brunothepig said:
I should let this go here, it seems like the debate has stopped now anyway, but I thought it was pretty clear that this is my opinion. How can you prove my points wrong, if they're simply the reasons that I, personally, didn't enjoy Halo? How can you tell me that what I think is "wrong", when that implies an objective, not subjective, statement?
I believe I can, using this example; lets split video games into two halves, one being functional, the other is non functional
The properties of functional is that it is broken, buggy, has glitches or is just unplayable due to a technical fault (not relating to any gameplay fault)
Now functional can be utter, utter shit but functional. It goes without saying if a game is broken and unplayable, it is a bad game, regardless of opinion (and I mean bugs that work against the player, not infinite gold or anything like that)
Now Halo is functional, none of the maps are broken, there are no glitches (except without lag or considerable knowledge), it is perfectly functional.
Now Superman 64 came out in 1999 (the start of the decade we're debating about). Now Superman 64 was a buggy, broken and horrendous mess of a game and was not functional. This makes it a bad game
If that is too far back for you, let stake a look at something more recent, Gears Of War. Gears was also broken, buggy and a bit of a mess. Locking onto cover didn't work that great, bullets curved in the multi-player, when two people hit each other with chainsaws it was a randomised outcome, the game deleted your saves and there were texture issues. This made the game at some point unplayable, thus a bad game.
Now while a good functional game is down to your opinion, a non functional game will always be worse than a functional one.
Is that a fair proposal?