vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
Because it is a better game. The Hurt Locker is a much better movie than Twilight, and Twilight made tons more money. That doesn't mean that Twilight wasn't worth less than a bucket of shit.
Edit: Changed the example to something more recent.
|
You realize thats completely subjective right?
|
No, it really isn't. The same way you can have bad/good movies, bad/good books, bad/good songs, etc. you can have bad/good games.
|
No it really is. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of other people that actually do are wrong.
I think games with healthpacks aren't as fun as games without (hence not as good as games with regenitive health)
|
False. Things such as level design, game mechanics, depth of story, character development, etc. etc. are objective, which measure gameplay objectively.
Furthermore, the whoel argument "millions of other people like it" is a shit argument. Do you know that in 1969, when The Beatles released Abbey Road, and Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix were in their prime, the number one song was "Sugar, Sugar", by The Archies. Just think of how retarded it is to say "yeah millions of others obviously liked Sugar Sugar therefore The Archies were the best in 1969."
Basically, it served the lowest common denominator. Ehen you serve the lowest common denominator, you get the broadest audience and therefore biggest numbers. However to get that you have to have the blandest and dumbest aspects of the medium. For video games, that aspect is making sure the game is friendly for newbies/noobs/scrubs/chobs/etc. and so regenerative health ( and while I'm at it, third-person viewpoint too) Therefore your argument of "millions like it too" is absolutely worthless.
|
