Everyone has a valid opinion/taste? Don't make me laugh

[Taerdin]

Thread be done, thanks for comin out

Feel free to read and catch up if you wish, but responding to the OP at this point would be pointless (we're beyond it now)

 

[Kud]

Erm... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to achieve here...

I think everyone's opinions in the context of a game conversation should be honored

Unless of course they insult Metal Gear Solid, in which case BURN THE HERETIC!

 

[Taerdin]

Erm... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to achieve here...

Some understanding.

I think everyone's opinions in the context of a game conversation should be honored

So if someone who has only played one game says that it's the best game ever made, their opinion is just as valid as yours?

 

[Terminate421]

Well, you can't hate on people who have little exposure. If someone has sex once, does that mean they cannot say "its the best sex I've ever had!"

I'm not sure if there is a topic here.

 

[Kud]

So if someone who has only played one game says that it's the best game ever made, their opinion is just as valid as yours?

Correct. Who are you to tell them that their favourite game isn't the greatest game ever?

Besides, I know that was just an example, but honestly most people don't enter gaming discussions unless they have played quite a few games, so what I said still applies.

 

[Taerdin]

Well, you can't hate on people who have little exposure. If someone has sex once, does that mean they cannot say "its the best sex I've ever had!"

Of course they can say it's the best THEY have ever had, but if they say it's the best ever then that is invalid due to their lack of experience.

Meaning the more you experience something the more valid your opinion is.

I'm not sure if there is a topic here.

Weird how people can have a discussion when there isn't even a topic to discuss then.

 

[Jonluw]

Why should anyone else's opinion matter to you?
If it was to do that, you would have to define an objective measure of quality.

In stuff like cars, where a car with wheels is better than one without wheels it's easy to see, because the purpose of a car is to transport you from one place to another, and the wheels are instrumental in this task.

Things like steaks, however, are more complicated. When you are asking that African child to evaluate the steak, are you asking him about nutritional value? Bacterial and parasitic content?
Or are you asking him about taste and consistency? Completely subjective qualities.

Due to the subjective nature of taste, I believe you will find - if you look - that the "objective" measurements of what makes a wine, for example, good are arbitrarily placed standards, most likely placed there over time through the influence of larger producers so that they may cement themselves as the undisputed champions of their craft.

Spoiler: I find I agree a lot with this comic.

Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

 

[Lucem712]

Well, I suppose no one has a completely valid opinion. I mean, I love Hersey chocolate bars, but have I tasted the most amazing sophisticated chocolate by a world-class confectioner? Well, no. No one can have an absolutely valid opinion because no one has unlimited experience.

So, in conclusion, everyone has an opinion (A personal taste not based in facts or knowledge), some peoples' experiences are just...limited. Some people have a sniper rifle and some people have a BB gun :\

Spoiler

That was a really crappy metaphor

 

[Taerdin]

So if someone who has only played one game says that it's the best game ever made, their opinion is just as valid as yours?

Correct. Who are you to tell them that their favourite game isn't the greatest game ever?

Someone who is more experienced.

Are you trying to say that experience means nothing? Does your knowledge and ability to judge the content and value of games not increase the more you play them?

 

[Rowan93]

I think a starving African kid, if you give him two steaks, will be able to point out any difference between them and have a completely valid opinion on which he prefers. Of course, he wouldn't point that out because that might dash his hopes of getting another steak, and lead to his starving to death, but I don't think the analogy goes that far.

 

[Terminate421]

I'm not sure if there is a topic here.

Weird how people can have a discussion when there isn't even a topic to discuss then. Or maybe your opinion is just wrong

I don't know whether to be offended or just confused.

Opinions are allowed, even with little experience, what your having a hard time doing is understanding a personal title.

Here is an example:

I LOVE Battletanx Global Assault, it is my favorite game ever made, even though it only exists on the N64
After years and years of playing games, I still say it is my favorite, aging well and remaining what I love in a game.
Does that mean my opinion is wrong because alot of people hold Half-life 2 as their favorite game of all time? (I personally don't think its that great)

Lets say someone else played it back in the day and never played a game again. If they get into a conversation about it, Battletanx Global Assault would hold titles for their "best game ever".
Are they wrong too because their opinion is different based on experience?

 

[Taerdin]

Things like steaks, however, are more complicated. When you are asking that African child to evaluate the steak, are you asking him about nutritional value? Bacterial and parasitic content?
Or are you asking him about taste and consistency? Completely subjective qualities.

Does it actually matter? By any of these standards, if someone has only experience one of the things (one steak for instance), they have no basis on which to judge the steak. Is a bad or good steak by any standard? How would they know without trying another steak?

Expanding this argument, the more steaks you try to more your opinion becomes informed. Thus someone who has had more steak than me, even if their subjective sense of taste is different than mine, probably has a better handle on what they like, and possibly even what I like (if I can give them an understanding of my subjective taste in steaks).

Due to the subjective nature of taste, I believe you will find - if you look - that the "objective" measurements of what makes a wine, for example, good are arbitrarily placed standards, most likely placed there over time through the influence of larger producers so that they may cement themselves as the undisputed champions of their craft.

But even if you set your own standards by which to judge a good wine, the more wines you try the more likely you are to know how well a particular wine stacks up against the competition, no?

 

[him over there]

Yes of course, because your opinion on a game or movie or piece of music is invalid until you've listened to/ played/ watched every one ever conceived.

 

[DoPo]

I can only think of a single quote that fits perfectly here:

Everybody has the right to be stupid, some people just abuse the privilege

It's from somewhere from the Interwebs, I don't know the original author. But I agree with it completely. Some people's opinions matter. Other people's opinions are stupid but are theirs. Third kind of people just rise the bar of stupid and have to be denied opinions. Some subjects don't even warrant opinions - "what do you thing the gravitation on Mars is?" obviously doesn't but I've seen others...

Oh God, I remembered one. Prepare to witness stupid. There was one guy who argued online that there were only three countries in North America and that Latin America was a separate distinct continent[footnote]just to make it clear - he claimed the continents were North, South and Latin America. Also, Cuba wasn't part of any America because it was an island. Also, if you're keeping track, the three countries in North America were Canada, USA and Mexico, so Mexico wasn't part of Latin America obviously.[/footnote]. When I gave him links that said otherwise, he responded with "I don't care, it's my opinion". I can see how one could consider North, Central and South America and if I'm not mistaking, some people in Geography do all them different continents (or at least there was an alternative separation than North/South I've heard of). Claiming you support an alternative separation of the continents is fine, as long as you're not a complete idiot.

 

[Taerdin]

I think a starving African kid, if you give him two steaks, will be able to point out any difference between them and have a completely valid opinion on which he prefers. Of course, he wouldn't point that out because that might dash his hopes of getting another steak, and lead to his starving to death, but I don't think the analogy goes that far.

He would be able to compare those two steaks to each other, but this is exactly my point. The more steaks he tries the more he can say about a particular steak. If he eats one steak he thinks, 'wow that filled me up a bit and my tummy doesnt hurt as much, that was amazing!' He eats another one and thinks, 'this steak is more stringy than the last one', he eats a third steak and thinks 'wow this was juicier than those last two steaks!'

Eventually he has a concept of the qualities of steak that he likes, and is able to make a more informed decision. In this way his opinion of which steak is the best becomes more informed, and therefore more valid (is my hypothesis).

Opinions are allowed, even with little experience, what your having a hard time doing is understanding a personal title.

Here is an example:

I LOVE Battletanx Global Assault, it is my favorite game ever made, even though it only exists on the N64
After years and years of playing games, I still say it is my favorite, aging well and remaining what I love in a game.
Does that mean my opinion is wrong because alot of people hold Half-life 2 as their favorite game of all time? (I personally don't think its that great)

This is exactly what I'm arguing though! If people haven't played Battletanx Global Assault then how can they say that Half-Life 2 is the best or better than it? Unless they have experienced both things (on some level, maybe not even necessarily by playing it first hand), and have enough experience of what makes a game good in that genre or 'league' then their opinion is less valid.

Also just because someone has a lot of fun with something doesn't make it a good quality thing. I enjoy a lot of bad/cheesy movies/tv shows. I can admit that they are cheesy and have bad acting and plots, etc. But for me personally I have a good time. The idea that the only standard by which to judge a piece of media is how much fun you had with it, seems flawed to me. I can admit something is bad, even if it's something I personally enjoyed.

Lets say someone else played it back in the day and never played a game again. If they get into a conversation about it, Battletanx Global Assault would hold titles for their "best game ever".
Are they wrong too because their opinion is different based on experience?

They are not wrong that it is THEIR best game ever, but to say that it is THE best game ever, or even that it is a 'good game' would be invalid. By which standard are they judging this game to be the best of all games, or even a good quality game, if they have not even experienced enough games to gauge a standard by which games should be judged?

 

[Lucem712]

Yes of course, because your opinion on a game or movie or piece of music is invalid until you've listened to/ played/ watched every one ever conceived.

Yes, yes, my good sir. Experience all things or your opinion is as good as a used napkin, which is to say, no good at all! *Sophisticated chuckle*

 

[Taerdin]

Yes of course, because your opinion on a game or movie or piece of music is invalid until you've listened to/ played/ watched every one ever conceived.

This is not what I'm saying at all.

Surely you're not suggesting that someone who has never played a game in their lives is just as good of a judge of what a great game is as you are?

Same for movies or music?

The logical extension of my argument is that if you experienced all of these things your opinion would be as informed and valid as it could be, but their are varying degrees of validity. If you have only played 1% of games (which is still a huge number of games), your opinion is for instance worth much more than someone who has only played 0.00001%, or do you disagree?

 

[Kud]

So if someone who has only played one game says that it's the best game ever made, their opinion is just as valid as yours?

Correct. Who are you to tell them that their favourite game isn't the greatest game ever?

Someone who is more experienced.

Are you trying to say that experience means nothing? Does your knowledge and ability to judge the content and value of games not increase the more you play them?

There is no textbook knowledge of video games, people's opinions are completely subjective.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "opinion".

 

[Jonluw]

Things like steaks, however, are more complicated. When you are asking that African child to evaluate the steak, are you asking him about nutritional value? Bacterial and parasitic content?
Or are you asking him about taste and consistency? Completely subjective qualities.

Does it actually matter? By any of these standards, if someone has only experience one of the things (one steak for instance), they have no basis on which to judge the steak. Is a bad or good steak by any standard? How would they know without trying another steak?

Expanding this argument, the more steaks you try to more your opinion becomes informed. Thus someone who has had more steak than me, even if their subjective sense of taste is different than mine, probably has a better handle on what they like, and possibly even what I like (if I can give them an understanding of my subjective taste in steaks).

Due to the subjective nature of taste, I believe you will find - if you look - that the "objective" measurements of what makes a wine, for example, good are arbitrarily placed standards, most likely placed there over time through the influence of larger producers so that they may cement themselves as the undisputed champions of their craft.

But even if you set your own standards by which to judge a good wine, the more wines you try the more likely you are to know how well a particular wine stacks up against the competition, no?

By your own subjective standards, yes. But for one person's opinion to be considered more correct, you would need to have an objective standard to go by, which just doesn't exist.

If you ask a "connoisseur", you will probably find that they consider a rare beef the better choice. Personally, I like my meat well done (granted, I have a preference for lamb's meat which works better dry).
What happens when a person gains experience with a product, is that they may evaluate what they're tasting more closely, and their personal tastes will most likely gravitate towards a more puristic view.
Yes, they may pick apart the qualities of a product, like how tender a beef is, how dry it is, what the taste most resembles, and how fatty this is in an objective manner: but they are always going to need to apply these observations to a standard. Normally, they apply the observations to their own standards, but if you describe your standards to them, they may apply the observations to your standards and evaluate them accordingly.
Normally, though, they evaluate by their own standards.
But calling their standards "more correct" is no good. They are simply the standards of a person with more experience.

The standards of a person with experience is no closer to the truth than those of an inexperienced one. To claim the opposite, you would have to define a truth.
What is the truth? Is it what the most people subscribe to? Is it what a god claims? Is it that what the experienced people say?

But once you define truth as "What the experienced people say", saying that the opinions of experienced people are closer to the truth than those of a layman just becomes circular reasoning.
"This person's opinion is closer to the truth, because the opinions of people like him has been arbitrarily defined as the truth."

Personally, I prefer my food to contain lots of salt. A connoisseur would tell me I'm ruining the food, but that's only because he's ascribing his puristic preferences to my cooking. To claim that his tastes are closer to an objective truth than mine are, just because he has more experience in the field simply doesn't work out.

 

[him over there]

So if someone who has only played one game says that it's the best game ever made, their opinion is just as valid as yours?

Correct. Who are you to tell them that their favourite game isn't the greatest game ever?

Someone who is more experienced.

Are you trying to say that experience means nothing? Does your knowledge and ability to judge the content and value of games not increase the more you play them?

There is no textbook knowledge of video games, people's opinions are completely subjective.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word "opinion".

I'm saying that you can't have a more valid opinion because quality isn't objective. People may be looking for different things in a game. Plus this argument is really only applicable to comparative work. You seem to be saying that someone's best game ever is wrong because they haven't played as many games as others. Isn't their best game ever subjective? I'm just saying that you can't have a more or less valid opinion about something subjective.