Left 4 Dead

Anyone who talks about or buys a specific piece of art = a CUNT

Art is something that shouldn't be swayed by other people's opinions.

Like if I see a piece of art and I think 'Good lord, that particular work of art looks like a pile of shit' I shouldn't be swayed by what the 'bourgeoisie' or any other bellends think of it. Art is all about personal opinions, emotions, and interpretations. If you disagree with me, feel free to lick my nuts, my good man!

also cocks

theres alot of cock rubbing going on

Originally Posted by Unnatural Sugar

fixed

Raziel is a Phallus.

Originally Posted by Charkles

Anyone who talks about or buys a specific piece of art = a CUNT

Art is something that shouldn't be swayed by other people's opinions.

Like if I see a piece of art and I think 'Good lord, that particular work of art looks like a pile of shit' I shouldn't be swayed by what the 'bourgeoisie' or any other bellends think of it. Art is all about personal opinions, emotions, and interpretations. If you disagree with me, feel free to lick my nuts, my good man!

also cocks

There is a difference between "Being swayed by other's opinions" (the peasants do this, just see Halo 3) and being able to recognize the worth in a piece of work. Certainly, you don't *have* to enjoy it, if you really want to have no taste and read WORD WAR @ novels and listen to Trance, fine, do so, but don't hide behind your subjectivity argument and pretend that you don't have any taste. You might not like Bach's works bro, but he's Better Than motherfucking Snoop Dog, and no pathetic banner of subjectivity will change this. The problem however lies in that the Lower Class who have no taste are deciding which artists get the wealth, and they have no standards. It is not right that an amazing composer like Hokkai does not make as much money as Usher or whatever the fuck his name is, it is not right that no author in the world makes as much money as that retard Stephen King or Clancy who don't know shit about how to write properly. This same trend extends to video games, sure, maybe you fucking absolutely love MADDEN 20$0, but games like that are absolute trash, and shouldn't make money.

People without taste are ruining art for those of us with taste, in short. The Great Unwashed just inhale media, it's all they know how to do and nothing is ever going to change that (OH HEY ANOTHER HALO OMG). Still, this problem is circumventable if they are allowed to inhale decent/good work. In other words, Frat boys play Halo because it's hyped, if a better game was equally hyped, they would play that too, and then we could have good games with giant budgets too! Not amazing games like Dystopia that have no funding or support and are allowed to rot with bugs and shitty dev teams. This, however, will never happen so long as people believe that quality doesn't even exist because everything is based on opinion. Is it my opinion that critical strikes in TF2 are a bad idea? No, it's a fact because it doesn't make gameplay any more interactive, it doesn't make gameplay any deeper, and it doesn't make gameplay any more tactical, it just introduces an extremely unnecessary element of randomness that removes skill from the game and makes it frustrating when you get unlucky. It's a bad design concept, period.

[/tl;dr]

I still don't see how Left 4 Dead is artless.

It's all about interpretation, as I interpret it, Left 4 Dead is a sort of parody on the tropes of the horror genre within filmography, played out in a previously completely seperate form of media.

Sure it's not too fucking deep, but excellent gameplay is hard to find, and valve happens to pull both out perfectly to pull off a very enjoyable game.

By the way, the full game is very enjoyable.

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:

Originally Posted by Kittens :3

Is it my opinion that critical strikes in TF2 are a bad idea?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Kittens :3

it doesn't make gameplay any more interactive

Nor does it detract from it. In my opinion.

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.

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]

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. ;-)

Back on topic, can we get a show of hands for everyone that bought the full game? I'm downloading it now, myself.

HAHA EVERYONE LAUGH AT THE KID WITH HIS HAND UP

I'll probably pick it up once it's a lower price, really not worth dropping 45/50 dollars on personally. It is fun though.

I'm getting it, just waiting for the thing to ship.

Originally Posted by Charkles

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:



Yes.



Nor does it detract from it. In my opinion.



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.



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]



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. ;-)

There is absolutely no information or coherency in this post, but you're a dumb cunt so that's all you can produce anyway, I mean, good gods, you wrote an entire paragraph around a misinterpretation of the word tactical. Tactical implies strategy, if a game is more tactical it means you will do better with a plan, it has nothing to do with some wierd image you have in your mind of TACTUCAL GAMES THEIS IS LIKE STARCRAFTS RITE? Counterstrike? You don't really need a plan. Dystopia? Yes you do. Dystopia is therefore more tactical. But of course, look at pub servers, just because Dys is more tactical than CS doesn't mean it can't be equally clusterfucky.

Your argument is essentially BRING ON THE SEQUELS. Enjoy inhaling Halo 13 in between poker nights, faggot.

Now, Charkles is one of the aforementioned people in my above post who don't know how to do anything but just inhale whatever's thrown at them. You see in the quoted post, when things like taste are mentioned, they start babbling and getting defencive, violently proclaiming YOU ARE WRONG EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE THIS MEANS MY OPINIONS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT AND I ALSO DONT HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH ANYONE HAHAHAHAHA RAD. The problem here is that they don't even think about their proclamations, scum like him will Literally proclaim that this world war 2 novel about ROGUH TOUGH GERNALS RICHARDSON AND CREW OF DESERT SOLDIERS is absolutely just as good as something like MacBeth "because its my opinion". Obviously, this allows them to eschew using their brain in any fashion, MacBeth obviously requires a lot more interpretation and reflection than random literary vomit (No I'm not counting the obscurity of the language used in that particular piece). These people, unfortunately, have just as much money as the rest of us, it's an extension of the problem with democracy in that people don't know how the fuck to govern themselves. They merely want to be entertained, they just don't care how, as I believe Charkles himself stated. So fine, let them be entertained, But let's not let them have the remote control, shall we?