So then, what, you're continuing down a poor road out of... spite? Stubbornness? A bad end's a bad end no matter how you get there.
I'm glad you think this is about you. It makes it all the easier to laugh.
Again, according to whose standard? A game could be mediocre and not worth a purchase; hell, a game could be considered good and still not worth a purchase, depending on the circumstances. You're judging a series by an arbitrary standard you made up and getting mad that it doesn't match up.
Again (again), getting mad that "Games You Shouldn't Buy" is applied loosely is like getting mad at Yahtzee for the punctuation in Zero Punctuation. Has he falsely advertised every time a period or comma pops up on screen? Does he have to speak with absolutely no pauses to simulate writing without punctuation?
If you take every title at literal face value, you're asking for a bad time.
*Shrug* If there was no standard than this couldn't be a possibility. Look at any game objectively and you can find flaws. The key is "does the bad outweigh the good?" That's your standard, and I think we can all agree that X and Y doesn't belong here for that very reason.
You seem to be real good at taking everything for face value Gahars.
You're projecting harder than the local AMC.
This is not the issue. This has never been the issue. I don't care for Pokemon, but I don't care that people care for Pokemon. The problem comes when people take their love for Pokemon to such an extent that they take any criticism of the franchise as a personal slight, something we see here time and time again. It's a video game. Calm your tits.
A "Games You Wouldn't Buy" article on titles I really like, say, Timesplitters 2/Future Perfect or Metroid: Zero Mission, would be just as legitimate as one about this particular game.
Jokes on you, I don't actively watch movies in theatres. <- This means I have no idea what you're getting at.
See, you hate the people who like pokemon more than you hate the game. I've yet to profess my love for the series (though it can be inferred), and just because I defend something or attack it does not mean I'm doing it blindly.
I also have no tits to calm, and none of this is being taken as a personal slight like you're making it out to be. Try again.
I've also never played any of those, so I couldn't say either way.
You keep going back to this notion that there are objectively "good" games. There aren't. There is no such thing. Every game will have a defender or a fan. If you can't criticize a video game because someone might like it, then you can't criticize any video game. Again, I enjoyed Mass Effect 3, but an article advising people not to buy it would be just as legitimate. So someone doesn't like the same game I do. So that someone recommended people don't buy it. So what?
Just because I disagree with an article's conclusions doesn't mean that the article's very concept is wrong. If you can't handle disagreement, the problem is with you.
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv
adjective
- 1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
You assume I am incapable of being objectively critical in my analysis of games I like. That's why you're wrong here. And yes, games can be objectively good. Just like movies, music, and books can be objectively good and execute their intents well. And again, there's three categories of games: good, bad but redeemable, and ugly. The bottom line is that you're putting the value of zero to a game that objectively has more value. You can have an opinion, but when it moves from opinion to a factual statement like the thread title I get salty.
I'm having polite discourse, and apparently it's something I can't handle. Nice try Gahars, but I can see right through your facade and see your true form.
The thing is, there's no point in doing an article on a game everybody already knows falls ridiculously below expectations. Duke Nuken Forever, for example, everybody knew by day one that it was not a worthy purchase at almost any price. Aliens: Colonial Marines? Same idea. People are well versed in how poor it is. Call of Duty: Ghosts? In the eye of the beholder, but on here, it would just be a circle jerk of agreement because GBAtemp doesn't like barely changing CoD but adores barely changing Pokemon.
The point of Games You Shouldn't Buy isn't just to tell people "oh yeah, these games were bad back when they released 5+ years ago". Arguably, Other M will fail in this respect, though it is still so controversial even today that I think it will be a fun one regardless. These articles are going to stir the pot a little. That's what will make them good articles. Once again, if you're simply expecting something you can endlessly agree with, that perfectly matches your opinions or barely moves away from them, you don't understand how opinion pieces work.
Yes, and you can extrapolate on why they're bad and what people expected when they came out. Otherwise Other M and FFXIII wouldn't be good candidates either. They're 4 and 5 years old respectively. Length of time means nothing in the timeless format of games. Which I get what you mean now by (fail in this aspect".
But if you're gonna put objectively good games on the block, they need convincing reasons why the bad outweighs the good. This article fell flat with mostly subjective musings with a few minor objective flaws.