Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aerie]

I'll pop in and reiterate what a few other people have said: "Good" is a subjective qualifier, and appealing to popularity is fallacious. How much you liked it, how much some random professional reviewer liked it, how high a ranking it has, all that shit is irrelevant to how much I liked it.

Come off it. It's not a fallacy to point to the thousands of people being entertained by something when you make the argument that it is good at it's purpose of entertaining people.

Not only this, but remember that invalidating an argument because it contains a fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy.

While it's true that your personal opinion of a game may vary, the fact that the game has received positive reviews is a prime indicator of its quality (else we wouldn't bother making or looking at reviews in the first place.) While there certainly are outliers on either end (good games with bad reviews, and bad games with good reviews), there is an established correlation between popularity and quality and it holds true in the overwhelming majority of cases.

[Criptfeind]

Not only this, but remember that invalidating an argument because it contains a fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy.

No, I don't think Kai was making any sort of fallacy here, just wrong. Your point is not big and complex. You do not have multiple arguments. Your point is that since people like it, it is good. Which I agree with, but if it can be pointed out that people don't like it, or that people liking it does not matter, your whole argument crumbles.

As pointed out in your link, that does not mean that you are wrong, but in the place of your arguments many people on this thread have pointed out issues with it, all of which I disagree that it makes the game bad, but only because the game is pretty clearly good.

Without prior knowledge and the information available to me, as in, if I was reading this thread in a vacuum, if your argument was negated I would be forced to assume BO2 is a bad game.

[Aerie]

No, I don't think Kai was making any sort of fallacy here, just wrong.

I was talking about Kai's point, actually, agreeing with you.

Your point is not big and complex. You do not have multiple arguments. Your point is that since people like it, it is good. Which I agree with, but if it can be pointed out that people don't like it, or that people liking it does not matter, your whole argument crumbles.

The purpose of a game is to entertain. A good game entertains well. If more people are entertained than not entertained, then the game is doing its job of entertaining, and is thus, by definition, a good game.

[Criptfeind]

Yes. I know that. I am agreeing with your original point. I just don't agree that Kai was being fallacious.

[kerlc]

My friend pointed a pencil at me and asked: "Is this yours?", to which I replied: "No, it's a pencil."

[10ebbor10]

Oh, just a note about Indie developers. I always thought that an Indie (Independent) developer is one who makes the games with the publisher interference. It doesn't matter if they use a publisher to sell their game afterwards, as long as there are no publishers directly involved in the production process (which can be both a good and a bad thing), the studio is independent.

[miauw62]

And I would like to defend TF2, even tough it's a few pages late. What is there to hate? Valve isn't exactly milking for money, and if you play on a regular basis, you can get most items that you want. I'll admit that your inventory is pretty limited before you buy something and that your drops are non-tradeable. The game itself is pretty fun if you figure out what classes suit you and how they work. It's very skill-based. A good medic can take out a bad heavy all by himself. Engineers too. WITHOUT their sentry. Playing on a pub server as a quite good regular is enjoyable for me. At this point I realize that with the direction this discussion is going (definition of "good") this will probably be used against me. Ah well, I won't let this wall of text go to waste.

Oh, and on CoD Bo2, if you look at it without any context, just the game itself, it's a pretty good game in my eyes. The campaign is short and sucks, but it's basically a multiplayer game anyway. When you add in the context of the franchise tough, you see that it's just whatever the publisher is milking the community.

[kerlc]

Personally, i don't like CoD. I think that its gameplay is stale, the story needless gunwank and projection, and that its graphics are pretty, but dull.

What i will say is that it is fun, and that it is incredibly well designed. While yes, the core gameplay is stale (point gun at human, shoot), it is also like a great action film. Dumb and pointless? Perhaps. Stale and done many times in a more intelligent manner? Definetly. Still fun? Hell yes.

While fun is a relative term, the definition of which varies from one person to another, if what you're looking for is an incredibly well orchestrated rollercoaster of adrenaline, and only adrenaline, i'd recommend CoD to you. If that's not your particular cup of tea, then stay away from it.

But random people on Multiplayer will always (or mostly) be dicks, because that's just human nature.

[Darvi]

He wasn't talking about games in particular.

[kerlc]

In order to stop this rather silly CoD discussion, i shall quote a stupid thing i've done earlier today

My friend pointed a pencil at me and asked: "Is this yours?", to which I replied: "No, it's a pencil."

[Darvi]

That's not stupid, that's just being literal minded.

Unless it was yours, in which case it still wasn't stupid.

[kerlc]

It was not mine, just a random pencil someone left lying around.

[Slayerhero90]

In order to stop this rather silly CoD discussion, i shall quote a stupid thing i've done earlier today

My friend pointed a pencil at me and asked: "Is this yours?", to which I replied: "No, it's a pencil."

I don't get it.


But just a slight addon to a discussion I missed out on, different FPSs can appeal to different people. I love the kind with different classes that actually feel like different gameplay, like TF2 and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare (if only because I love playing archer). I don't care for the entirely gray, just-a-few-bullets-kill-you-realism. I tend to just ignore anybody who says anything offensive. Back to the pencil discussion!

[kerlc]

In order to stop this rather silly CoD discussion, i shall quote a stupid thing i've done earlier today

My friend pointed a pencil at me and asked: "Is this yours?", to which I replied: "No, it's a pencil."

I don't get it.


Back to the pencil discussion!

there is only the pencil.

[kaijyuu]

While it's true that your personal opinion of a game may vary, the fact that the game has received positive reviews is a prime indicator of its quality (else we wouldn't bother making or looking at reviews in the first place.) While there certainly are outliers on either end (good games with bad reviews, and bad games with good reviews), there is an established correlation between popularity and quality and it holds true in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of "quality" here. Your definition seems to be stating it's quality can be determined by the total number of people it entertains; Mine is specific to me, as I don't believe my opinion as to whether it was "good" or not carries any weight to anyone else. My opinion isn't any better (or worse) than theirs.

So I could claim the game is "good" and you claim it "bad" and neither would be wrong. That is what subjective means, after all.


As for my pointing out a fallacy being a fallacy, Neo already explained that: it's only a fallacy when my pointing out a fallacy is used to discredit arguments that aren't supported by the original fallacy, which I don't believe I was doing.

As for exceptions to appealing to popularity, if we assume whether something is "good" or not is determined by popularity, of course using popularity isn't a fallacy. However, I don't believe that is what "good" is determined by, and nor do most art critics (whether you think such people are valid authorities on the subject is up to you, though). My definition is more personal; if I liked it, it was "good." Other people might have more objective qualifiers like "sophistication" but I don't think you have to limit yourself to their definitions either.