https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classic As an adjective:
1.a. : serving as a standard of excellence :
of recognized value 4.b .:
typical As a noun:
2.a. :
a work of enduring excellence 3. :
a typical or perfect example https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/classic As an adjective:
2: Very typical of its kind.
Since basic definitions was mentioned...
Claims not backed up, and other objective flaws in the argument:
Post 1: "More than half of the games there have recieved terrible ratings from GOGers and the gaming community in general." Indeed, there are
some low ratings. And they STILL received overwhelmingly positive overall scores and reviews.
Post 4: " despised by most RPG fans that have a critical opinion". And loved by a bunch of other RPG fans who also have a critical opinion. Show us some of these critical opinions that say the game is despised. It's your assertion, so back it up.
Post 12: "Also isnt it exactly what GOG is doing? Subjectively promotive games with tags like 'classic' like it was objective?" This is exactly what you're doing. Same post: "But these games are objectively bad if you analyse them."
Post 17: "Those who write critical reviews of said games." In answer to the question, "So who are these people with such a critical opinion then?" Like who? Link some, and
tell us why they count more than the positive reviews do. We get that people have gripes. That's fine. It seems like you think those are the only opinions worth considering.
Post 20: "But thats a major shill review. Im talking about actual reviews by gamers, not paid reviewers." Later on, in Post 85, you imply that average players' opinions are not to be trusted. Goalpost moved.
Post 29: "If you want an objective review of DAO just browse GOG or Steam, pick the longest negative review from someone who has enough vocabulary to describe in-game flaws and its all there." Again, why do those negative reviews count but the overwhelming number of positive reviews do not? Word count?
Post 49: "Actually there is a certain method called an analysis. You can easily analyse certain aspects of a game and break down the qualities and flaws." But you're concentrating only on the flaws, and then not backing this up by actually telling people what those flaws are. An analysis looks at all aspects, good and bad. You're concentrating on the bad.
Post 52: "I did say it, the flaws can be verified and confirmed to be true. You can enjoy these games if you want but should be able to realize that the burden of their objective flaws is too much to label them as classics. " Which flaws deem them unworthy? Okay, POE has English / grammar flaws. So do most of your posts. Guessing that a bunch of the negative critical reviews also have writing flaws, too, not that you've decided to link us even a single example. Now what?
Post 56: "
It needs to go beyond that to be tagged a classic. What does DAO do to
stand out from the other RPGs?" Actually, it doesn't need to be more than a typical example. See the dictionary definitions above.
Post 59: "Those "critical" negative reviews hold more weight than the non-critical positive reviews that simply praise it without going into detail". In Post 72, I told you I looked at critical reviews and found them overwhelmingly positive. Here's where to find 60+ of them:
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-origins/critic-reviews Now, why do negative reviews hold more weight than positive reviews, even when the positive reviews dive just as deep? Again, it seems like you're ignoring all of the positive stuff because it doesn't fit the argument that you've repeatedly neglected to back up.
Post 70: "some of the worst games ever created" Back this up? Let me guess: the 'critical reviews' spiel yet again.
Besides, if you want worst games ever, I suggest you start by looking at stuff from Digital Homicide. If the listed games are the worst ever, then you've certainly led a charmed life in this hobby.
Post 70: "Typical 'prove that you're right or you're wrong' comment here." Because you're the one making the initial assertion. How about some data / links beyond your opinion?
Post 70: "I would say that its everyone else that is trying to dismiss
objective flaws by calling them opinions. Everyone is trying to avoid delving into an objective and critical analysis in fear of being wrong." For the umpteenth time, links? You told us to look for ourselves. We did, at the same sources you allude to: user reviews. We found the opposite of what you assert. Then we looked at other reviews. Same thing, the opposite of what you assert.
Post 75: "Can you say that DAO stands out from other games of its genre?" Dictionary definition says it doesn't have to stand out; one of the definitions is 'a typical example'. Do we need to argue the definition of "typical"?
Post 75: ""Sorry you can't think outside your box."
What makes you think so? What is 'the box'?"
Well, you started with "Then what other RPGs games did you play then (that came out before DAO that is)?
You need to have previous RPG experience to properly criticize DAO." in post 56, and further boxed it in with "It seems like you havent even played the most praised RPGs (Planescape, Fallout, Baldurs Gate, Arcanum) which is why you have a high opinion of DAO. Those said games are the main reason why DAO feels [your subjective opinion] bland." in Post 59. So you set up the arbitrary box: one needs to have some certain level of experience, and one needs to have played certain old RPGs.
Post 85: "@singx Yes, quality IS necessary to call something a classic". Quality is NOT necessary. See the definitions of "classic". It CAN be a criteria, but does not have to be. Even so, you haven't shown why any of these titles are not quality. "Critical reviews" blah blah. Show some, and explain why they outweigh all of the positive critical reviews.
Post 85: "You just arent able to understand what quality is,
like most of GOG users, hence the decline of the curation." But in opening paragraph of Post 1 you stated, "More than half of the games there have recieved terrible ratings from GOGers and the gaming community in general." So do their opinions count (Post 1), or don't they (Post 85)? Goalpost moved.
Post 85: "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." You've repeatedly stated that objective 'critical response' is what deems these games unworthy of your arbitrary definition of "classic", and here you poo-poo the importance of same. Goalpost moved. Actual definition ignored.
Post 90: "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?" You're right. See the top of this post. Stop arguing with the dictionary.
Post 90: "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." 1. Dictionary definition states it need not meet your arbitrary criteria. They can be "typical" examples of the genre. 2. Why does critical acclaim not matter but negative "critical response" does?
