Escapist puts Skyrim as #1 RPG in last five years

[lostforever]

If the majority doesn't share you tastes in gaming - then the result isn't doing more damage - as it's pleasing more people.

You have to understand that if games end up being less than what YOU would like - it doesn't mean it's less than what OTHER people would like.

Casual gamers and their preferences can't be objectively established as less valuable.

I can consider Dragon Age 2 a weak crappy game, and I can consider Bioware to have sold out - but it doesn't matter what I think, because I don't represent the majority.

To me, it seems the majority and the casual gamers love Bioware games - and they love all the "controversy" surrounding gay/lesbian sex.

Who am I to deny them the right to enjoy such things? I don't hold that power - and I shouldn't hold that power. I'm not the taste police - and we should be glad there's no such thing, as I probably wouldn't be allowed to eat all my favorite junk food.

It's not rocket science. You just have to get a little beyond yourself.

That's why we'll always see movies like Avatar and Titanic. They're crowd-pleasers. Just because we don't think they're particularly great - doesn't mean they're not great. There's no objective way to quantify great when we're talking about being entertained and kept happy.

If there was, everyone would like the same thing - and they clearly do not.

Basically what you are saying is that people have different opinions and we should respect that and not question it? Then what is the point of this forum? I thought the whole point is to question/challenge other people opinions among other things?

 

[DArtagnan]

Taste is an entirely different concept to quality. Something can appear appallingly bad to someone of an acquired taste (elitism) but, in reality, still be a solid production which delivers exactly what the purchaser expects in a well-made manner.

This can be true for anything, really. Which is what you're struggling with.

Take Transformers, for instance. An extremely easy target for people like myself to bash. But for fans of the franchise and Transformers fans and Bay fans, they do exactly what they say on the tin, each one succeeding in showing the elitists that 'taste' is 'subjective' - in that it depends entirely on the subject matter.

No, it doesn't. If one person likes something and a million do not - it means nothing in terms of good or bad taste. It means nothing in terms of quality.

It means something in terms of the majority and the minority opinion - and that's it.

However, now compare The Mask 2 to The Mask. This is no longer a matter of 'taste', because vast swathes of people who loved The Mask, couldn't bare The Mask 2. If someone didn't like The Mask then they are unlikely to want to watch The Mask 2. So to whom do we recommend The Mask 2 to?

Still, there are people who like Mask 2. Are you saying those people don't matter?

Please establish why those people don't matter.

The Mask 2 fails to such a large degree from it's source material and audience reception that one has to call foul. The whole project was a 'failure'. It failed both technically and subjectively to deliver what it was otherwise 'easy' to deliver. It was a 'cynical' cash-grab, verging on the immoral.

What degree? Some people like it. To them, it obviously didn't fail.

We both know financial success means little when it comes to quality - if you really think you can establish quality.

Quality could be when something meets or exceeds expectations. So, it will depend on expectations - and the majority has no bearing on the minority here.

No-one, in their right mind, would recommend The Mask 2 in any list of anything they were recommending and do so with the intent of maintaining either respect or credibility. If someone did recommend The Mask 2 in a list of 'best of' movies it can be considered a 'scam' list.

No one except those that like Mask 2 and feel it's worth a recommendation. Those people that, apparently, don't matter to you.

You see, liking or disliking Titanic or Avatar is 'taste'. Liking or disliking The Mask 2 is irrelevant to taste, the whole project was a gargantuan failure that no-one would or should recommend it to anyone other than for ulterior motives or curiosity value.

I don't really care if you call an opinion an opinion or taste. Just as long as you understand that there is no such thing as good or bad taste.

The Mask itself is evidently a movie 'of a certain taste'. The sequel is 'unquestionably bad'.

If it was unquestionably bad - then we'd have to establish that human beings were capable of determining what's bad - and we'd have to have every single human being agree.

That's not the case here, so your argument is null and void.

You have the majority opinion - that's all you have.

"A BioWare employee was caught posing as a consumer on the review site Metacritic [for DA2]. The employee, Chris Hoban, who posted under the name of Avanost gave a score of 10/10 saying "Anything negative you will see about this game is an overreaction of personal preference.""

What are you saying? That because an employee supports his game - it can't be a good game?

That makes no sense at all.

We can conclude 'beyond doubt' that Dragon Age: Origins is a 'good' game which doesn't necessarily require so much individual 'taste' whereas Dragon Age II is, essentially, unquestionably bad.

You can't conclude anything even remotely like that. You can reasonably conclude that, of the people involved with voting - they voted so and so. Whether they were honest or had any insight at all, you can't establish.

As you pointed out, there are people voting for or against games representing a huge conflict of interest.

So, your conclusion is a joke.

To completely ignore this concept of 'reality' is philosophical pedantry to point where philosophical pedantry itself stops being relevant.

If ignoring your fantasy perception of reality earns me whatever negative label in your world - I can probably live with it

But I'm not ignoring it. I'm dismissing it as bullshit.

 

[MinorityReport]

You still refuse to address the issue of 'responsibility'.

A 'publication' is a 'different' concept to an 'individual'.

A publication requires an element of 'responsibility'.

A 'publication' is not a 'one person's point of view' situation.

A publication which lists something that is well known to be an appallingly bad gargantuan failure in a 'best of' list above well known exceedingly much better games is NOT about 'individual taste', it is just being out right 'irresponsible'.

We are not talking about some random guy's Youtube top 10, we're talking about a 'respectable publication'.

You are using individual philosophy to justify commercial irresponsibility.

 

[DArtagnan]

Basically what you are saying is that people have different opinions and we should respect that and not question it? Then what is the point of this forum? I thought the whole point is to question/challenge other people opinions among other things?

I'm not telling people what they should do. If they want to believe their own opinion is "correct" and other opinions are "incorrect" when it comes to what they like or don't like - that's cool.

I just find that kind of conceited arrogance amusing and I like to point out how ridiculous it is.

I don't think the "point" of any forum is to challenge or question opinions. Personally, I think exchanging thoughts and opinions is the primary component that draws me to a forum.

But there's a big difference between questioning an opinion or disagreeing with it - and to call it incorrect or "wrong".

 

[DArtagnan]

You still refuse to address the issue of 'responsibility'.

No, I still feel the same way about it as I did last time.

A 'publication' is a 'different' concept to an 'individual'.

It is - but an individual can be behind one.

A publication requires an element of 'responsibility'.

That's certainly an opinion.

A 'publication' is not a 'one person's point of view' situation.

It often is, actually.

A publication which lists something that is well known to be an appallingly bad gargantuan failure in a 'best of' list above well known exceedingly much better games is NOT about 'individual taste', it is just being out right 'irresponsible'.

I don't really know what fantasy you're endorsing here. Again, there's no such thing as a well known bad game. There are games that are generally considered bad - but that's very different.

We are not talking about some random guy's Youtube top 10, we're talking about a 'respectable publication'.

That's an opinion. You tend to use your opinion as fact.

You are using individual philosophy to justify commercial irresponsibility.

Nope

 

[MinorityReport]

So you don't believe a publication 'requires' any sense of responsibility whatsoever?

 

[JDR13]

Another debate that has evolved into something completely unrelated to the thread topic. Shocking...

 

[wolfing]

Ok, just the fact that Torchlight 2 and Pokemon are in their 'top 25' basically sums it all for me.

 

[MinorityReport]

quite... lol

 

[HiddenX]

2/5 for Risen 3

Escapist should escape to hell...

 

[purpleblob]

To be fair though... I don't think there were many worthy while game released in last 5 years or so.. They still got the orders mixed up, but I think it would have been quite challenging to come up with 25 (they excluded all indie games, didn't they?)

 

[danutz_plusplus]

I like the Escapist for hosting shows like Yatzee and Jimquisition.
Seriously, watch Jimquisition. Amazing show. Talks about the state of the video games industry in a very truthful and in-your-face manner. Great show. Here's a cool episode on preorders.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition

EDIT: Oh, and this one's awesome too. I loved the Molyneaux-cycle reference
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...A-Ubisoft-A-Cycle-of-Perpetration-and-Apology

 

[DArtagnan]

So you don't believe a publication 'requires' any sense of responsibility whatsoever?

Are you asking for my opinion? You stated it as a fact. I can't give you an answer as fact.

My opinion:

It depends on the publication.

I don't know about "requires" - but I think for any public statement - or any statement whatsoever - to have any value, it must be an honest statement.

So, if someone honestly believes X game is better than Y game - that's pretty much all I "require" for it to have value.

However, that value would be very, very small indeed without insight. Unfortunately, I think very, very little of the insight held by most gaming journalists - and that includes whatever comes out of Escapist. I think their ignorance (or is it still that one mouthpiece?) of the history of gaming is disturbing. But knowing something about gaming is no more valuable than knowing something else, like how to be entertaining when you deliver your opinion.

I can't measure it.

Also, I prefer an objective point of view when trying to evaluate something that's supposed to be of use to others. However, I know that a lot of people don't believe it's worth striving for objectivity and they actually prefer a completely subjective point of view. Also, very few people on this planet are good at being objective. I'd say almost no one can do it to my satisfaction.

So, again, I can't measure what's best.

So, to me, it holds almost no value - but I accept it holds value for others.

But an honest opinion is as correct or incorrect as any other honest opinion. Insight is a subjective thing - because it's really just a bunch of conclusions based on personal experience - and sometimes too much insight can lead to a closed mind and you get stuck in your ways.

For instance, I think Roger Ebert was a strong movie reviewer in his early days - but he utterly sucked for the last 10 years of his life, because he was simply unable to get past his already made-up mind. Essentially, he was closed-minded and failed to recognise the strengths of countless innovative movies. He was still extremely knowledgable, though. So, there's a difference.

The same thing can be said about certain Watch members - and, certainly, a lot of the ex-Codexers

They've spent so much time nurturing their perceptions based on archaic experiences from their youth - when they were open and impressionable. So, they have the hardest time opening up their minds to new things - and new ways of doing things.

Worst of all, they fail to understand that other people are not incorrect because they look at games from another angle.

All of the above is my opinion, nothing more.

 

[MinorityReport]

Well... it looks to me like it's you who's stuck in some unshakable position of falsehood, matey...

You seem to deny facts are facts. You seem to deny the difference between a publication and personal opinion.

Both Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age 2 have been out for a long time, long enough for 'facts' to be publicly available: those facts are that if you recommend Dragon Age 2 in a 'general' sense without warning then you will severely disappoint 6 people out of ten, if you recommend New Vegas in a 'general' sense without warning then you'll only severely disappoint 2 people out of ten.

To then, full with this knowledge based on 'facts', completely ignore this reality and actively promote the weaker as a 'better' game than the latter with nothing but "I can say whatever I like, mate" as your defense... is utterly immoral - because it can only have a massively negative effect on the gaming industry as a whole. If Steven Segal got nominations for 'best film' every year, do you think people would bother making 'good' films?

While a lot of people feel that events like the Oscars are fixed, they are only fixed 'to a certain extent', they will still bear in mind that they have to promote something of 'quality', it still can't just be their friend's work if their friend's work is embarrassingly bad.

By sticking to your guns on this issue I'm afraid it's you who's "stuck in a falsehood based on set-in-stone philosophy'.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well… it looks to me like it's you who's stuck in some unshakable position of falsehood, matey…

I don't doubt it

Both Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age 2 have been out for a long time, long enough for 'facts' to be publicly available: those facts are that if you recommend Dragon Age 2 in a 'general' sense without warning then you will severely disappoint 6 people out of ten, if you recommend New Vegas in a 'general' sense without warning then you'll only severely disappoint 2 people out of ten.

Doesn't make either game good or bad. You're still struggling with this.

To then, full with this knowledge based on 'facts', completely ignore this reality and actively promote the weaker as a 'better' game than the latter with nothing but "I can say whatever I like, mate" as your defense… is utterly immoral - because it can only have a massively negative effect on the gaming industry as a whole. If Steven Segal got nominations for 'best film' every year, do you think people would bother making 'good' films?

If enough people liked Steven Seagal movies enough to call them best every year - and they also dominated the review scene, we'd be in a situation where his movies would be considered good by the majority. As such, there would be no issue for the majority.

Not sure why you're worried this will happen because some people like Dragon Age 2 and you don't.

Well, I guess I do know why. You can't get past yourself and you're still paranoid

While a lot of people feel that events like the Oscars are fixed, they are only fixed 'to a certain extent', they will still bear in mind that they have to promote something of 'quality', it still can't just be their friend's work if their friend's work is embarrassingly bad.

Interesting opinion. I'm sure you consider this to be a fact, though, right? Unfortunately, you need to understand that what you consider to be a fact can't be convincing unless you provide support for your claim. You rarely do, so you're generally not a very convincing person.

Oscars seem to work much like anything else that deals with evaluating quality. There are people involved who care about striving for objectivity and there are people involved who don't. There are people involved who care about their own interests more than the interest of others.

Not a big shock.

By sticking to your guns on this issue I'm afraid it's you who's "stuck in a falsehood based on set-in-stone philosophy'.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to come as a surprise to me?

I don't invest in what other people think about me so long as they demonstrate a clear lack of understanding about what I'm saying. As such, your opinion holds very little value.

If you can argue your case - I'll listen. You don't seem to be able to do that, so this is already cyclical and will take us nowhere.

You're stating your narrow opinion as fact over and over, and you seem to expect it to be convincing by itself - without rational support.

It's not

You could start out by explaining why all those people who like Dragon Age 2 don't matter. You still haven't answered this. All those people who rate it higher than you do. Why are they not important?

 

[MinorityReport]

No mate, it DOES mean Dragon Age 2 is worse than New Vegas, there is no debate at all there. That is 'factual' information.

It is not opinion, it is not personal taste, it is nothing you keep repeating, it is plain and simple fact.

People will not 'suddenly' all start liking Steven Segal movies as their preferred viewing pleasure amidst a sea of alternatives and if there were no alternatives people would simply stop watching movies.

By delving so deep into the philosophical depths of the topic you're ignoring reality. You're using individual philosophy to justify criminality. You cannot say "if people decided to start liking Steven Segal movies" because that will never happen as long as there are alternatives. You're proposition is so utterly hypothetical that it requires not only a different set of rules to reality, it requires a completely alternative universe in order to exist.

"What if... people suddenly started liking the original release of the ET game?" It's an irrelevancy, that's never going to happen. It might make for a fun after dinner conversation about an alternative universe, but it's not 'reality'.

 

[DArtagnan]

No mate, it DOES mean Dragon Age 2 is worse than New Vegas, there is no debate at all there. That is 'factual' information.

People will not 'suddenly' all start liking Steven Segal movies as their preferred viewing pleasure amidst a sea of alternatives and if there were no alternatives people would simply stop watching movies.

By delving so deep into the philosophical depths of the topic you're ignoring reality. You're using individual philosophy to justify criminality. You cannot say "if people decided to start liking Steven Segal movies" because that will never happen as long as there are alternatives. You're proposition is so utterly hypothetical that it requires not only a different set of rules to reality, it requires a completely alternative universe in order to exist.

"What if… people suddenly started liking the original release of the ET game?" It's an irrelevancy, that's never going to happen. It might make for a fun after dinner conversation about an alternative universe, but it's not 'reality'.

Why do the people who like Dragon Age 2 not matter?

Explain that in a rational manner, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

I've pointed out to you several times why a bunch of opinions don't represent anything factual or objective when it comes to quality.

Again, you're being cyclical. You're repeating nonsense with no support. I can't be bothered to repeat myself yet again.

Answer my question and we'll see.

 

[MinorityReport]

I've already answered your question.

I have no problem at all with any individual person having an individual opinion.

We're talking about a 'publication', a publication that is at the forefront of knowing what the 'facts' are.

Why are you even asking "Why do the people who like Dragon Age 2 not matter?" it's utterly insane. We're talking about a 'best of' list. Do the people who played the other 1000 games not on the list not matter at all?

You want to defend the 4 out of 10 above scores of 5-9 out of ten because for some reason we have to assume that the 4 out of 10 'matters'…? In the context of a 'best of' list?

You're utterly beyond crackers…

 

[DArtagnan]

I've already answered your question.

I have no problem at all with any individual person having an individual opinion.

We're talking about a 'publication', a publication that is at the forefront of knowing what the 'facts' are.

Why are you even asking "Why do the people who like Dragon Age 2 not matter?" it's utterly insane. We're talking about a 'best of' list. Do the people who played the other 1000 games not on the list not matter at all?

You want to defend the 4 out of 10 above scores of 5-9 out of tens because for some reason we have to assume that the 4 out of 10 'matters'…? In the context of a 'best of' list?

You're utterly beyond crackers…

No, you haven't answered my question.

Go look at metacritic again for the PC version. There are 452 positive user reviews of the game. It has an 82/100 rating based on critic reviews.

How is that an "individual" opinion?

You're saying a serious publication should ignore professional critics and a third of the users when evaluating a game? You're saying a serious publication can't have an opinion that differs from the user majority? It can't be allowed to have that opinion and state it publically?

This is assuming that Metacritic is an accurate reflection of mainstream users - which I doubt it is in the case of DA2 - given the ridiculous controversy surrounding it.

Please explain why Escapist can't or shouldn't be allowed to agree with (the vast majority of) critics and a third of the users voting on Metacritic.

They are giving us THEIR opinion of the best games - and that's all that matters. YOUR opinion and the opinion of other people don't really matter in the slightest. There's no obligation to agree with you or anyone else. That's your fantasy.

 

[MinorityReport]

Oh really... and why was there "so much controversy"... must be that 'reality' thing kicking in again...

You also know full well official reviewers can be bought and sold.

Also, loving your math. 452 positive, 1,000+ negative, some neutral, that would be one third, not one half, which is actually 3.33, not even 4 out of 10, and, probably a more real score once nutters such as yourself have been accounted for in assessing the game's appeal.