This isn't debate club.
Not everyone who comes to these boards is going to be able--or willing--to form a cogent critique of the game. And you know what? They don't have to. If a player wants to come here and proclaim that the game is awful, they should be welcome to (provided they refrain from base insults and vulgarity).
I welcome anyone to come and proclaim the game is awful, so long as they are consistent and allow me to criticize their post as well.
That's irrelevant, but also pretty easy to decipher; "shitty" is at least playable. Given that Inquisition is a game to be played, "unplayable" would probably rank further on the negativity spectrum than "shitty." Ergo, the poster in question probably agrees with the conclusion--and perhaps finds Inquisition worse as an experience.
But this isn't debate club.
Not everyone who comes to these boards is going to be able--or willing--to form a cogent critique of the game. And you know what? They don't have to. If a player wants to come here and proclaim that the game is awful, they should be welcome to (provided they refrain from base insults and vulgarity).
Sorry but no. A person doing something like that is pointless and is a waste of energy. Hell, it's down right immature. then to come back over and over again to just let it be know they hate a game....
That's what a person want to do with their life?
Sorry but no. A person doing something like that is pointless and is a waste of energy. Hell, it's down right immature. then to come back over and over again to just let it be know they hate a game....
That's what a person want to do with their life?
You seem to think that because you disagree with it, it shouldn't be permitted. Is that right? Who cares if that's how a person wants to spend their time? Besides you, I mean.
You seem to think that because you disagree with it, it shouldn't be permitted. Is that right? Who cares if that's how a person wants to spend their time? Besides you, I mean.
People like that over time get banned I hope you know.
But what makes a game unplayable for any given player may well be unique to that player.Yes. Unplayable isn't an opinion.
Words being used improperly by some doesn't change their meaning, and inconsistent use can render a word useless. While words can evolve, deviating from the commonly accepted meaning still puts one in the wrong. If I start using the word "pizza" to refer to "moose feeces" I'm just wrong.
While I wish you were right, I refer you to to the word "literally".
http://www.merriam-w...onary/literally
#2 in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
That's right. In the ultimate irony, the word now has two different, contradictory meanings.
But what makes a game unplayable for any given player may well be unique to that player.
I found The Witcher unplayable (because of the action combat), but lots of people here seem to like it.
DA:I is the worst of the three, in my opinion. The only thing it does better than others is size and exploration, but even that is tainted by the fact that there really isn't anything worth exploring for. The conversations rarely have cinematic camera and are all disjointed from the any sense of fluidity.
There is no customizing stats, etc, and you are limited to 8 slots for abilities... Honestly, I can't even see what's happening on screen during battle since it's such a mess. (Don't even get me started on Tactical mode...)
DA:2 may have recycled dungeons, but it was more or less polished. You knew and grew attached to your companions, and Hawke was charismatic, with an awesome personality function that changes with your choices. Combat wasn't that strategic, but it was worlds better than DA:I.
Nothing will beat DA:O overall, though the Warden had no real personality.
But what makes a game unplayable for any given player may well be unique to that player.
I found The Witcher unplayable (because of the action combat), but lots of people here seem to like it.
I disagree. It's an incomplete statement."DA:I is unplayable" is an objective (and objectively false) statement.
While I wish you were right, I refer you to to the word "literally".
http://www.merriam-w...onary/literally
#2 in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
That's right. In the ultimate irony, the word now has two different, contradictory meanings.
That is a bizarre use. Literally meaning figuratively. Bleh.
Appropriately used in that way only when someone is being hyperbolic to make their statement stand out.
My head objectively hurts now.
You're literally the worst.
You're literally the worst.
I disagree. It's an incomplete statement.
It would need to be "DAI is universally unplayable" in order to be the objective statement you've interpreted it to be.
Adding a conditional is required to make a statement objective?
How about this;
"DA:I has poor keyboard and mouse controls". True or not, is this an objective or subjective statement? I have not said "in my opinion", or "everyone thinks". But I have made a statement which leaves no room for other opinions.
I can't see a situation where it would be necessary to proclaim "universal fact" if the "in my opinion" conditional has been omitted.
In this case I actually would say it's subjective, since assessments about "bad" or "good" are assumed subjective opinion.
Distinct from saying, for example, that something is "broken" which is a fact that can either be demonstrated or not.
Unplayable is something I count in the latter category, since whether someone is actually unable to play the game is something that isn't open to interpretation. Like "my car isn't starting."
When writing philosophy papers, you never say "in my opinion"* because it's assumed that statements which assert something are your opinion unless you assert a fact or the opinion of another, in which case you cite.
*This is also conditional on the culture, since in Japan for example you must write "I think" before anything you assert.
It's because no one thinks an opinion is valid anymore unless it has popularity behind it. How many times have we been subjected to the "you're only a small minority of vocal angry people" argument?
Who's we? People who don't like the game?
Who's we? People who don't like the game?
All of us. Everyone. From those who think it's flawless to those who think it's unplayable garbage--this game and others. We've all been subjected to the idiocy of "you're only a small vocal minority so shut up."
I'd say
DA:O 9/10
DA2 9/10
DA:I 9.2/10
It's because no one thinks an opinion is valid anymore unless it has popularity behind it. How many times have we been subjected to the "you're only a small minority of vocal angry people" argument?
Retour en haut
