<snort laugh>

Okay, now it's obvious this was simply a troll thread from the get-go. Have fun - I'm out.

You're clearly the only one guilty of that here.

Quality is not a necessity to call something a classic thus there are plenty of B movies
with low budgets, terrible acting, effects etc but because they are widely appreciated are
considered classics.

It should be obvious by now that not only are you lacking in understanding the meaning
of words like objective, or subjective but clearly the word classic as well.

Classic to you is simply defined by whatever you value aside from what others say.

No you haven't.

There's literally nothing you've offered other than your own idiosyncratic feelings on the
matter (which everyone has) and tried to pass them off as the definition of what should
and shouldn't be considered classic. That's the point of a classic - it's not defined by any
ONE person - which is what makes this thread and you a joke.

There aren't many articles or reviews deriding the Witcher2 or DoA that you can or have
pointed to. There's not an absence of online discussion and praise for these games.
When people reference the Witcher2 or DoA you don't see a mass of people asking -
What's that? It's quite the opposite. There's a general consensus however you quantify it,
reviews, discussion, sales, best of lists - whatever - about the appeal of these games -
which is why these titles still have relevance and are considered classic to many. It's
simply not a classic to you - but then who would care what is.

So your argument isn't that those games aren't well-liked on gog (they are, as can be seen by the reviews)- because "what the common people like is irrelevant to quality".

Your argument isn't that those games aren't praised by professional critics (they are)- because professional critics are shills, and shouldn't be trusted.

Your argument is that if you go to the user reviews on steam and gog, and only look at the longer negative reviews...they're negative and comprehensible.

And that's why those games shouldn't be considered contemporary classics?

It took you till the fourth page of the thread to figure that out? ;)

Ah, come on, just because the OP thinks that DA:O, PoE and Witcher 2 are terrible games, not everyone agrees. I can't tell much about the others as I've yet to play them, but these three I've actually finished, compared to many other "acclaimed" games. So yea, for me they count as classic.

And then he even suggests Pixel art and other indie stuff instead. Lmao.

you should read some of his reviews....for games he's of course never bought or played.

At least now we can filter for reviews of owners. That's a step in the right direction.

I'm (pick one or more):

- sick at the moment
- a Positive Patty
- a sucker
- giving the benefit of the doubt

Probably the third option. Definitely the first. ; )

@singx Yes, quality IS necessary to call something a classic. You just arent able to understand what quality is, like most of GOG users, hence the decline of the curation. I clearly explained why these games shouldnt be called classics, and more than once. My argument was more than pointing at reviews. At this point if you arent even able to achieve basic reading comprehension I will offer you the same level of intellectual laziness and call you a troll for ignoring my points.

@babark My argument is that there isnt one person here (not one) who can demonstrate how the listed games are worthy of being called classics beyond subjective enjoyment and critical response. For the games that are actual classics I would be able to demonstrate such a thing, can you?

@blotunga Think you would be able to expand your thoughts beyond "I liked it therefore it was good"? The indie games I named will still remembered in 20 years as some of the best games of their genre. How can you even call these games "other indie stuff" when they are all unique masterpieces? These games are part of the reason why pixel art and indie games boomed.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-28-2013/tpy8GR.gif

"Yes, quality IS necessary to call something a classic."
Gone With the Wind sucks.

I don't mind or care what GOG lists as "contemporary classics" but just want to point out that it somehow sounds like a paradox. Something alone the lines of "peaceful shooters", "boring adventures", "recent antiques", "contemporary classics", ...

A classic must have stood the test of time.

rimshot

It isn't - I've already covered why. You've yet to offer any opposing reason - just another unsupported assertion.

What's next for you - an angry letter to Criterion Collection insisting they remove Russ Meyer's Beyond the Valley of the Dolls from their catalog?

Your shtick of appealling to yourself as the ultimate authority is tiresome and a poor substitute for an argument you don't have.

Yes. Because you say so.

(And I imagine also stomped your foot and held your breath - just not for as long as most of us would like.)

You don't have an argument- you have a fallacy called appeal to irrelevent authority.

(In this case you.)

Well your coverage was wrong, the basic definition of the word 'classic' proves that. You cant be thick enough to argue with a dictionary now can you?

I do have an argument and it grows stronger as you actively dodge it, because it proves how you are unable to even scratch it. Typical snowflake trying to argue on the internet rofl, always trying to discredit to avoid having to formulate a proper argument. Cant be proven wrong if you dont need to try, right? (Love how you talk about 'us' like you're part of something, typical GOGer mentality)

Ill restate it for the others: there isn't one person here who is able to demonstrate how these games are worthy of being called classics by explaining how they stand out from the rest beyond subjective enjoyment and critical acclaim.