Locknuts said:
I never said that Metacritic is objective. I said neither a speculation thread nor the statement that 'Nintendo makes the best games' is objective. Despite it being a collection of opinions, that Metacritic backs Rol's statement is pretty obvious to me though. When looking at all time best scores an astonishing number of games rated 90-99 are published by Nintendo. Cherry picking Nintendo's worst generation seems a little silly to me, especially when they're already off to a better start in terms of game quality this generation. That said, getting into what is truthful and what isn't will get very messy very quickly. A good example is the 'conversation' we are having right now. I believe that I am telling the truth and you do not. This is because truth is subjective. Popluar opinions have often been cited as truth until a new popular opinion took its place. I'll never convince you of that though and so you will continue to see my opinion as nonsense even though others might agree with me. Just to be clear though, all I originally said was: antagonistic thread + some truth = bites. I never said more truth = more pages. That was your assumption, as was the need for objectivity in a discussion about videogames, which are creative works and therefore inherently subjective. |
I never said that you called metacritic objective. i said that the fact that you called a bad prediction "no more objective" than someone's gaming preferences showed a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the concept of objectivity. Also, I'd say the Wii definitely faired better than the Gamecube in terms of metaritic. Even if you disagree, It had nothing to do with cherrypicking. The main reason I chose the Wii as an example is because somebody made a thread on it so that's the information I had. The other reason is that this thread is about who makes the best games currently, not who made the best games 20 years ago. Using the most recent console obviously makes the most sense.
"Popluar opinions have often been cited as truth until a new popular opinion took its place." Of course they have. And the people who did so were idiots. The fact that people like to mislabel things as truth because it fits their agenda does nothing to support your posts.
I know exactly what you said in your first post. The simple fact is that antagonistic thread = bites. You threw in this idea of truth unnecessarily because it suits your biases. Nothing about a thread getting bites implies that it is inherently truthful, no matter how much you want it to. And when did I say that more truth = more pages? I can't seem to find that anywhere in my posts. It would seem you're the one making assumptions.
