Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Also, Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed is overrated and Mariokart is better.

Reviewers are not robots, they are human beings just like you and me (despite your seeming attempts to dehumanize yourself) and therefore do not count as "proof" that a game is of substantial quality. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Objectivity - things that can actually be proven - are things that have an acceptable, unbais form of measure (to a degree. There can be slight differences in opinion as to how to read that measure, but that's the human element). I'm honestly astonished by all the pseudo-intellectuals who don't understand that just because Metacritics takes a bunch of arbitrary numbers, none of which have any universal measure, and comes up with an average, you assume presenting that average you're making your opinion an unquestionable fact. Critique is not a science, it's an art, and I hope it stays that way. Life would be a lot more boring if every form of entertainment had go through a system set up by the fun police.

Okay, I'll give you that.

No, he is not. This entire thread is subjective. That's why these are opinions. And believing false facts isn't a opinion. Saying you think something is boring is an opinion, but saying the world is flat is not an opinion. When people say COD is boring, that is an opinion, but saying every COD game is literally the exact same is not an opinion, because it is simply untrue.
Again, you are wrong.

Going by his and your logic, yes, the world being flat as a map can be an opinion. With enough ignorance, of course.

I'm not entirely sure you know what an opinion is. If you believe that something is a fact, there is no way that can be an opinion. It is simply someone who doesn't know the truth.

But what's really going on is that you're not fully understanding the discussion. As usual. If some of you think Call of Duty is boring and samey, that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion. But, if you're wondering why it's so popular and come to the conclusion that it's average and that's the reason, you're simply uneducated.

Again, that's not what we're arguing about. As usual. We're arguing about objective vs subjective. You are confusing the two, while everyone else is telling you otherwise.

Let's take that Bombing Bastards game on the front page of this site. Seems neat, right? Well, too bad, judging from the review it's an average game on the Wii U eShop. Going by the logic of others, this game will sell millions by the end of the year. How exciting.

I never said all average games sell well. In fact, I never said COD was average...
_{Looks like you jumped the gun}

I don't get why GTA is a game, why people play it, or why they have a game about it, but that's just me.

LEGO City Undercover
True Crime Streets of LA
(off the top of my head)

Who gets impulses to do stuff like this??? Why do people find it fun?

These are the ones where you are the good guy (well TCSLA you can be bad, but the game ends quicker)

Because its a video game a place where you can escape reality and real life consequences and if it keeps the people who want to do thing like that from doing it in real life why stop them.

I meant GTA. Busting criminals sounds fun.

^{Guys, how 'bout we cut down the quote tree}

Also, Crackdown.

I think he was undercover? But yeah, I think you're right. Honestly, if Yakuza 3 and 4 didn't exist, I probably would've snapped up Sleeping Dogs just to have an Open world game in a modern Asian setting...

Btw, since this a statement and not an opinion, I thought I should present some evidence:

Critique³ - dictionary.reference.com
Critique³ - The Free Dictionary
Critique¹ - Wikitionary

Another word I could've used was "Criticism", which is also called the art of criticizing something.
Criticism²
Criticism³

Yeah, I don't think we get enough of that setting, personally.

Even with Yakuza 3 and 4 around, Sleeping Dogs is a pretty good play.

Not sure if this one is unpopular: Saint's Row is much better than GTA.

Probably, but Yakuza 3 and 4's gameplay and stories fit my tastes more, and it has an asian city setting, so I can't really use the setting as an excuse to get it...

This logic assumes that:
a) the default position for a game is "literally coated in quality" or that personal experience takes precedence in the absence of perceived validity.
a) popularity are quality are inextricably linked; factors such as marketing and awareness are irrelevant when examining how a game or franchise becomes mainstream.

You would be ignorant to assume marketing and awareness has nothing to do with Call of Duty's success. But, would a game that is truly mediocre (already posted several links that contradict such a claim), sell millions of copies year after year if it was consistently average? Of course not.

To reiterate, which "others" are you referring to, given that no individuals within the past few pages of this thread have made the claim that Call of Duty's quality or lack thereof was integral to its success? I assume you are intending to hold a discussion with those present in the thread rather than absent parties or conjure up hypothetical scenarios.

Where can I read these supposed posts where I intentionally target someone?

I'd love to see it, but the point of my posts aren't directed at a single individual, it's directed at everyone on this site who has said mindset of Call of Duty.

Reviewers are not robots, they are human beings just like you and me (despite your seeming attempts to dehumanize yourself) and therefore do not count as "proof" that a game is of substantial quality. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Objectivity - things that can actually be proven - are things that have an acceptable, unbais form of measure (to a degree. There can be slight differences in opinion as to how to read that measure, but that's the human element). I'm honestly astonished by all the pseudo-intellectuals who don't understand that just because Metacritics takes a bunch of arbitrary numbers, none of which have any universal measure, and comes up with an average, you assume presenting that average you're making your opinion an unquestionable fact. Critique is not a science, it's an art, and I hope it stays that way. Life would be a lot more boring if every form of entertainment had go through a system set up by the fun police.

When it comes to video games, an all encompassing review database by gaming 'journalists' is the closest thing we have to go by.

It is objective regardless. Plus, that world you don't want to live in isn't so bad. I've been there.

I'm not entirely sure you know what an opinion is. If you believe that something is a fact, there is no way that can be an opinion. It is simply someone who doesn't know the truth.

This can be applied to anyone who disagrees.

Again, that's not what we're arguing about. As usual. We're arguing about objective vs subjective. You are confusing the two, while everyone else is telling you otherwise.

I didn't know everyone with an account on this site has told me otherwise.

Seriously, though, this isn't something you can have an opinion on. Activision's success with the franchise isn't pure luck, it's nothing of that sort. Its marketing team, its track record, its qualuty products (regarding Call of Duty), are all superb. Average games don't look sell well. They do not spring into the most hyped games of the decade, let alone the best selling.

You can sit there and dislike the franchise, but to say it's mediocre is quite an uneducated accusation.

I never said all average games sell well. In fact, I never said COD was average...
Looks like you jumped the gun

Please read the previous post from: Chrono Cross for further details.

^ Psst everyone stopped caring yesterday.

"Close" isn't good enough. This isn't government work, you're saying something is a science. Prove it. I already provided my evidence - the dictionary. Where's yours?

Everyone who has an account on this site stopped caring yesterday?

But we started this discussion today?

Close" isn't good enough. This isn't government work, you're saying something is a science. Prove it. I already provided my evidence - the dictionary. Where's yours?

The guy who hides behind the opinion game every time he can now wants to get involved in what is, or is not, proof.

http://www.metacritic.com/game

Close enough isn't good enough? The fact of the matter is, is that science in itself doesn't always have an immediate answer to everything. You think animal cruelty is horrible? Think of the plants you rip apart and the branches you break. The pain they feel.

Fifty eight pages in. Must be a new record!