And you are saying that just because I didn't make specific examples, that my opinion is 'subjective' and thus not deserving any serious attention. The fact is that my opinion is still much less general than yours, and although I did not make examples, I said that in most games I tried, the characters are dumb, the battles are a mess, the story is nonsense, etc etc.

Which means, my argument is still far more sound than yours, for a lack of examples do not necessarily invalidate what one says. What do you expect I do, make a thoughtful review of every game I tried? That would take me 6 weeks. I can just as well throw the ball back at you and ask YOU to make examples of truly masterful games that will sweep anyone off their feet, and why.

And ultimately, yes I have no doubt made generalizations: I have not tried to hide that. But I still said why I made them.

And you still haven't. It follows that even if mine are generalizations, they are still far better than the ones you made.

To further explain, I did not make examples with a specific intent in mind, because I know that if I mention these games, a battle will start here, and I have no time for that.

So here's my simple question: name to me TWO games that:

1. has the characters and NPCs full of personality and wit
2. has a sense of humour (but not too much, for too much of it becomes annoying)
3. has sense of tragedy and great drama
4. has a highly compelling story from start to end, that NEVER gets boring. Basically, a work of solid literature.
5. has a battle system that is imaginative and intuitive, yet never simplistic or brainless, that keeps you on the edge of your seat everytime.
6. and, ultimately, is a game that made you want to play it ALL OVER, from START to END, at least TWICE.

AND, to just top it off: I probably tried ALL the games you can think of, except the ones made in the last 6 years or so. Which means, all I said make it all far more than just ' a few generalizations'. But even if you want to call it that, it's still a much better one than the ones YOU made. For I have tried all the games I can think of, and on - most platforms -.

I do have a couple of favourite games, but that's not important. The fact is that I have two or three favs out of trying dozens of supposedly the best games ever made. All carefully selected. I never just tried packs of random games, and always tried to be as selective as possible. And I kept seeing again and again that most games are just trash. They might look pretty and sound great, but ultimately there's very little else there.

Mine IS a generalization, because how else are you going to be able to make any judgements, otherwise?
Unless I were to write a long essay with solid proof and sources, there's no way that I can avoid a generalization. All I am saying is that mine isn't a WEAK generalization, and it's still stronger than yours, unless you can tell me specific cases where I am wrong, with facts. For example, by naming two games that do NOT fall into all the defects I have adequately explained until now. Heck, I'll make you a concession: name to me even ONE game that is devoid of any of these defects.

Because I have NOT found it.

Look, I'll go even further with the generalizations, and say this: it's more reasonable to think that most games are bad, than to think that most games are excellent.
There is a giant size generalization for you, and a very daring one. Now YOU prove me wrong.

As interesting as a discussion about objective quality in art would be, this is obviously trolling.

Oh noes, there's nothing in there.

By the way, yours is a fallacy called a 'circular argument'. ''Why is this black?'' ''Because it's black. '' This is an invalid argument.

Your statement doesn't explain why what I said is a 'subjective opinion'. Just that it is, and end of story.

Let's say that you stand in a corner on a busy street, and you see most people walking, but one person is jumping. So you say to yourself: 'Most people on the street, walk, and do not jump'. That's a generalization. But just because it's one, doesn't mean it's a 'subjective opinion', or that the argument is false. If there had been a thousand people observing the street instead of one, you can be pretty sure all of them would say something similar. Unless they are drunk, crazy, etc.

I doubt many people would say: 'Nah, that's subjective, for most people in the street, jump.'

A 'subjective opinion' is when I say that Ferrari looks cooler than Lamborghini. Or when I say that Italian food is the best in the world. But if I am saying that Ferrari is a monster car, or that Italian food tastes better than a cheesburger, would you say: 'well, that's subjective opinions' ?

You make the mistake of dismissing generalizations as false arguments, or as 'subjective opinions'. But these are all different things.

My final consideration is this: (I don't have the time to read the other comments, and I have to move on).

It is a VALID argument if someone said to me: well, MOST people LOVED XYZ game, but a few, like you, did not.

And here's the biggie: who's right? The 3000 people who liked it, or the 30 gamers who didn't like it?

That's an interesting question, and the answer would depend on this:

if the 30 gamers just happened not to like THAT one game, then I'd say the 3000 people are more objective than the 30 other people.

But if the 30 other gamers didn't like a LOT of other games, then there's a big problem. For it would mean that the other 3000 are too easily impressionable and easy to please, but the 30 gamers have far higher standards and expectations.

And of course, we are assuming the 30 whiners are GAMERS.

After all, that's how it works for most other products, does it not? Most people watch the latest Marvel movie. But few will watch The Seventh Seal. Does that means that the Marvel movie is better? Or that most movies are excellent? No, it does not.

Here's the ultimate generalization: in the end, all considered, most games are not worth playing. Maybe worth a dabble for a couple of hours. For most of them are bad and the rest have many defects. Some of the better games have a few good things about them, but inevitably they are far less numerous than the defects.

thank god :P


joking! I'm just joking! :D

80% of games on GOG are trash, im still waiting for old soccer games that are good and other old good triple A titles instead we are just getting either crowdfunding/kickstarter indie games here and weeb crap.

wheres quake
wheres dynasty warriors
wheres call of duty 1 - 5 ( suprised there not here since kotick is a greedy fucker)
wheres duke nukem 3d
wheres final fantasy games 1 - 7
wheres euro truck simulator 2
wheres pro evo soccer pre 2015

and many more. instead gog just gave up and want us to download there galaxy 2.0 client and link our details to other launchers so we can play other launchers games through GOG.

guess GOG is just becoming another indie game company i doubt il see any good triple A games from the past

and one last thing. I wrote this:

''The only games that stood the test of time, to me, are very few and far between, and this is probably true of your cases as well.''

If that's 'subjective', then it means that ALL games stood the test of time to you, and you liked them all, or that NONE stood the test of time, and you liked none.

Anyways, most of you people are too lazy when thinking. Too many games. It just proves that I was right and I have been doing the right things by trying to avoid mindless entertainment. :)

Does mindless entertainment include pointlessly saying most games suck on a website dedicated to gaming and having your OP and latest post contradict each other?

I take it back; I wasn't joking.

Yep,I agree.

Mmmmmh, all considered, I say that all people who low rated all my posts, have VERY HIGHLY subjective opinions, which hardly makes me buy into them. Let's face it, they were rubbed off the wrong way because they know I am.....right?

For the opposite of love is not spite, but indifference ;)

I, on the other hand, either high rated one or two comments, or didn't low rate anyone's comments. Instead, the ones I disagree with, I simply ignored.

Precisely because they are to me worthless :)

As I have not read any capable and robust argument, I thereby conclude that most games are trash indeed, although some have nice bits here and there that are still outnumbered by glaring defects, and that my impressions, weighted over a long period of time through dozens of the 'best' games, are accurate enough for me to reach said conclusions.

And that most people are too easily entertained and are unable to form a more critical outlook of the games they spend all that inordinate amount of time on.

:)

18 years? XD

I have socks older than you.