Why can't gamers diferentiate between their personal taste and quality.

[Captain_Tom]

Veknoid_Outcast said:

Captain_Tom said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:
I would argue the exact opposite, that a game is good precisely because one likes it, and is bad because one doesn't like it. What I don't understand is when someone says "it's a bad game, but I like it," or, conversely, "it's a great game but I don't like it." If you like it, it's good, at least to you. But you can't speak for anyone else anyway, so YOU are all that matters.

So the OP's point is that people like you can't tell the difference.  I really kinda hate Halo, but I can see objectively what made the first 2 or so such a big hit.  I even have to give them credit for revolutionary game mechanics.  It's not that hard to stand back and try to be objective...

It's one thing to hate a game and acknowledge its influence. It's quite another to personally dislike a game and "objectively" love it. If a game matches my personal criteria for greatness, it IS great. Why should I bother trying to guess what others will think. I can only judge something against my own standards, my own personal truth. If you think you can identify some objective, universal truth, you're fooling yourself.

-It is universal that Demon's Souls suffered from a needlessly choppy framerate at times

-It is universal that TLoU combined a great and unique combat system with storytelling that put 90% of survival movies to shame.

-I is universal that Halo simplified the weapon system, added third person vehicles, introduced a form of regenerating health, and put it in a package anyone can pick up and enjoy.  

 

No one is saying you have to "Love" the game; just look at it and realize that it does do certain things well and then weight that with what most people expect from games.  Is it unique?  Does it do things people love better?  

So the OP is asking:  "Why is it so hard for YOU to do these things?"  Answer that.