Klumpfot said:
Saviordd1 said:
The thing is that people are saying their disappointed with these games, but none of them are "horrible" by any means, not DA2, not L.A Noire, not Terraria, these are just games you don't like, none of them are objectively shit.
NO game is 'objectively shit'. Not even Big Rigs is. Determining the quality of an experience is a necessarily subjective endeavour. It's perfectly fine to think any of those titles are the worst of the year.
I'm sorry. The misuse of the word 'objective' makes me sad and gassy.
OT: For me, the worst gaming experience of the year has been Dragon Age II.
Sorry to hear about your flatulence. But, oh Reginald, I disagree.
A game that fails to accomplish what it clearly sets out to do is objectively bad. A game, or song, or movie or TV show that only regurgitates what has been done elsewhere, and not even in a competent way, showing a fundamental lack of understanding for what made its uncredited source material work (see Blink 182, Linkin Park, Michael Bay) is objectively bad. If you can articulate what makes something work, using tangible elements and not just on-paper ideas, then you can go about making a fair assessment of its value. Subjectivity will always be involved, but My Little Pony, for instance, is objectively more intelligent and thoughtful and original than 90% of children's programming. Unfortunately, it is only all of those things marginally. The value of
Animaniacs! vs. Garbage Pail Kids is tangible. That doesn't necessarily make Garbage Pail Kids completely worthless (it is), but it does make one look silly when trying to argue that
House of the Dead (the godawful movie, not the godawful game) has as much artistic merit or more as
There Will Be Blood. The only sort of argument that could be formed asserting that
House of the Dead has more value is the sort made by people who admit that they don't want their brain challenged by their entertainment. Kind of removes one from the debate when they say that.