Which is the most unfairly hated?

[Veknoid_Outcast]

Qwark said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

So, you're saying that popularity and quality are directly related? That the more popular a game is, the better it is? Or that the more popular in critical circles it is, the better it is?

And are you arguing that a forum user's opinion on a game is purely subjective, but that when he or she is in the employ of a publication or web site, his or her opinion suddenly becomes objective?

A forum user is not a trained reviewer it isn't it's job and will not spend 4 hours to write the review of a game. Neither will a forum poster consult others for the review, if you value the review of a forumposter over a professional review, be my guest. But I prefer the reviews of pu.nl, dualshockers.com etc. over user reviews any day. A game is objectively good for the masses if it scores good critically and even better if it manages to claim a few awards. A game can become objectively great if there is a concensus among gamers that the game is great. This list includes games like Orcarina of time, Super Mario 64/Galaxy, FF 7, Uncharted 2, GTA 5, Halo 3, the last of us etc.

How do you measure that training? If I spent four hours writing a review and posted it in this thread is it any less "objective" than if I spent four hours writing a review and IGN posted it?

As for your popularity argument, that's a logical fallacy. Just because a majority or plurality vote for something or prefer something doesn't mean that thing is true or good. This whole consensus thing doesn't hold up either. Where is the cutoff? If 90% of people polled love something, then it's great? The 10% who hate it are irrational? What if it's just 51%? Do we discount the opinions of 49%? Is the majority objective simply by the virtue of being the majority?

Can you provide answers for these questions?