| SWORDF1SH said: You are obsessed with the meaning of opinion to the point you will try and find something out of nothing so you can prove to everyone that you know what it means. First You need to clarify if it's an opinion. Samus Aran - "Well, I've never seen anyone say that. My guess is you're talking about their first party support. (I think) Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year." That does not show it's an opinion. What I added in brackets is an example what can make it an opinion. I will show how you can use Metacritic as a fact in a minute. spemanig - "No, he didn't. You just read his opinion incorrectly. He didn't need to clarify anything. The way he structured his statement and the context in which he stated it was enough for anyone to be able to reasonably deduce that it was an opinion of his. There is absolutely no circumstance what-so-ever where the sentence 'the PS4 only has one decent exclusive so far this year' could ever be anything other than an opinion, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it should ever be misinterpreted as being a fact or "stated as a fact" outside of a literal lack of understanding from the reader on what does and does not constitute as an opinion." Whole paragraph is full of it and what context? There is absolutly nothing in those sentences that suggests an opinion. I mean I get it if the conversation was continuing from "what's your favourite games" or something but it wasn't. Second I do not go for this pretentious bullshit. By having the meaning of "opinion" in your signature doesn't give you the right to blindly go around picking fights and in the case the wrong fight for 2 reasons. Samus Aran clarified what he/she said and the issue was over until you came wading in like the "Opinion Meaning" police. The other reason, you are wrong. spemanig - "Because it can be safely assumed that anyone participating in these forums is old enough to have been taught the meaning and application of an opinion." spemanig's sig o·pin·ion - /əˈpinyən/ - (noun)
Just a friendly reminder that I did, in fact, graduate kindergarten, that I do, in fact, understand what an opinion is, and that I am, in fact, aware that whatever I just said was one. Carry on. :^) Seriously who do you think you are? I'm aware you have admitted one of your intentions on this site is to wind people up. But what's the point in having this cynical demeanor? Third Now how can this - "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" - be considered a fact. I thought it would be quite easy to grasp but here goes. One kindergarten lesson of opinion and fact coming up. So we're going to use Metacritic as the example here because most of the time when people talk about quality of a game they use Metacritic. Metacritic is one of a few places that subjective reviews can be looked at objectively. Here's what Metacritic says about the average scores. http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores
So we can say that to metacritic says that games over 90 is "Excellent" right. The only new game in 2015 to score over 90 was Bloodborne. The rest are below 90. Now can you see how "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" can be used as fact. This is why I was trying to get clarification. He had just been talking about Metacritic in he's previous post so wanted him/her to clarify if they've played Sony's 2015 games or come to that conclusion using Metacritic. We cleared it up and that was that. In future if you want to talk to anybody about anything, do not use the same attitude. People will not listen to you and it only cause friction and arguments. I'm assuming you're a clever person but that attitudes just makes you look like an idiot. |
I'm not.
1. No, he doesn't. Excellent is a qualitative word. It can't be objective at all. There's no objective measure of excellence. Nothing can be objectively "excellent," which means that a statement like "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" obviously a subjective opinion. After that, the only thing that would need clarification is of whom the opinion belongs to. Since he's the one saying it, that much is obvious. Of course that's what he thinks. He's the one saying it. The only reason he'd need to clarify the holder of the opinion is if he was talking about someone elses opinion, which he wasn't. No clarification needed. Just basic english and reading comprehension.
When you write, the argumentative stance is assumed. "I think" is an implicit preface to all you say. The reader already knows that you offer him/her your convictions with the assurance of certainty. When you see newspaper editorials, they don't say "In our opinion, Donald Trump doesn't have a chance of being elected for President," they just say "Donald Trump doesn't have a chance of being elected for President." The only reason for any confusion is solely on behalf of the reader, who didn't approach the work with the approapriate foreknowledge of the way and rules by which English is read.
2. Not the topic of this debate at all. Why are you getting wound up?
3. "Metacritic is one of a few places that subjective reviews can be looked at objectively."
Absolutely not. Being placed on a numerical averaging tool does not suddenly make "Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" an objective statement at all. Excellence doesn't suddenly become objective when it's organized. Opinions don't become fact just because you add them up and divide them by five. It's still a bunch of opinions. Bloodborne could have a 0 on Metacritic, and it would hold absolutely no effect on the validity of that statement. The PS4 could have 20 games with a higher Metascore than Bloodborne gaving been released in 2015, and it would hold absolutely no effect on the validity of his statement.
"Bloodborne was their only excellent game this year" is opinion. It was obvious that it's an opinion the first time reading, and it was obvious who's opinion it was the first time reading. It wasn't and couldn't possible have been "stated as a fact," and it needed absolutely no further clarification, what-so-ever.
