ITT: Terms someone can use to make their opinion utterly irrelevant to you

ITT: Terms someone can use to make their opinion utterly irrelevant to you

...

...

Any reply that doesn't have the intent of exchanging arguments for a conversation, but resorts to buzzwords instead, e.g.


Also sage for not vidya

...

"terms"

...

...

...

>When someone says something along the lines of "Yeah, it fails when you look at it like a __ kind of game, it sucks. But if you look at it like a _____ sort of game (usually b-movie or something along those lines), its suddenly really good!"

It feels like they're making excuses to avoid confronting that a game they like might be shit.Of course if you think of something retarded as funny, you'll see it differently. But if a game can't succeed at what it set out to do, it won't suddenly be made good by pretending its something its not.

...

This. Whenever people claim a game gets better at a certain hour point, I always raise an eyebrow, especially when its more than 4-5 hours. Because at that point it took too fucking long to become interesting.

Are you one of those faggots that hate a game because it doesn't live up to its franchise, even though it's a perfectly good game on its own?


What about NieR which only gets good after you finish it once, yet that game is praised over here

No. I'm just suck of faggots who have to make up excuses to pretend their game is good. A game that doesn't live up is disappointing, but ultimately salvageable. A game where you need to look at it from an entirely different angle to get any enjoyment out of it is shit.

**And I never played NieR. But I stand by my claim. A game shouldn't wait till the last moment to be good. Its like saying "Taking a painful shit starts being good after 6 hours!" Well of course it does because at that point, you've probably gone numb.

you're just mad and entitled :^)

*just sick of faggots

Fucking hell.

Consider Devil's third, user. I can't speak for the quality of the game, but from what I've heard, Shit reviewers tried to play it like a TPS when it's really an action game, and disliked it in part because of that. Likewise, it's not hard to imagine some aut disliking God Hand because they take it too seriously.

I haven't played DT either so I can't say anything about it. And God Hand is one of those cases where I find it was actually trying to present itself like a silly game so I find judging it as a serious game is a lost cause. I'm talking shit that's trying to be taken seriously, but can't be enjoyed unless you have to pretend its about something entirely different, which I find especially happens with horror games.

When you say you need to look at a game from an entirely different angle do you mean purposefully handicapping yourself (like disabling HUD and stuff like that to make a casual game more difficult), or being accused of playing the game wrong?

Because if it's the first case then nobody's gonna argue a game's not shit just because of figuratively artificial fun, but if it's the 2nd case then playing the game wrong have made many people dislike a lot of games

Like for example MGSV, there's quite a few saying the gameplay is just average and when you see them play, you notice they're always doing the same shit, the same tactics and the same loadout for every mission and outpost, even though the game is all about having a shitload of toys to play with, that's where the fun comes from

Apathy because ignorance I can deal with.

Disagreement

Agreement

Neutrality

Mutual antagony

But apathy attacks the very idea of holding any opinion at all and often takes the form of the question.
WHOOOOOOO!?

I've seen some people argue for both. Both are retarded in my opinion. As I said, playing a game with a different perspective will obviously yield different results, but if you have to result to playing a game with a different idea than what it set out to be, then it failed at what it was trying to be and smacks to me of trying to get people to like garbage. Its like people who argue that something is better when you're drunk: fucking everything is better when you're drunk, doesn't mean its good.

Yeah, that's certainly fair; no matter how you look at it, games like RE1 or HotD are poorly written. On one hand, mindset can have a huge impact on how much someone enjoys a game–people enjoy objectively shitty games by turning their brain off–but on the other, how much any single person enjoys a game is not a good measure of it's objective quality.

Sensible, cultured tastes, user.

This tells me fucking nothing
This statement draws a distinction between a "good game" and "a good game by this franchise's standards". It may be true that your special franchise has always been held to a higher standard than other games, and it is likely that this isn't the case, but this statement is totally pointless as a criticism. If you make this statement, you should then follow it up with WHY such a distinction exists in the first place, and use this to explain in detail WHY the game in question failed to retain its merit as a "game from franchise X"
It's like people don't know what the fuck this word means. The term linear is used to describe the given scope of a thing. Open ended levels in a non-open world game (Thief for example) are not linear, and conversely it is possible for an open world game to be a linear experience; GTAV's missions are very, extremely linear; MGSV's Afghanistan map is essential a series of narrow passageways strung together, so the approach to an OPEN WORLD is linear, but many of the levels themselves are open ended.
Fuck off no one cares about your ideology
A game may have a shitty fanbase, and this may be a valid point of discussion, but this has no bearing on the game's overall quality. It isn't the game's fault, nor the creator's fault, that autism speaks.
Person1: Review copies effect the score an outlet gives
Person2: How can you say that when GTAV, one of the highest rated games ever, didn't hand out review copies?
This is some bullshit. I don't know if this is true or not, though if you go to metacritic you can see a slew of critic reviews that were published just the day before the game's release on gen 7. How the fuck would they be able to publish a review without a fucking review copy? They bought their own? How? Their reviews were published a day BEFORE the game hit retail.

Generally, fuck stupidity.

I disagree, most of the times "it gets good after x hours" is used to excuse poor game design, but in some cases you actually need the time to accomplish what the game is trying to do.

Monster Hunter games are really boring the first couple of hours but because that section is the tutorial, is a complex game with a lot of system that the player need to learn (the tutorials are fucking shit and a competent team could make them faster and more engaging but it would still not be as good as the actual game and still require a lot of your time)
Same with dwarf fortress, you need to read a good part of a full wiki before even starting but the payoff is a game that gives the player a insane amount of freedom.

In the case of NieR, in one hand, there is no real reason why it couldn't be good from the start, the combat is just kinda bland, but, the reason why people love it, the thing outstanding about the game, couldn't be done without making the player finish the game once. It needs that first playthrough of 20-ish hours to shine

I'm not a fan of it either, but if your only evidence to back that up is one shoehorned fag couple or a few niggers in the story, I couldn't care less.

Like I said, I like to give most games a grace period of about 5 hours to grab me, which I think is plenty of time to give a game the benefit of the doubt. With some RPGs I'll give it a bit longer, but if they don't have me after some time, then I'll stop caring. It needs to have something to keep my interest otherwise I won't care how it ends even if it offers me a free blowjob for seeing it through. You're free to like what you would, but if that's the case, then I don't think I could get into NieR. I need something to grab me, otherwise I'm kinda just putting myself through tedium when I could be doing a lot of better things that I'd enjoy.

...

"It's a good game! Just not a good (Insert series) game!"

What was wrong with this sentence? Obviously game play is king, having it look nice doesn't hurt the game as an experience, developer art is chastised for a reason.

He's not saying graphics are the most important thing; maybe he's saying that a game's visuals - art style and aesthetic - affect your experience to some degree? You could easily infer that. Anyway, the faggot claiming that Overwatch is exactly the same as TF2 is probably wrong here. I have never played either game in my life, and I don't intend on it, but unless someone who has great experience with both games can provide evidence for such an outlandish claim, "that this game is exactly the same as this other game" then I am inclined to view anyone who uses said claim as an idiot or, at the very least, uninformed. However, the guy who says it's "all hype and no substance" probably has a better chance at swaying people on his opinion if he can back it up with some meaningful observations. This is fucking imgur, though, so I doubt that will happen.

Cinematic
You know what that word means?
It means QTEs
it means linear corridors
it means hand holding
it means scripted levels

You know how they use that word to praise Uncharted and TLOU.
What so good about those games, the plataformer is almost as linear as Journey to the west, but at least Uncharted has a few secrets here and there.
The shotting is generic
the stealth is generic, the crafting and scavenging sistems are generic
teh only thing both games exell is presentation but other than that, watching a youtube playthorugh is just as fun as playing the game itself

The word ==Cincematic== to me means:
save your moeny, watch this on youtube

Same guy in both comments

It's even worse when that last one is referring to THE VERY LAST GAME IN YOUR PLOT-HEAVY SERIES.

Have you played MH4U, user? They sped up the early game, and you're into the meat of fighting monsters within the first hour or two.

using "shit" analogies makes you look pretty retarded

...

...

The point is to vote with your money. If you want to support/vote for some faggot dev shoehorning their propaganda in then that's your prerogative but it's a good argument nonetheless.

Turning it off rewards you though

...

None because I'm not an autistic faggot that gets triggered by the terms someone uses rather then the opinion itself.

Anything positive about slideshow tier fps.

...

When describing things they like:

When describing things they don't like

...

Forgot to mention two of them

Muh mods is fine if you pirate the game, like I would never recommend vanilla KOTOR 2 or VTMB to someone but once fixed with mods they are pretty good.

In any other industry no one would have the balls to say that to another consumer.

Problematic
Intersectional
Privilege
Misogynistic
Sexist
Racist
Anti-Semitic
Harassment
Narrative
Storytelling
Internalized
Harmful
Shaming
Invisible
Microaggressions
Diversity
Inclusion
Progress
Grow up
Entitled
White Supremacist
Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Queer, LGBT
Theory, Critical Theory
Male Gaze
Oppression
Art
Status Quo
Fragile, Pissbaby, Manchild, Baby, Boys, Toys, Teenage Boys
Patriarchy
Gender
Wage Gap, Gander Gap, Gap
Power
Advocacy
Protest
Activism
Actually it's about
Pronouns
You can say what you want, but don't-
Not Censorship
Freeze Peach
Mansplaining
Etc.

...

I've made that argument before, but never while under the illusion that the game was good.
For example, I'd never pay a dime for Until Dawn, but fuck me it's hilarious to watch the cast get slaughtered on YouTube

...

nobody gives a shit about a dead site like this enough to pay actual shills to come here

It make me trigger my nigger

Yeah that one's the worst. There isn't much a person can say that would just destroy the ability to debate something with one word, but characterizing everyone who dislikes something as "haters" is one of them. If the person just assumes everybody who dislikes something is simply blindly determined to hate the thing and therefore their opinion is irrelevant, it's impossible to debate them, because then you're a "hater" too.

Right into the trash.

Its like the alternative "cuck" except cannot be used in hilarious ways. Losing the argument? Scream PROJECTING and watch as they fumble around to understand what the fuck you mean as it is not relevant.

Also see: "Entitled", a word that should not apply when we're talking about me spending my money.

e.g.

Sorrynot sorry for reddit Also needed that first pic as context

...

The tired worn out excuse used constantly by people either defending their pleb tastes or defending the pleb tastes of their friends or both. Any game can be "fun with friends" but that depends on the people themselves and that shouldn't mean one should purposefully seek out shit games. Better game = better time with friends.

Me and my friends had a grand time fucking around with Dead Island and it's glitches. It's the only exception I can give to any game

visceral

You are not cool, bud

Pretty much everyone has that one game they play with their brains off (CS:GO, MOBAs, Musou, grind heavy JRPG, easy shmups, generic indiesoup with roguelike elements, tower defense, flash game etc)

Using it as an argument to defend the game is pretty retarded though.

also all of this

"Hitting things is fun, but I don't know how to say it in a way that pleases pseudo-intellectuals."

...

Where have you gone, divine inspiration upon all of mankind?

...