Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Here is probably another unpopular opinion: Website Game Critics like IGN or Gamespot should not be the judge of wither or not a game is good. and this is why. Oh and Battlefield 4, a severely broken game on release somehow managing to get scores of 80. seriously, i hate that game so much and this game getting good score as well. what with it's On-disk DLC BS, and Capcom not even considering fixing the x-box verison.

Yet you refuse to explain why it is proof. How is it that averages compiled from dozens of sites, all of which have their own scales, many of which have wildly different interpretations depending on the individual in question, actually amount to an objective measure? You tell me: what is the difference between an 82% and an 83% when one of the numbers that makes up average A is a 7/10 review where the reviewer praised the game to the sun while Average B has a 7/10 review where the reviiewer damns it to hell? There is no standardization, and without one, it's just a compilation of opinions, with an average that gives you a hazey idea that a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" would be better at conveying.

I need a weekly podcast with CanisWolfred, Chrono_Cross, and kkslider[random numbers].

"Chrono Cross shipped 850,000 and 650,000 units in Japan and abroad respectively."

"As of January 2013, the game had shipped 6.6 million copies worldwide" - about Final Fantasy XIII

assuming we're talking about popularity still. I tl;dr for my own sanity.

I kinda just skimmed, but I'm pretty sure the argument is now about dictionaries.

I would not be surprised if it was actually about chicken pot pie now.

@Mickey Now you're exaggerating. No one would have a scale like either of those you mentioned.

You name the site that appears on Metacritic, it's credible. It's a touchy subject, no doubt, but like I said, it's the best we've got to objectivety regarding video games. If Call of Duty was mediocre, its ratings would not be in the late 80s, mid 90s range. Games can be judged from numerous different aspects. From its gameplay to its controls, it all counts.

It can be compared to its predecessors, its successors, even non-related franchises in the same genre. Accumulating numbers from averages is a well organized, efficient way to rate or, in this case, evaluate something. It's math, it's science. It's what we have to objectively glance at a video game and determine its quality. Yes, I would much rather cycle through non-gaming journalists every five or so years to keep it even more credible, but that's not the way it is, unfortunately.

Sales number are also a great way to determine quality.

Oh, and if you think I'm nostalgic over Chrono Cross like a deranged fanboy (assuming you're trying to get personal considering my username and you're comparing it to a different RPG hoping to get me riled up), you obviously don't know me well enough to try that.

Yes.

I'm kinda going on a tangent based on the above, as well as going back to the "Objectivity vs. Subjectivity" argument that I definitely was not done talking about from earlier in the thread. The whole "popularity" argument is a strawman that I don't want to deal with.

That's weird considering you posted that within twenty fours of our debate's first post.

Do you want me to buy you a watch? haha

Why would you do that to me?

@Chrono_Cross There is no use arguing with you. You obviously aren't going too see the facts (or the opinions, for that matter), so I'm done.

I suggest everyone does the same

First off, I wasn't exaggerating too much. I've seen games get 7/10 from different sites, and because of their different scoring systems, those numbers meant completely different things. I promise I'll provide proof in the morning (Gamespot and RPGFan will be the sites I'll be getting them from). That is the problem. That site takes an average set of numbers that have nothing to do with eachother to come up with the overall score. How are you able to discern quality from that?

You do realise that plants lack the nervous system required to feel pain? Exactly the same reason why cutting the umbilical cord doesn't hurt the baby, no nerves.

Should have got GotY last year, I found it that good

Just for the sake of sane human beings, I felt I should clarify my point about Call of Duty. It was a super general thing, not meant to be definitive of even my opinion, and in general I didnt explain it. Basically, on average Call of Duty is fairly in the middle for an FPS. Some of them are better, some worse, but the best games are like maybe kinda close to the level of a truly great game, imo. And the worst just test my patience and go between mediocre and boring. I haven't played every COD so I don't want to say they're definitively mediocre even on average, but they at least don't do enough to justify their popularity nor their hatred.

So basically great game > best COD >>>>>> COD on average >>>>>>>>> worst COD > bad game

@shaneoh There was actually some research on that, IIRC, and while they don't have "nerves" they do seem to react to damage, and even react when nearby plants get hurt. I'd have to look that up again, I forgot what they tested as the reaction...

We're talking about averages, not individual reviews.

I'm not sure why you're diving so deep in an attempt to prove me wrong. If the average of a game interests you for whatever reason and you come across that 7/10 on RPGfan, read the review. It's why it's there to begin with.

How are you able to discern quality from that?

How do you withhold the audacity to not feel concern for our planet's vegetation?