almost every forum argument since the old days of Usenet BBS?

Ok, seriously there are some very reasoned people in forums (others not so much) and there are some reoccurring arguments that I hear that makes me wish for a "Smack the Poster" Button. And since I'm an unbelievable narcissist I think that you guys would like to hear them.


Argument 1: "If you like x or think y than you are an idiot/know nothing about z/don't deserve to live."

My problem with this argument is that you've left no room for another person to exist. You've left no room for an actual discussion, just stated your opinion and insulated from anyone coming around with a dissenting opinion. This is bad form, and anti-intellectualism at it's worst. All opinions deserve discussion, but when you wall your opinion away you don't allow it to be challenged, or allow another, with probably a good point to take sway you or allow you to look at it from another side.
I saw this the most during the Great Mass Effect debate, where a person would say: "If anyone liked Mass Effect 3's ending, then their an idiot." It could very well be that a person is very intelligent and still connected with the ending of the trilogy. Or that that the Mass Effect ending really did suck, and that a very intelligent person just didn't see it that way. This doesn't make their opinion wrong, just that their opinion is at odds with yours, and by stating your opinion in such a matter-of-fact, way, you've left them with no room to stand in an argument.

Argument 2: "(Quote an argument) NO IT ISN'T, STOP SAYING THAT!!!!1!!!1!"

Same problem as above, really, except this is more of a Non-argument than anything. My friend has a six year old child that uses the same argument tactic, and I can't help but picture him when I see this argument. My problem with this argument is really that, what do I say if I disagree with it? Are we seriously going to go down the path of: "No it isn't" "Yes It Is" "No It Isn't"? Because honestly I can find much better things to do with my time.

Argument 3: "[Poster] Is just butthurt, because x, y, and z."

Ok, right here, that's when you shut me off. People who know me know that I'm not a big fan of the term "Dumbing Down," the reason of course is that every time I see it used, I can think of about twenty different arguments that would have made the point better. But I will take that argument a thousand time before I will actually give credit to the word "Butthurt." Mainly because with dumbing down, it at least implies a form of reasoning. You're meaning that they took away depth for the purpose of making it more accessible to Joe Sixpack. But with "Butthurt" the only reasoning I can see is to forgo the argument and instead attack the poster. There is a term for this form of argument in academia, we call it the "Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy." In this, I get the feeling that you have no REAL argument, so you have decided to attack the arguer with a conjecture that you have no real way of determining. Besides, it could very well be that the person is "butthurt" because of X,Y, and Z. That doesn't necessarily follow that he doesn't have a point, or that his argument doesn't have merit. The only effect is that the poster has to sit on a donut while typing his post.

Argument 4: "It's bad because it doesn't have X, Y, and Z (and you have to have X, Y, and Z to be good).

This is a complicated point, but something I think I can brief down. Mainly this comes up (In gaming forums, at least) where people will say "If it doesn't have good gameplay, than is sucks!" (sorry, I tried to write this in standard form, but my hands will strangle me, before allowing me to type suxors with 0's and 5's) My problem here is it assumes that all pieces of work are equal, and I don't think that's the case. For instance, I love me so Mass Effect (One and Two being some of my favorite games), but I will admit any day that the gameplay kind of sucks. The cover based shooting isn't very fluid, the use of powers is either too restrained, or too easy. And the binary moral choice system being tied to dialogue choices is probably the worst stumbles in the whole of moral choice systems. But that's not the reason I'm playing Mass Effect. I'm playing Mass Effect for it's engaging characters, moral dilemmas, deep world and well written dialogue. I'm not saying you couldn't like the gameplay, or that you HAVE to like Mass Effect, even with those perks. Just that maybe we can try to meet things on their own terms before boiling them down to nebulous ideas of what makes something good?

Argument 5: Taking the thing pointed out as a joke, and boiling it down to the crux of the argument.

Yeah... I kind of looking at the OP on this one (Sorry guy, don't mean to call you out). This seems to blatantly ignore that, especially in comedy, writers tend to bring out the point that is most succinct and most effective. Hell, in my online series (Mr. Pedantic Presents: Straight To Home, Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge), I'll often times use the same techniques, even though I know it has nothing to do with good story telling, just that it's funny to point out. This does not mean that this is the crux of their argument. I don't believe that Moviebob (in this case) thinks that J.J. Abrams films are bad because he uses lens flare. The point was just a fun visual joke, because he had an entire review to do and couldn't spend more time on deconstructing his problems with J.J. Abrams. Now there are plenty of reasons to hate J.J. Abrams as a director. He's generally lax on cohesive storytelling, relies too heavily on WTF moments in the middle of the story, is generally a flash-in-the-pan director, rarely do his characters resonate with any meaning, and when he does make an interesting narrative he tends to over-convoluted it to the point that there can be no real meaningful conclusion.
Now, there are plenty of reasons to LIKE J.J. Abrams as well. No matter what you can say of him as a storyteller, he really does have a passion for what he does and it shows. He does honestly try to connect with his audience and has a moderate respect for us and well as an intense respect for his talent. And his action direction is honestly spot on. He doesn't connect with me a lot (especially with Star Trek [2009], but I can respect him. My point is, that when you boil something down, (especially a hyperbolic joke) to the whole meaning of an argument its.... Well it's like saying "AHA! But you didn't mention this!" So self-satisfied that you got the point, while missing the point entirely.

Now there are a lot of other arguments that piss me right the fuck off, most of them dismissive or plain assumptive arguments, and I might touch on them later, but for now I think that anyone who made it this far, can get from what part of my increasingly demented mind I'm coming from. So, I'll leave with just the point, can we at least start giving our arguments and other people a little consideration before streamlining our thoughts into general assumptions? Can we have some decency to the other human beings out there? Or would that just make the internet explode?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

6.) "Corporations exist to make money, therefore your criticism about environmental damage/pay rates/workplace abuse/etc is invalid."

This one irks me quite a bit really. While it's true that corporations do exist to make money, as a society, we frequently evaluate and argue over whether or not various developments are worth their costs. I see no reason why corporations should be exempt from this when we do it for almost every other facet of life.

While I agree with your conclusion, in most cases the argument leveled at the evil corporation is that they are, in fact, being evil. Given that the corporation as a construct is an institution designed entirely around the acquisition of wealth, when they take measures, abhorrent or otherwise, that result in said wealth acquisition, the corporation is being morale in as much as an artificial construct can have any sort of alignment. By contrast, if that same terrible behavior ends up costing the company money in the long run, then the company is being immoral.

When judging a construct like a corporation, morality is relative to successful fulfillment of purpose. You can judge the people calling the shots as immoral when they guide the corporation down such paths of course as people are a part of the social contract and thus the relative impact on the society as a whole becomes a morale issue.

It is, as such, relatively silly to apply a morale standard to a company; the people who work there can (and should) be the party we enforce morality upon.

 

[ComradeJim270]

When judging a construct like a corporation, morality is relative to successful fulfillment of purpose. You can judge the people calling the shots as immoral when they guide the corporation down such paths of course as people are a part of the social contract and thus the relative impact on the society as a whole becomes a morale issue.

Adam Smith warned against this business model back when capitalism was a novel new idea and he was working on refining it, for the very reason that the people running the business don't necessarily have much to lose or gain based on its success and thus doesn't have that as a built-in safeguard against irrational (and possibly immoral) behavior. Over two centuries ago, and the guy fucking called it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

When judging a construct like a corporation, morality is relative to successful fulfillment of purpose. You can judge the people calling the shots as immoral when they guide the corporation down such paths of course as people are a part of the social contract and thus the relative impact on the society as a whole becomes a morale issue.

Adam Smith warned against this business model back when capitalism was a novel new idea and he was working on refining it, for the very reason that the people running the business don't necessarily have much to lose or gain based on its success and thus doesn't have that as a built-in safeguard against irrational (and possibly immoral) behavior. Over two centuries ago, and the guy fucking called it.

I'd go so far as to say that any such construct that has a very limited purpose runs the same risk. A revolutionary movement, as often as not, betrays the ideals of the revolutionary members. A political party designed to gain advantage for a line of thinking finds that blind opposition to be at least as useful as collaboration.

In such cases, pointing to the construct and crying foul when that very structure pursues the stated goal well is folly. It is nothing more than a tool, any morality inherent is based upon the effectiveness of that tool. If you want to judge deeper, look at the hand that holds the tool.

 

[Sexy Devil]

When people decide that they hate a movie/TV adaption of a book because it made changes. I mean I wouldn't really care if they gave it a chance and then decided which they liked better, but most people who do this just straight up go "The book didn't go down like this, it's shit."

I'm mainly referring to Game of Thrones.

 

[direkiller]

THE ARGUMENT: THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR IS BROKEN!
WHERE WE SEE IT: Anywhere there is a random number generator
HOW IT'S USED: As an explanation for why the random number generator did not produce the results you wanted
WHY I HATE IT: Because you do not understand what random means.

Man, I could go on all night. I'll stop here.

Oddly I had one of these that was legitimate
Ti-83's random number generator just used a list of numbers
we had 23 calculators producing the same "random" numbers

 

[Creator002]

"If you don't like realism, go to saints row"

Second, this argument is usually used when defending feature suggestions like fuel for cars and having to eat to stay alive. Mind you these are suggestions for GTA V.

Wait, wait. People are suggesting that Rockstar add fuel and hunger to GTA? I mean, sure cop chases would get more intense when your car suddenly runs out of fuel, but does that mean its more fun? What if your car runs out of fuel during a mission and you fail because you need the car and can't call AAA (Is that the American car service) because the car's stolen?
I can see how it could be incorporated in a mission, but not during the general game.

 

[NightmareExpress]

"I'd like to see you make a better game"
"You only dislike it because you're bad at it"
"You're not a true fan unless..."
"The good ole' days were just better"
"The games today are just fine"

Make a reply to these if you dare.
It's wasted effort and wasted thought put into something that will ultimately go nowhere. If they do get back to you on it, their responses will be just as simple as, if not a word to word copy of, their original post followed with "deal with it" and pseudo statistics.

That is if they bother getting back to you on it. They are more frequently used as "fire and forget" fuel where the individual then disappears and presumably never returns again. Just a very lazy way of making discussion/a point. On the other hand, it's a very good way to troll.