Your Favorite Game Sucks

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I can not agree with shamus here its like everything unless you tried it i can not see how you have an opinion on it.You cant hate or enjoy something you dont know as it works both ways you can buy a game from your favourite developer and favourite genre but not like the game.

I can understand you dont want to waste a money on a game if your not sure if you will like it but the industry is built for that you can rent it,play a demo of the game,borrow it from a friend before buying the products also games like anything have a period where you can bring it back to the shop no question asked.

Also if you only buy games in the same genres and from the same developers you not only going to miss good games but your going to play the same stuff over and over again.As they say variety is the spice of life so try games that you wouldnt normally play as sometimes you will be suprised

I disagree with the article. If you don't play a game, you can't fairly judge it. There's been heaps of games I've "hated" before I've played them, and thoroughly enjoyed them when I eventually have played them.

BUT, if someone has played a game and they didn't like it, saying they played it wrong or something else to that effect is stupid.

Spygon:
I can not agree with shamus here its like everything unless you tried it i can not see how you have an opinion on it.You cant hate or enjoy something you dont know as it works both ways you can buy a game from your favourite developer and favourite genre but not like the game.

I can understand you dont want to waste a money on a game if your not sure if you will like it but the industry is built for that you can rent it,play a demo of the game,borrow it from a friend before buying the products also games like anything have a period where you can bring it back to the shop no question asked.

Also if you only buy games in the same genres and from the same developers you not only going to miss good games but your going to play the same stuff over and over again.As they say variety is the spice of life so try games that you wouldnt normally play as sometimes you will be suprised

So according to you, i am not allowed to dislike jRPGs, FPS, flight simulators, sport games, and some other's just basing on the fact they represent genres i consider dull, uninteresting and generally crappy ? I don't need to play Halo or newest Madden or FFXIII to know i will not enjoy them, and surely i do not wish to waste 50-60$ just to make bunch of raging fanboys satisfied with game specific arguments as to why i dislike them.

The info that is available months before a game release is usually enough to form an opinion. Plot, basics of gameplay, visuals, art direction, highlighted supposedly awesome features, it all allows me to decide whenever i am willing to risk those money on a product or not. I don't need to spend 6 hours of playing to know whenever [insert your favorite game] will be hit or miss for me.

Hm. I have to admit, you make a flawless point. As always.

Spygon:
I can not agree with shamus here its like everything unless you tried it i can not see how you have an opinion on it.

Then I assume you have absolutely no opinion on the following topics:

Rape.
Child pornography.
Osama bin Laden.
Drugs.
Genocide.
Being a millionaire.
Polygamy.
Adoption.
Political situation in China, most African nations and the middle east.
Israel.
Religions other than the one you follow, if there's any.
Me, and roughly 80% of the people on this website since you never met me or them in your life and probably never will.

And trust me, granted, I don't know you, your real name, how you look, hell, not even your gender. But you can bet your head I and probably every other guy who read your post now has an opinion on you just as anyone who reads this will form an opinion about me. And as far as you know as of this moment, I could very well be a world-famous celebrity or even the leader of a nation, you most certainly have built an opinion about.

The reason for that is simple:

We are humans. As such, as that very species, we have mental abilities that actually allow us to judge, evaluate and talk about stuff that we never saw or experienced or even that don't even exist. It's one of our defining characteristics.

And to be honest, it's the one thing that allows us to talk and discuss about topics in such large numbers.
Don't believe me? Well, here it goes:

Let's say I'd claim something most of you would call outragous. Let's say I claim that Hitler was a selfless man with a visionary plan that was meant to benefit humanity as a whole and that he knew that he would be hated for all time for his actions and he was willing to carry that burden for the greater good.

I'm taking an educated guess here that everyone here already itches to proove me wrong with this. People without education simply and agressively telling me I'm wrong, others starting morale discussions about the ethic borders of men and others again who like to swing around their big historic-details-willies.
Save it, I'm not standing behind above made statement nor do I intend to discuss it. The fact is however, that we CAN discuss it. We can argue about it. We all can recite quotes, name certain events or argue with our own moral values to comply with or oppose this statement. Yet I doubt that ANYONE in these forums was alive when Hitler was. Not even as babies. Even less of you would ever actually have MET the guy. Me neither, obviously.

How can we discuss about him then? Well, we have sources. Books, stories, documentations, audio tapes, movies. And while many of those are accepted as reliable, remember, that they are just third-party-information. Again, only very few of the people who gathered those information we rely all our opinions on ever actually met the guy. And those who did...well, if I wanted I could call them all liars.
And who'd be able to prove me 100% factually wrong?

The point is, however, that EVERYONE here has an opinion about Hitler. About him as a person, about his reasons, about his deeds and about what we could call his legacy through gritted teeth. Yet no one of us experienced him. Or his deeds, or his intentions and so on.
We, the people who were mostly probably born between the 1970s and 1990s, have not a single direct connection to this time. Only stories from our grandmothers and grandfathers at best. Yet we lead heated debates about this time.

And yet no one actually comes and tells us "You are not allowed to talk about that time, because you never witnessed it!"

Now obviously PC Games don't have the same....weight as the second world war and yes, I picked that very example to provocate a bit. But toning it down to games, isn't this the exact same thing?
I never had a console beside the Sega Master System II. I never played the Force Unleashed. I never played any Call of Duty-games since the second one. Yet I am very much capable of leading discussions about the development of those games. And yes, there are some points I have to guess. But you know what? My guesses are mostly right.
Why's that? Because I gathered experience. I've played PC Games for quite some time now. I've actually witnessed most events and developments in the scene. And yes, if I see a trailer for yet another shooter with brown/grey backgrounds with half-assed oneliners, I dare to critisize them. For actual flaws they have. Flaws I predicted, despite never playing the game.

Example again? I predicted that Age of Conan would be a mediocre game with pretty underwhelming success. Am I psychich? No, I just figured that if the best argument the DEVELOPERS themselves could come up with for buying the game was "It has blood and tits, erm..it's a game for "ADULTS" *winkwink* the rest of the game couldn't be that great. Shows that I wasn't so wrong now, am I?
And I most certainly don't intent to spend my money on something I don'T see a reason to support, only to force some delusional people to acutally use their brain if they want to tell me what is good about their game.

Because in the end "You can't judge the game, you never played it." is nothing but laziness and helplessness. If I actually think a game is good, I'm able to point out the good bits and PROVE them. Tell me that I can't judge something because I didn'T witness it first hand and for me it's just a mark of desperation.

After all, I also have an opinion about Jesus.
And that guy sure as hell is far away from any first-hand-experience.
For ANY of us.

It's one thing to form an opinion of a game before you've played it. I, for instance, do not like the new metroid game, despite not playing it and not intending to.

So yeah, I expect to be allowed to form and express an opinion without first hand experience without being shouted down by mindless fans.

However, this goes both ways. As annoying as fans who shout down any criticism of their personal favorites are, haters, frequently deciding they hate something for no reason at all (because it's popular, because they 'sold out', etc), can be even more rude and annoying when they take it upon themselves to shove their way into a fan community to start blasting their negativity everywhere. Pushy annoying fans build pushy annoying fan backlash and everybody gets progressively more defensive and angry until some troll sets of a flame war for the lulz.

The problem isn't so much fans being mindless and brainwashed as it is a more general problem of people just being rude on the internet. And while it's fine to have a negative opinion without firsthand experience, it's not fine to post a 'review' without such experience. That's simply not what 'review' means.

They were satire, but a lot of people agreed with point #2 - that you shouldn't have an opinion on a game until you've played it. This is a horrible and self-destructive attitude to take. As a consumer, it's your job to be discriminating with what you buy. You worked for your money (I hope) and so you owe it to yourself to be careful where you put it. And that means forming on opinions on things before you pay for them.

There's a difference between not buying a game, because you think you won't like it (maybe you seen the reviews) and broadcasting how a game sucks you know little about.
The first source is, or should be, more reliable than opinions based on hearsay. It's not surprising gamers are less appreciative of the latter.

For a negative REVIEW, you should at the very least have played the game for a couple hours (and find enough damning flaws).

If somebody just comes asking for a recommendation or does a X vs Y thread, then he deserves whatever reply he gets.

Even so, for useful opinions,
playing the game > playing the demo >> having seen gameplay footage >>> hearsay.
Just the demo should usually be enough to rip gameplay apart.
For flaws like atrocious VOs and bad gfx, just seeing a vid can be enough.

Hearsay I suppose may be good enough if the case is really clear cut.
Example: do we all know that C&C4 is trash? Yes. Have most of us played it? Fortunately, no. So maybe we should simply point to Destructoid (to a reviewer who did play it, had good sense and wasn't bought) and for good measure throw in the metacritic user score, next time somebody asks.
Then again, some things like this and Spore are communis opinio, so no harm is done if you summarise with just "shit".

Thanks Shamus for bringing up the final Backup on some points That are hard to clerify or lets say: came up to me when the Command & Conquer series became more goofy and "WTH?!?" then a Strategy Game in an alternate Dimension setting (or better said: when Westwood finally vanished as the name behind the Series).

For those who still dont get what he is Saying: If you dont like coffee and get told by damn many friends how great their coffe is, it Probably still wont change your mind about drinking coffee. If you let yourself get convinced to try, the worst you will get is a bellyache and minimum getting disappointed.

If you pay for it: you will feel these effects plus the feeling to be ashamed, because you should have known better and the shame for Paying for something you dont even like.

Thats what it is all about^^

I am heartwarmed by the reasonableness of conversations that proceed like this:

A:This game sucks because of the story
B:The story isn't the main point of the game
A:Well it was for me
B:Okay, let's settle our differences and make world peace

I'd say some basic rules should be followed before publicly unleashing your dumbass opinion:

1. State your bias

It makes an opinion easier to process. E.g I will generally ignore the advice of reviews that are made from drastically different points of view as mine

2. Explain yo'self

If you say something sucks, at least give a reason or even better, a recommendation. Of course, this applies for fanboy retaliation too. "You are dumb" pales in comparison to a gameplay vid invalidating the troll's point.

3. Realize that subjective arguments are stupid

"I hate X because it's not artistic enough"
"I like X because it's really artistic"

Adding some objective examples would help.

You know. it might be nice to have a review system where you can nuke opinions if they're based on invalid facts.

Anyways, it's fine to be prejudiced/unwilling to get all the facts so long as you acknowledge this so others can avoid your stupidity.

Either way the system gets your money... certainly you can judge a game like that by not buying it because you don't think it's your style, but going onto forums and bashing it without playing it is different. If you don't like shooters or zombies, you can safely assume you won't like Left 4 Dead. But you can't talk about the poor quality of the game without playing it. You can say it's not your thing, but that's not what people on the comments are talking about. They're talking about the 360 fanboys who flame videos of Uncharted 2 on YouTube because it's for "PS3 fags" while you're talking about not wanting to pay for a game because you don't think it's your style.

Truehare:
If I say "this game is a big pile of dog shit", that is just my opinion. But if I say "this game is a big pile of dog shit and everyone who likes it is a stupid dogshit-eater", then I'm being an asshole.

Which is exactly what Yahtzee did in his SSBB review.

joshuaayt:
Hm. I have to admit, you make a flawless point. As always.

In what sense, he's simply defending the right to be belligerent. He's still wrong for exactly the reasons Jeebus noted on page one. He's just being stubborn about it. You're not always going to be Socrates, sometimes if 200 people say you're wrong, big surprise, you're wrong.

Shamus Young:

jebussaves88:
Its okay to have an opinion on something, but blurting out you don't like it in a forum only to reveal you haven't actually tried it is understandably going to be met with hostility by those who do like it.

This is the problem. There is no reason for hostility. I LOVE me some ice cream, but if somebody says that ice cream sucks I don't get all angry and confrontational. There is simply no reason.

Perhaps not, but if someone says "Ice cream sucks, and everyone who disagrees with me is a moronic fanboy," then that person would be a douchebag. And when a fair-sized chunk of this website mindlessly repeats everything that person says in the guise of, you know, having their own opinion, that is a shitty state of affairs.

And, as I have mentioned before, that is pretty much exactly what happened with Yahtzee's SSBB review. He EXPLICITLY STATED that everyone who liked the game was a "pathetic fanboy," and then announced that he was going to be attacked by a bunch of fanboys defending the game. It was a giant self-fulfilling prophecy.

Of course, the comment thread on the SSBB video had a much higher concentration of people agreeing with Yahtzee and claiming they were under attack by a gigantic army of Nintendo fanboys (whom the Yahtzee fans outnumbered by about 5 to 1).

I think probably 90% of the time you can tell if you will like a game from it's trailers and it's reveiws. A little digging before you play a game is usually enough for you to realise if it's any good or not. I like to play as much as possible to widen my horizons and form first hand opinions about games, im lucky enough to have a good network of gaming freinds who allow me to try out their games without having to buy them myself and so much of the time i can actually have some face time with titles if i so desire.

BUT i won't play something if i know im going to hate it, i never subjected myself to Star Ocean 4 after seeing some of the just horrible dialog. Fanboys will be fanboys and the most extream ingrained examples i usually come across are in relation to JRPGs or Nintendo. You would never beleive the ammount of "You've never played it you can't have an opinion!!!" you see from these sections of the gaming fanboydom. Wherever there is in-grained defence of something you will find this.

Then again the opposite problem can also be true, forming an opionion without playing a game is all well and good but flat out blind hating ignornace is another matter and one thing we shouldn't stand for.

It seems to me a lot of people are missing the point of Shamus's article. You can have an opinion on something you haven't played =/= Let's all go troll the forums of games we haven't played! Of COURSE shamefully uninformed trolls are annoying, but we all have our genres and developers we don't care for, and everyone is entitled to their OPINIONS.

For example, I know I will not enjoy the latest iteration of the Madden franchise. I know this because the very concept of playing football on a gaming system seems boring and pathetic to me.

Now, this is no different than someone disliking the latest RTS because the idea of top-down strategic game play fails to engage them, or someone skipping the latest shooter because the genre stagnated years ago. I like these types of games, but I can certainly understand where the criticism is coming from, and, thankfully, I don't have to have my opinion validated by random forumites in order to enjoy something.

The real problem, I think, is the inflammatory language that has come to permeate almost all forum discussions and the general inability by many to grasp this. In order to get attention or add weight to one's argument, the favored method of late is to make some sort of hyperbolic claim since many people will, without fail, develop a sense of urgency while reading such language and respond like it is a life-or-death scenario.

Perhaps it would be best if everyone would apply that age-old lesson from Kindergarten when responding to criticism: If someone calls you a stupid face, ask yourself "Am I a stupid face?" If you aren't, then getting upset is a waste of energy and probably the reaction the accuser wished for. If you are, then the self-reflection may do you some good.

This article frustrates me because I know for certain that I disagree with it, but despite trying for well over an hour (I know, I have no life), I can't seem to explain why :-/

I'm gonna stop trying to go into detail, in case my head explodes. But the bulk of the argument I can't seem to make is this:

coldfrog:
This is all fine and good as long as you don't go on the internet and tell people why the game sucks so hard.

That's when you are transformed from opinionated human to annoying trolly butt-nugget.

The problem I see with this is that the issue is being blurred. There is a difference between saying "I didn't buy this product because the marketing didn't appeal to me" and saying "I think this game sucks because the gameplay is horrible, but I haven't played it." The problem I had with the original parodic list was that these two different statements seem to blend together. While I agree it is a legitimate criticism to say a game's marketing doesn't appeal to you, it is most decidedly not a legitimate criticism to say the gameplay is bad if you haven't actually experienced it. You can review the marketing because you've experienced it. But reviewing something you haven't experienced (the gameplay) is off-limits. Don't confuse the two.

Headbiter:

Spygon:
I can not agree with shamus here its like everything unless you tried it i can not see how you have an opinion on it.

Then I assume you have absolutely no opinion on the following topics:

Rape.
Child pornography.
Osama bin Laden.
Drugs.
Genocide.
Being a millionaire.
Polygamy.
Adoption.
Political situation in China, most African nations and the middle east.
Israel.
Religions other than the one you follow, if there's any.
Me, and roughly 80% of the people on this website since you never met me or them in your life and probably never will.

And trust me, granted, I don't know you, your real name, how you look, hell, not even your gender. But you can bet your head I and probably every other guy who read your post now has an opinion on you just as anyone who reads this will form an opinion about me. And as far as you know as of this moment, I could very well be a world-famous celebrity or even the leader of a nation, you most certainly have built an opinion about.

The reason for that is simple:

We are humans. As such, as that very species, we have mental abilities that actually allow us to judge, evaluate and talk about stuff that we never saw or experienced or even that don't even exist. It's one of our defining characteristics.

And to be honest, it's the one thing that allows us to talk and discuss about topics in such large numbers.
Don't believe me? Well, here it goes:

Let's say I'd claim something most of you would call outragous. Let's say I claim that Hitler was a selfless man with a visionary plan that was meant to benefit humanity as a whole and that he knew that he would be hated for all time for his actions and he was willing to carry that burden for the greater good.

I'm taking an educated guess here that everyone here already itches to proove me wrong with this. People without education simply and agressively telling me I'm wrong, others starting morale discussions about the ethic borders of men and others again who like to swing around their big historic-details-willies.
Save it, I'm not standing behind above made statement nor do I intend to discuss it. The fact is however, that we CAN discuss it. We can argue about it. We all can recite quotes, name certain events or argue with our own moral values to comply with or oppose this statement. Yet I doubt that ANYONE in these forums was alive when Hitler was. Not even as babies. Even less of you would ever actually have MET the guy. Me neither, obviously.

How can we discuss about him then? Well, we have sources. Books, stories, documentations, audio tapes, movies. And while many of those are accepted as reliable, remember, that they are just third-party-information. Again, only very few of the people who gathered those information we rely all our opinions on ever actually met the guy. And those who did...well, if I wanted I could call them all liars.
And who'd be able to prove me 100% factually wrong?

The point is, however, that EVERYONE here has an opinion about Hitler. About him as a person, about his reasons, about his deeds and about what we could call his legacy through gritted teeth. Yet no one of us experienced him. Or his deeds, or his intentions and so on.
We, the people who were mostly probably born between the 1970s and 1990s, have not a single direct connection to this time. Only stories from our grandmothers and grandfathers at best. Yet we lead heated debates about this time.

And yet no one actually comes and tells us "You are not allowed to talk about that time, because you never witnessed it!"

Now obviously PC Games don't have the same....weight as the second world war and yes, I picked that very example to provocate a bit. But toning it down to games, isn't this the exact same thing?
I never had a console beside the Sega Master System II. I never played the Force Unleashed. I never played any Call of Duty-games since the second one. Yet I am very much capable of leading discussions about the development of those games. And yes, there are some points I have to guess. But you know what? My guesses are mostly right.
Why's that? Because I gathered experience. I've played PC Games for quite some time now. I've actually witnessed most events and developments in the scene. And yes, if I see a trailer for yet another shooter with brown/grey backgrounds with half-assed oneliners, I dare to critisize them. For actual flaws they have. Flaws I predicted, despite never playing the game.

Example again? I predicted that Age of Conan would be a mediocre game with pretty underwhelming success. Am I psychich? No, I just figured that if the best argument the DEVELOPERS themselves could come up with for buying the game was "It has blood and tits, erm..it's a game for "ADULTS" *winkwink* the rest of the game couldn't be that great. Shows that I wasn't so wrong now, am I?
And I most certainly don't intent to spend my money on something I don'T see a reason to support, only to force some delusional people to acutally use their brain if they want to tell me what is good about their game.

Because in the end "You can't judge the game, you never played it." is nothing but laziness and helplessness. If I actually think a game is good, I'm able to point out the good bits and PROVE them. Tell me that I can't judge something because I didn'T witness it first hand and for me it's just a mark of desperation.

After all, I also have an opinion about Jesus.
And that guy sure as hell is far away from any first-hand-experience.
For ANY of us.

Well you can opinion on things in life because you came across those types of situations in life but you can not know what its like you can nott understand what it is like any of them things.I know i can not have a opinion on those things you mentioned except the drugs parts so i do not say my opinion on the subject i can say "i think" but never "i know". we can specualte and make guesses but you can not be sure the whole of the german nation followed him believed that.Were the Germans all idoits or being mind controlled no.You will never know what it was like to be in germany during world war two and why they followed him.So all you can do is read other opinions of people who were actually there then make a educated guess but you dont know what happened so you could be wrong.

It would be like someone came up with something completely like a new flavour of something and you say you dont like it.Yes you can have an view on something but you cant have a opinion on something you dont know.

Also on the age of conan example you didnt make a opinion you just thought the same thing as everybody else but you dont know you could play AoC and love it yes proberly not but you never know.

If you read what i said i gave examples of the industry saying try this and if you dont like it fair enough you dont have to buy the game.If you dont try new things you will never experince anything except the same things your blinkering yourself and using other peoples opinions instead of coming up with your own.That is why we are stuck with the same stuff in the industry because developers dont want to trisk something different because alot of you guys are going to say "i dont like im not going to play it" before the game is even made.

I would argue that you can DISLIKE a game without playing it, but you can't HATE a game until you have.

Keava:

Spygon:
I can not agree with shamus here its like everything unless you tried it i can not see how you have an opinion on it.You cant hate or enjoy something you dont know as it works both ways you can buy a game from your favourite developer and favourite genre but not like the game.

I can understand you dont want to waste a money on a game if your not sure if you will like it but the industry is built for that you can rent it,play a demo of the game,borrow it from a friend before buying the products also games like anything have a period where you can bring it back to the shop no question asked.

Also if you only buy games in the same genres and from the same developers you not only going to miss good games but your going to play the same stuff over and over again.As they say variety is the spice of life so try games that you wouldnt normally play as sometimes you will be suprised

So according to you, i am not allowed to dislike jRPGs, FPS, flight simulators, sport games, and some other's just basing on the fact they represent genres i consider dull, uninteresting and generally crappy ? I don't need to play Halo or newest Madden or FFXIII to know i will not enjoy them, and surely i do not wish to waste 50-60$ just to make bunch of raging fanboys satisfied with game specific arguments as to why i dislike them.

The info that is available months before a game release is usually enough to form an opinion. Plot, basics of gameplay, visuals, art direction, highlighted supposedly awesome features, it all allows me to decide whenever i am willing to risk those money on a product or not. I don't need to spend 6 hours of playing to know whenever [insert your favorite game] will be hit or miss for me.

You dont have to waste money on a game you play a demo,a beta or rent the game first the industry isnt making you buy anything as i said before.I dislike most racing games but played the demo of forza 3 and really enjoyed so i bought the game.If i turned around and said oh i hate all racing games and never played it i would have had got the game in the first place.

But, but, but, the only real opinions can come from people who wasted money on the games! The same applies for all situations! For example, I robbed a bank and killed some folks so that when I say that "murder is bad", it carries validity!

Since I never bought a game at full price in 14 years of gaming and haven't been exited for anything since my early teens I feel so not adressed with this. ^^

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.

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.)

No.

There's a difference between "This doesn't look like a game for me" or "This doesn't look like a good game" and "Oh fuck I hate this game with a passion".

The latter should be uttered only after having first-hand experience, especially in an argument. Not that hatred is an argument.

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.

Fox News and the Mass Effect sex scene.

Bigwig:
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.

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.

Shamus Young:

This is the problem. There is no reason for hostility. I LOVE me some ice cream, but if somebody says that ice cream sucks I don't get all angry and confrontational. There is simply no reason.

I'm going to go ahead and say that there is a reason:

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.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Your Favorite Game Sucks

Despite popular opinion, you don't need to have played a game to hate it.

Read Full Article

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.

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.

jebussaves88:

The_root_of_all_evil:
If you can't hate something until you've tried it: How many people hate crystal meth?

People don't hate the taste of crystal meth; they hate its effect on society. That's different. If Halo Reach was causing mass infertility, tooth loss and discolouration of the skin, then we would have every right to tell the Halo fanboys to button it. But it isn't, so we kind of don't, unless we've played it and are now chewing with our gums and firing blanks.

Glad somone got this fallacy out of the way.

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here