Your Favorite Game Sucks
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem is that Shamus has a natural tanking instinct. So when people get perturbed at his staffers, his team his people, of course his natural instinct is to rush to their defense. And of course, tanks have a diligent nature. He's on this stance like a dog on a bone. So the mob is coming at his staffers and he's going to rush to defend them. But sometimes, those staffers just made a bad pull and they deserve that aggro. Recognizing our own faults and accepting that they can color our judgment is an integral part of interpersonal intelligence. Recognize Shamus, that your natural defensive instincts are what's driving you more than anything to be obstinate on this point.
Perhaps these issues have been brought up, but isn't there a difference between choosing not to buy something because you don't think you will enjoy it and the declaration that something is bad because you do not enjoy it?
Shamus is, of course, correct that you can hate something without playing it. And, obviously, you don't buy something you think you might hate just to legitimize your dislike. But the problem is not when people say "I don't like that game (or games of that kind), the problem is when someone says "That game is a terrible game, because I don't like it."
At that point the speaker has put forth that their personal tastes are the determining factor for quality. Furthermore, if someone else enjoys that game, obviously they have bad taste, at best, or are idiots, at worst.
We do this in everything. People have stopped stating their opinions, and have started stating things as fact. Not, "I don't like x band" or "I do not enjoy y food"... it is "x band sucks." And that isn't a statement of opinion it is a statement of quality.
Now, you can still say "that was a bad game" but you need to have reasons for it...something bad about it. And to know that you need evidence, even if it is only collected second hand, though people will be much less likely to believe you if you aren't speaking from first hand experience.
The bottom line is that there is no reason for hostility if someone doesn't like the game you like, but not liking a game does not mean that game is necessarily bad... it is just not for you.
Shamus is, of course, correct that you can hate something without playing it. And, obviously, you don't buy something you think you might hate just to legitimize your dislike. But the problem is not when people say "I don't like that game (or games of that kind), the problem is when someone says "That game is a terrible game, because I don't like it."
At that point the speaker has put forth that their personal tastes are the determining factor for quality. Furthermore, if someone else enjoys that game, obviously they have bad taste, at best, or are idiots, at worst.
We do this in everything. People have stopped stating their opinions, and have started stating things as fact. Not, "I don't like x band" or "I do not enjoy y food"... it is "x band sucks." And that isn't a statement of opinion it is a statement of quality.
Now, you can still say "that was a bad game" but you need to have reasons for it...something bad about it. And to know that you need evidence, even if it is only collected second hand, though people will be much less likely to believe you if you aren't speaking from first hand experience.
The bottom line is that there is no reason for hostility if someone doesn't like the game you like, but not liking a game does not mean that game is necessarily bad... it is just not for you.
Thank you Shamus. I agree completely.
However, I must point out that you are quite the Yahtzee fanboy. (Nothing wrong with that - so am I.)
However, I must point out that you are quite the Yahtzee fanboy. (Nothing wrong with that - so am I.)
i would consider it fair not to judge a game unless ive had at least some experience with it, whether playing a demo or the actual game or indeed a review written by people who have played the game, on the escapist for instance, and i dont consider myself to be a fanboy idiot. and whats wrong with being a fanboy? people get passionate about things, its in are nature, it can be annoying but i dont really see how it reflects on them as a person apart from an amusing reverence for halflife, blazblue, cod, wow etc
Sure you can have an opinion on something you haven't played, but the problem is that a lot of people tend to state their opinion as fact. There's a difference between saying to someone "this game doesn't look like my cup of tea" and "this game sucks," and most people do the latter.
This has already been said in this thread: if someone says "game X sucks!", it's self-evident that this is his opinion. It's a subjective statement, it can't ever be a "fact". In such matters, it would be tiresome, wasteful and completely pointless to always state "but that's my opinion", because it is evident.Bigwig said:
If you like something, a game for example, you should not be angered if someone says that this game sucks. And I'm free to say that some game sucks, whenever I please, because people should know that it's just my opinion and not get all offended because of it.
I disagree simply because I don't think you should be allowed to hate something you don't know enough about. You should, however, be allowed to not like it. There is a world of difference, and hating something without proper cause is just ridiculous. I myself hate things I don't really know much about, but that's hypocrisy for you, at least I'm aware of it.
I'm going to go ahead and say that there is a reason:Shamus Young said:
The entire point of a discussion board is for discussion. When you're talking completely out of your ass about a game you're doing nothing but cluttering the discussion and wasting everybody's time. Some games you can't even discuss without the thread being derailed.
I think your confusing a lack of obligation to try a game with the validity of a largely uninformed opinion. If your not into games that focus on action first and maybe some story later if theres time, I don't see that anyone has any gripe with you not picking up the latest Halo game. But lets remember that for every fanboy is a fashionable hater. I might not use "have you played it" the same way your vanilla fanboy does but, and I appologize that this rather cliche title is my example, but when throngs of people talk about how mediocre Halo is, with no qualifying remarks, and they haven't touched the game, that's just playing the fanboy game. Flaming something you have no interest in, because you don't like people who turn enjoying the game into thinking of it as some sort of social high ground.Shamus Young said:
The anti-fanboy is just as bad as the fanboy. Not having any interest in a game you've never played is certainly a valid position, but hating it? What would you even be deriving that hate from, marketing materials and jerks that talk about the game? That's not really "the game" you're hating.
Glad somone got this fallacy out of the way.jebussaves88 said:
I get the same arguments when I say I quit ff 13 after only 10 hours. Common fan-boys do your worst.
I always apply my own personal knowledge to movies, games, and books before I buy them in this very way. I do not need to experience something to know I won't like it.
There's a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell that essentially proves how useful split-second decisions, or thin-slicing, or intuition really is. Meaning VERY VERY USEFUL.
There's a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell that essentially proves how useful split-second decisions, or thin-slicing, or intuition really is. Meaning VERY VERY USEFUL.
I don't think anyone would argue against predicting how you would feel about a thing before experiencing it.
The problem I have is with the distinction between "I dislike X" and "I think that I would dislike X". They are very different statements, and should be used correctly.
The problem I have is with the distinction between "I dislike X" and "I think that I would dislike X". They are very different statements, and should be used correctly.
I mostly agree with Shamus, but I don't think that all "opinions" (or points of view) are equal. I will explain what I mean later in this argument.
::::Intro on Opinions
There are two types of opinions that I will refer to. One is an "informed" opinion. One is an "uninformed" opinion.
Before I say anything here I would like to point out that I think people, whether they have a "justified" or "unjustified" opinion of a game, still have the right to choose to buy, or not to buy a game, on the basis of the opinion they have. This is a fundamental "human right".
The issue here is not if the person justifies this decision based on an opinion they have, but whether the opinion they use is "justified" or "unjustified".
The only "justifiable" reason for disliking a game is based on an "informed" opinion.
::::"Informed" Opinions:
--Forming an "informed" opinion, contrary to the ramblings of fanboys, does not require you to actually play the game. It simply requires you to find out information about the game. The more facts you can find out about the game, the easier it becomes to pass a reasonable judgement on the liklihood of whether you will like the game or not.
--The opinions of other people can also help you to make a judgement of this liklihood. For instance, if the majority of people who have played the game like it, then there is a high probability that you will also.
::::"Uninformed" opinions vs "Informed" opinions:
I concede that neither of these methods are as good at helping you form an opinion of a game than playing the game itself, but games cost money and time. In that respect I concur with Shamus. However I disagree with the implication that "informed" and "uninformed" opinions of video-games are equally valuabe.
....... Why Informed Opinions are more valuable than Uninformed Opinions:.......
(1.--An "uninformed" opinion is one that is based on unreliable information, or none at all.
--In general, if you make any decision based on unreliable information, or none at all, you are more likely to miss out on something good, or cause something bad to happen to you.
(2.--Informed opinions are, as I have established, based on largely reliable information, and lots of it, meaning decisions based on these opinions are more likely to cause something good to happen to you, or lead you to avoid something bad.
::::
As you can see, decisions based on uninformed opinions result in more negative consequences, whereas decisions based on informed opinions result in more positive consequences.
::::
In summary, while I think that people have an interminable right to choose what they want to buy, it is ridiculous for fanboys to suggest that an informed decision on a game can only be made by playing the game itself. Good on you Shamus.
::::Intro on Opinions
There are two types of opinions that I will refer to. One is an "informed" opinion. One is an "uninformed" opinion.
Before I say anything here I would like to point out that I think people, whether they have a "justified" or "unjustified" opinion of a game, still have the right to choose to buy, or not to buy a game, on the basis of the opinion they have. This is a fundamental "human right".
The issue here is not if the person justifies this decision based on an opinion they have, but whether the opinion they use is "justified" or "unjustified".
The only "justifiable" reason for disliking a game is based on an "informed" opinion.
::::"Informed" Opinions:
--Forming an "informed" opinion, contrary to the ramblings of fanboys, does not require you to actually play the game. It simply requires you to find out information about the game. The more facts you can find out about the game, the easier it becomes to pass a reasonable judgement on the liklihood of whether you will like the game or not.
--The opinions of other people can also help you to make a judgement of this liklihood. For instance, if the majority of people who have played the game like it, then there is a high probability that you will also.
::::"Uninformed" opinions vs "Informed" opinions:
I concede that neither of these methods are as good at helping you form an opinion of a game than playing the game itself, but games cost money and time. In that respect I concur with Shamus. However I disagree with the implication that "informed" and "uninformed" opinions of video-games are equally valuabe.
....... Why Informed Opinions are more valuable than Uninformed Opinions:.......
(1.--An "uninformed" opinion is one that is based on unreliable information, or none at all.
--In general, if you make any decision based on unreliable information, or none at all, you are more likely to miss out on something good, or cause something bad to happen to you.
(2.--Informed opinions are, as I have established, based on largely reliable information, and lots of it, meaning decisions based on these opinions are more likely to cause something good to happen to you, or lead you to avoid something bad.
::::
As you can see, decisions based on uninformed opinions result in more negative consequences, whereas decisions based on informed opinions result in more positive consequences.
::::
In summary, while I think that people have an interminable right to choose what they want to buy, it is ridiculous for fanboys to suggest that an informed decision on a game can only be made by playing the game itself. Good on you Shamus.
The fanboy strawman Shamus puts up ... is right. You should try to find and enjoy the good parts of games, not ignore them and ***** about the parts that don't matter.
If you complain about the mediocre singleplayer in a primarily multiplayer game, it's not that you're wrong ... your commentary is just irrelevant.
Know the type of game you're playing, and judge it on the qualities that people who play that type of game care about.
Or just write some self-indulgent stuff no one cares about.
If you complain about the mediocre singleplayer in a primarily multiplayer game, it's not that you're wrong ... your commentary is just irrelevant.
Know the type of game you're playing, and judge it on the qualities that people who play that type of game care about.
Or just write some self-indulgent stuff no one cares about.
While I can seethe point made by the article that you don't have to play a game to find out if it's good or not, it sure as hell helps if you do.
We can all stand back and say 'that doesn't look like something for me' (and it's not a bad thing if you do, we would all make some really stupid decisions if we couldn't) but I would definately have more reason to trust the opinion of someone who has actually experienced the thing in question first hand.
In short, you're right, you don't have to try something to be opinionated.
However, prepare to have your opinion disregarded if this is the case (I don't think I need to remind us of the 'issue' that surrounded Mass Effect caused by, you guessed it, people who had never played the game).
We can all stand back and say 'that doesn't look like something for me' (and it's not a bad thing if you do, we would all make some really stupid decisions if we couldn't) but I would definately have more reason to trust the opinion of someone who has actually experienced the thing in question first hand.
In short, you're right, you don't have to try something to be opinionated.
However, prepare to have your opinion disregarded if this is the case (I don't think I need to remind us of the 'issue' that surrounded Mass Effect caused by, you guessed it, people who had never played the game).
I agree to a certain point. Ofcourse we all have to form some kind of opinion of things. Dragon Age: Origins looked really fucking good so I bought it. Just like any other game. Sure, sometimes a bad game sneaks into my collection and I rage over having s pend my money on it, but hey, I paid to see Resident Evil: Afterlife so I know all about wanting your money back.
But, I can't say that I know that Twilight sucks, because I haven't read them.I can say that I've recived a very bad impression of the book and that I wouldn't spend my money on them. Those are too diffrent things, one is a opinion, the other is a impression.
But, I can't say that I know that Twilight sucks, because I haven't read them.I can say that I've recived a very bad impression of the book and that I wouldn't spend my money on them. Those are too diffrent things, one is a opinion, the other is a impression.
With five pages of comments, I'm sure it's all been said, but there's a difference between having an opinion and bandying it about willy-nilly on internet forums. I agree that no one should have to apologize for an opinion on something and they are certainly entitled to it, but if you take the time to write anything on a public forum you should be prepared for some disagreement or backlash. Posting on a forum is an active thing that invites response.
That being said, I know it's possible to be so strongly against a game that you can't help but wrestle with the monstrous hype, but if that's the case, then you should welcome the flames. Why else are you posting other than to battle the opposing opinion? Now the rest of your points in that article focused on reviewers. For reviewers, it would be unacceptable to review a game without playing it. For everyone else, they should just stick to playing the games they DO like rather than attacking others that shouldn't matter to them anyway. I think that's the point. People coming together to discuss and geek out over their favorite game is harmless, but people coming in uninvited and trying to bash the game for their own satisfaction is negative and mean-spirited. So they get back what they give out.
That being said, I know it's possible to be so strongly against a game that you can't help but wrestle with the monstrous hype, but if that's the case, then you should welcome the flames. Why else are you posting other than to battle the opposing opinion? Now the rest of your points in that article focused on reviewers. For reviewers, it would be unacceptable to review a game without playing it. For everyone else, they should just stick to playing the games they DO like rather than attacking others that shouldn't matter to them anyway. I think that's the point. People coming together to discuss and geek out over their favorite game is harmless, but people coming in uninvited and trying to bash the game for their own satisfaction is negative and mean-spirited. So they get back what they give out.
One problem with the example given is that Yahtzee isn't really a reviewer. He's a self-proclaimed "critic". Which means its his job to criticize ACTUAL flaws. For example, as much as I enjoyed Red Dead Redemption, it did have its flaws. Like John Marston clipping through walls, numerous crashes, and other actual glitches.
Yahtzee pretty much hated Brawl because he didn't like it and (by his own admission) sucks at that particular genre of games
Yahtzee pretty much hated Brawl because he didn't like it and (by his own admission) sucks at that particular genre of games