Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
People without taste are ruining art for those of us with taste, in short.
[/tl;dr]
|
The art still gets made, and you should be enjoying it whether or not it's hyped. So stfu and diaf. 'Taste' in itself is completely subjective. We can take your TF2 crit example for this, too. Some people like crits because it adds a sense of randomness to the game. Does it fit within the theme of TF2? Depends on how you interpret what the theme is.
Now I'm going to butt rape you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
Is it my opinion that critical strikes in TF2 are a bad idea?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
it doesn't make gameplay any more interactive
|
Nor does it detract from it.
In my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
it doesn't make gameplay any deeper
|
Multiplayer games like TF2 are about shooting shit. Valve,
in my opinion, are poor at making their multiplayer-only games atmospheric. They're stylistic, sure, but they don't suck you in. Does it really matter? Not at all. They can be entertaining without being deep or atmospheric, and that's why people buy it. Not everyone looks for a really deep storyline and an atmosphere that sucks you in (like your mum has done to me on multiple occasions). Are they at fault? No. It's just the way people are, always have and always will be. Am I fond of Bach? Not particularly. Good as he is, he's not what I'm looking for when I listen to music. It's all to do with taste. Is Bach better than Snoop Dogg? In terms of musical capabilities, yes. In terms of emotion and meaning, well it depends on the background of the recipient. Are his beats phat? No. Do some people find phat beats more interesting than musical capabilities? Evidently. That doesn't necessarily mean that the people who prefer them are at fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
and it doesn't make gameplay any more tactical
|
Again, people are looking for a good time. There are plenty of games out there that cater to people with a tactical mind, just as there are plenty that don't. If you like tactical games, play them more, and don't expect Valve to cater for your every need when you play a game. This is why reviews are a pile of hairy chimpanzee poo, because unless the game is absolutely shoddy to the eye of absolutely everyone ever, the stuff written in the review is going to be subjective. People always compare shit. It's the same in game reviews, music reviews, literature reviews... very rarely do I see a review that is judging something by itself rather than comparing it to, say, Iron Maiden or Halo.
IS THAT BAD? Only if you don't like subjective opinions. I don't like them. I have a shit-ton of them, and if people care about them, then hey, why would you not write subjective reviews? For those that don't, why would you be reading a review in the first place? [/tangent]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens :3
it just introduces an extremely unnecessary element of randomness that removes skill from the game and makes it frustrating when you get unlucky.
|
See above.
So there you have it. Shit is always subjective. If you disagree with me,
you're fucking wrong, and can go fuck a badger. But hey, that's just my opinion. ;-)