Games you hate, yet everyone else cherishes.

   Ok, I'm not addressing the Last of Us anymore because we both know it's a lost cause as nothing will convince you and you are just going to keep comparing it to games that have nothing in common with it whatsoever like COD or Dead Island to justify your presumptions. What irritates me so much isn't that you dislike the game, it isn't that I'm insecure in the games merit. I know that this game has plenty of "shade of uniqueness" to it and I don't give a damn whether you believe or discover that or not. What bothers me, what really pisses me off is your arrogant presumptions on the matter. It's all you have to base your entire argument on. People may make presumptions all day long but that does not make their presumptions correct. I presume as well but I would never slander something I have no experience with because peoples perceptions can be wrong and the blind adherence to them has caused so many atrocities in this world that it has become unbearable. In an extreme and primal sense you are right and presumptions can save lives, but in a debate they have no place. I've said it over and over now I don't care if the game isn't your forte, but writing an expose using nothing but presumptions and comparing these presumptions to past experiences is foolish even if at it's primal level the act is a needed survival instinct. That's the problem with almost every point you make, they are all unrelated to what I am trying to say and miss the mark entirely, because you already have your perception and any new information will likely be adapted to fit in with your preconceived notions.

   You also quote me without relying on context to support your rebuttals. Nowhere did I say that the game was the best or that it was even the greatest game I've ever played. I said "as close to perfect as any game has come... in at least 10 years" That doesn't exclude other games from also being as great or better and it's not even said as a way of touting the game or convincing the person I was replying to otherwise. It was merely a statement of my opinion and a request to know exactly what he/she found distasteful in the game, because I genuinely wanted to know. That wasn't an invitation for someone who has next to no clue what he's talking about to tell me all the things he hates about "those types of games" even when next to none of those conventions are even in the game to begin with. Context is everything and you abuse it to manipulate every point and then condescend to me as if you are just some world weary wise one conversing with a raving fanboy. "I don't get caught up in hype, reviews or 'word of mouth'..." and "strange to project your own personal opinion onto everyone else..." especially considering in the beginning I was neither trying to project anything onto anyone or convince anyone of anything, I just wanted to know what exactly one person found bad about a particular game they had played out of simple curiosity because I couldn't see it and they didn't elaborate. 

   Comparing the merits of personal experience in a game review to that of deciding whether or not murder is wrong or anything like that is a misconceived and ill attempted way of deflecting criticism as well. The two hold no common ground. It is not just a presumption made by the general populous that murder is bad. Each and every one of us has a personal stake in not allowing a murderer to go free. They are a threat to our very existence and complicate personal freedom and safety. We also know that life has value, that it's precious and something to be protected at any cost. It is these ideals, these fundamental stimuli that allow us to understand the negative impact of murder. Likewise the argument of the poor. If you are poor and your only criticism of rich people comes from your perception than your opinion doesn't matter, because perception isn't always even based in reality. People see either what they want to see or what they fear they will see, it's a fundamental flaw in human reasoning and the shear arrogance that sets one up to rely on this as a means of justification for any action they perform outside of their own inner reasoning is appalling and will invariably lead to a miserable outcome. Using perception as a tool to avoid something you find unsavory is all well and good (damn I'm repeating myself now) but it cannot be used as a singular guide to pass judgement on the merits or worth of anyone or anything, it's a dangerous trend to do so. All opinions should be based on fact and understanding of the subject material. You don't have to be rich to understand economics and where wealth comes from. You don't have to be a politician to study politics. The key word here is study, however. To understand you must learn about these things, you have to immerse yourself in their inner workings or your opinions on the subject don't hold any weight. That doesn't mean you become a follower in their philosophy and as such you are then free to criticize them as you see fit, because you do now 'understand' them. Thus you don't have to be a fan of a game to critique it, but you need to have some kind of factual experience with it before your criticisms hold any power behind them.

   Instead you rely on out-worldly examples to mire the subject down and cut down any rebuttal to your point by comparing them to 'stifling basic human rights' which is utterly ridiculous in this case, it's the argument of the ignorant trying to validate their misguided opinions by claiming that an opinion is equally valid whether it is supported by knowledge or merely a comparison of divergent, contradictory claims. Everything needs to be grounded in something, nothing should rely singularly on one's perceptions and when they do then the opinion simply isn't worth giving voice to in the first place, because it has nothing to keep it in check and becomes nothing but pointless conjecture and a meaningless argument. 

On-topic: I have two "new" games for the list: Candy Crush and Flappy Birds... not that I hate them, but IMO, they're overrated...

I love The Last of Us.

I don't like Fable one bit though. My roomate and his friends just started playing it and I'm just like eeeeeeeeeeeeeh.

   Candy Crush Saga baffles me, apparently bejeweled + micro-transactions + cute backgrounds = success (no wonder king's so set on trademarking every aspect of it's game, it's so damn simple anyone could do it.) My mom and cousin and second cousin were all obsessed with it at one point so I tried it out but just couldn't find anything else to it than that, and I have a distinct dislike of games that keep wanting my money so it didn't last long for me to get tired of it, certainly overrated. 

   Keeping to newer games, LA Noire is one for me. Gets stunning reviews across the board but to me it was just boring as hell... I guess I'm just not that good at detective work but see, that didn't even seem to matter to the game either. I could grill the perks in the absolute most wrong direction possible multiple times yet in the end still succeed because the game won't really let you fail, sure you didn't solve the case but it gets resolved anyway, relying on personal humiliation I guess to spur you for being wrong. Just not enjoyable to me in the least, to much thinking and spending hours piecing things together, I get that it is exactly what it proposes itself to be but I just can't find any enjoyment in what it is.

I'm not sure exactly how you can say that a game does nothing new without having actually even played it. You can say you are uninterested in playing it, but you have no idea what is actually IN the game.

Honestly, most of the time I spent playing it, the "zombies" weren't even an issue. It was the other people in the world that were an issue. And the storytelling is fantastic, and the opening is literally one of the best openings to any game I've seen to date. The whole prologue with Joel's daughter is amazing in and of itself, before you even get to the meat of the game.

It does what it does very well, probably better than any other game in the genre. Judging it when you haven't touched it is ridiculous.

A game is not murder, a game is not a man pointing a gun at you. A review is a critical analysis, and analysis of a subject without even studying it is asinine. And considering that playing a game puts neither yourself nor others in danger, it is expected that anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the subject of a game should have at least tried to play it.

*Sigh* How many times must I address this?  The examples of murder are to illustrate the absolute fallacy that is "Preconceptions are for the foolish".  The statement itself means all Preconceptions (regardless of context) are foolish and bad.  This is false and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to check and see if gray matter is oozing out of their ears.

I actually do have an idea of what's in the game.  I've read reviews and read what you guys have said about it.  So far, nothing new to the genre.  Believe me, I can understand "Great story = reason to play a mediocre or poor game to completion and enjoy the crap out of it".  I get that, we've all been there.  I don't think having one good feature is a reason to dismiss everything else about the game.  Also, as I've said before, one does not need to experience something to know what it is or probably is.  To say otherwise has always been a way to shut down debate and avoid defending your own position.

"The Intro is great".  Okay, fine.  The intro to Final Fantasy 13 was great.  Didn't make the game any better in the long run.  Just means the visuals and execution of the first 10 minutes was nice.

Now, tell me, are there any things in that "beloved" and "wonderful" game that are done poorly?  Any flaws?  Any issues with the game or points where it lulls into boredom territory?  Any places where the plot gets predictable or cliché?  My argument from the beginning has been "I don't think it's worth the hype it gets because it looks exactly like a Done Before game and that doesn't interest me".  To which everyone has since replied to me "STFU if you haven't played it!".  The few examples I did get of the gameplay and narrative, I've since picked apart and told you other games that use these, to which I got zero reply and another round of "STFU if you haven't played it!" and a good measure of "You aren't allowed to have an opinion on it because you haven't played it!".

A review is seldom a "critical analysis".  It's subjective personal opinion based upon the inherent biases and experiences people bring with them to the table.  If you don't like the "review" (or rather opinion) I have of the game, then you can either not read what I wrote as you know you don't agree with it, or you can have a debate about the flaws and merits of it.  I have games I think are absolutely amazing and fantastic too.  When someone reviews them without having played them, I don't take it personally or try to convince them otherwise.  I see where they're coming from and let them have their opinion.  They aren't ever going to play the game anyway, and usually their complaints are fairly valid ones.  At least, that's been my personal experience.

I'm not defending The Last of Us in this regard, I think it's an ok game, nothing special.

But I do want to point out how said you were excited for Destiny and Titanfall. Destiny's gameplay looks very similar Halo's, only with mandatory co-op and and an always online requirement - not saying that I'm not interested in the game but it does look like its been done before, but the only unique thing shown off was the general scope of the game. Titanfall is the same case with Call of Duty only with mechs, a futuristic setting, and 6v6 multiplayer. Of course the beta is about to start, so anythings possible, but I have no intention of getting it anymore because I will not install Origin on my computer nor do I want an Xbox One.

I dislike kingdom hearts.  I loathe darksiders.  Such derivative work, it can hardly be called it's own story D:  Also, probably every zombie game out there.  They're just not scary.  

Oh, and Assassin's creed.  Felt fun at first, and then it was just...do it again, and again, and again, and agaaaain, then twilight zone ending.  Wat.

I would have to agree with you, Confederacy.  Titanfall and Destiny do look remarkably similar to other games.  I've been following the games for a while though and I've been "presuming" that they'll be fun and just unique enough that I'd enjoy playing them.  There's no doubt about it that they could suck pretty bad and I could have wasted that two-hundred plus dollars...  But, it's a chance I'm willing to take for something I think would be entertaining.  If others think they'd be pretty stupid or boring or not unique, they are entitled to that opinion.  All it means is that I won't see them in those games, and honestly, I don't really care if I see them in the games I'm playing.

I'm not really sure there's "Mandatory Co-op" in Destiny though.  From what I've heard, the "story mode" can be played absolutely solo without any friends if you want to play it that way.  Everything else though...  Yeah, you're playing with other people.  I guess I could see that as "Mandatory Co-op" though, seeing as how we're talking something like 85% of the games content is not playable solo.  That might annoy me later (as I'm not really a fan of playing with other people if I don't have to, even in MMO games), but for now, it looks interesting enough that I'd like to give it a try.

As for Titanfall...  Well, to me the interesting part about that game is that it's Call of Duty...  If the emphasis was more on movement, mobility, and accuracy.  Again, this could be entirely wrong...  Making a presumption here (like everyone does with any game they haven't played, but are planning to purchase based on what information they have) that it will be good and fun and I'll enjoy what time I do spend with it.  I'm kind of big on that.  If I have fun with the game, why do I care if other people had fun with it?  Does their having fun make my enjoyment more or less justified?  No.  It's just peer pressure to get others to agree on something in order to make themselves feel like their own purchase or "enjoyment" of the game was justified.  I plan on getting Titanfall on my Xbox One, so I am not worried about Origin, ha ha.  But, valid concern none-the-less.

I'm just amazed that my "don't know anything about the game, but still have an opinion on why not to buy it" has made a few people angry.  They're not even arguing whether or not my assessments of the game are valid anymore.  They're just arguing that I'm not allowed to have an opinion because I haven't played the game.  I wouldn't have minded the whole "you are wrong because the game actually plays like this instead of what you are assuming".  But, what I got was "It's better than you can ever know because you've never played it, and I don't have to answer any of your criticisms because you haven't played it!".  That response is quite funny because if my opinion of the game didn't matter, why even respond to my opinion of it in the first place?

It's just a really crazy argument that makes little sense.  If you enjoy "The Last Of Us", then enjoy it.  Don't let my opinions or criticisms of the game deter you from enjoying it.  Unless, of course...  Those opinions and criticisms are accurate...  In which case...  I can't really help you.  Don't even let my irritation or anger with your assessment of the game deter you from enjoying it.  I certainly don't let those kinds of things deter me from enjoying the subpar games I own!  After all, I do own every game in the Fable series.  Super subpar material there!  But, I enjoy them really stupid games anyway.

People can have opinions on games, but not all opinions are valid. Pretending that an opinion about a game built on presumption is equal to the opinion of someone who has actually played something is the height of idiocy. That or arrogance. You think that obviously you are so attuned to sniffing out "good" games that you know better than the people who've actually played it.

And there is a reason that no one wants to debate individual points with you. You take everything said about the game and remove all context from it. And there is a reason why: You've never experienced the context. It's like the Nye/Ham debate, only one side knows enough about the subject to even approach a debate.

Tai is certainly allowed to have his opinion; no one here I'd think is denying him that; it's only setting off a couple of people not because they love the game themselves (although that's certainly part of it), but because of sheer arrogance, and more importantly, your anger about a game you've never even remotely experienced. It rivals that of Alexander who has a reason to be pissed off since he feels the game is worth more than a mere dismissal. I'm not saying the game is, but what could make you hate something so much without even seeing it for yourself?

I know I wasn't going to get the game, but it came with the PS3 I bought that had more gigs + less price than the others. (I like to buy a system when it's running it's final year or two in order to enjoy everything all at once) So here is Last of Us in my lap, something I didn't think I'd find interesting (I am horrible at anything shooter mechanic related), I'd rather play it for myself now that it's here. Doesn't have much to do with the conversation except for the fact that I went in not expecting much.

Was I blown away? Not at first, but I was pleasantly surprised that I could play the game without having to fire my guns...I kept all my ammo maxed out for the most part until I lost control of Ellie about 3/4 into the game, and the decision was mine alone; the game never forces you to snipe anything.  The virus itself felt more like a contagion pandemic than actual zombies. Husks from Mass Effect felt more like zombies than this game's did.

But the only reason I'm really posting (why anyone is talking about Last of Us instead of games they hate) is to defend it as a more than competent game. I already know this isn't going to be the case for you since you have already written it off, (and thus the opinion strongly against the game will more than likely never be changed) but I might as well say something as someone who didn't seek out the game. This game (imo obviously) actually does something completely unique by giving me a choice and making me actually care about it.

I, someone completely different from Joel, began to feel what he felt. That's literally never happened to me before in any video game. Not the countless RPGs that made me love the genre, and not even Mass Effect which had three games to do so. By the time the player is back in control of Joel for the final time I used guns which I would normally never do since I hate them and their non precise controls.

I rushed through the areas out in the open instead of staying hidden the whole time, and when it came time to choose between gunning down unarmed scientists or not I didn't hesitate for a second. My goals and Joel's goals were the same, which as I repeat, has never happened to me before; at least not to the point where I'd pick an option that wasn't the least gray. I went all the way into red territory and killed off people who couldn't adequately defend themselves, just because they stood in my way and were about to do horrible things.

The point is I probably didn't have to kill them, but I did anyway and not from a gameplay perspective.  I am going to assume I'm not alone in how much fun I had playing the game, and how the story impacted me while I played through it, and that's most likely why you're getting animosity from your claims that the game is "subpar" as you'd call it.

There's nothing wrong with the game, and no reason to assume so just because someone could be passionate enough about it to defend it. That was much longer than I inteded it to be =x but I'm definitely not angry, and even if there are people angry about your opinion (that you have a right to have), it doesn't mean you should be angry about the game that you never played. It's strange.

All I do is hop in and say The Last of Us because I don't have time to type out my reasoning and I come back and BAM! Seriously, it's a game. I'm allowed to hate it for my reasons and you're allowed to love it for your reasons.

If anyone would like to continue this conversation, I have actually played the game. I can't say my reasons are the same as Tai's, I don't think I would go on an all out attack on the game...it's just preferences I have and things I feel are fun and not fun.

But I think everyone else on here who is trying to talk about other games may be getting a little annoyed so maybe everyone should just agree to disagree.

totally minecraft  and a bit of mario tough because it's a bit repetitive....

Like I said, the game has an always online requirement when playing and as evidenced by the E3 demo, that there's events that'll drop in additional players to your world or vice versa. So whether or not you have friends with you, there's at least specific events that you'll be tagging along with other players. And if the games main story can be played solo, then what's the point of locking the game to a constant internet connection? There's no justification for Diablo 3 or SimCity, and Destiny, from what we've seen (so far) is not an MMO. But until they have a good enough reason to prove otherwise, I'm going to be pretty bitter on that.

I watched some beta gameplay, and it just looks far too similar to Call of Duty mixed with some parkouring and mechs. I can't really get excited around that, but if the potential sequels ever make it to the PS4, I might consider giving it a try then.

Before it becomes totally pointless, I was contacted via message to discuss my reasoning for not enjoying The Last of Us and felt I should go and explain to everyone since I was the one who started it all. I am just going to post this, and all though I may see your replies I may opt to not for after seeing the last few posts. I don't feel like trying to debate. Instead, I just wish to share.

 

Along with organizing my thoughts on The Last of Us I underlined and put in bold my main points

 


Overall

 

The point of the thread originally was to just point out games other people like, but you personally don't. Which is what I'm doing here. Nowhere do I say the game sucks, that would be downright ignorant and stupid for it has obviously won numerous awards and recognition. I have come to terms that this is generally personal preference and understand where my ideas clash with others. But as someone who completed the game I think I have the right to say I don't enjoy for the reasons stated.


 

 

 

There are definitely a handful of reasons the game could be enjoyed.

 

The graphics are beautiful, astounding in fact. I felt immersed in these worlds Naughty Dog had created and the atmosphere was fantastic. The levels where pretty straight forward but some where annoying. The fact that some were puzzling or difficult shouldn't make me jump to the fact that they were confusing or bad, for if they weren't either of these it wouldn't create enough of a challenge.

 

The game play is near flawless. There were no bugs during my time of play.

 

The characters felt real. As a man who wishes to have children of his own it was hard not to feel the pain when Joel lost his daughter. His development with Ellie and other side characters could be felt. They had emotions, stories, lives, and aspirations.

 

 

 

The reasons I didn't really enjoy the game though...

 

The batman sonar (That's the closest thing I can relate it to. I know that it doesn't work the same way). At first, it was a seemingly cool mechanic. As a survivor in a post apocalyptic world one would need to rely on many things, sound being one of them. But in game actually using it...it wasn't very helpful or needed and I tended to rely on my other skills as a gamer causing that mechanic to be wasted and fade into the background.

 

Combat, though nicely put together and seemingly fun at first... was easily broken. I'm not talking about Joel's inability to hold the gun completely straight, that is expected when being chased by a hoard of zombies or diving around trying to escape people with weapons. But the shooters would duck into cover near me and be taken out almost instantly. When they weren't near me they didn't take cover very well, and tended to just get blown away. In zombie encounters after a certain point one could manually slam them around. There heads were like jelly when it came to walls, corners, and edges of things. Maybe I just broke the game, or was just good in combat, but it just ended up being no fun for me.

 

Companion cover, emotion, realism in game. This somewhat goes under combat...but I personally hate how Ellie and your other companions refuse to take cover and are practically ignored by everything. It ruins the moment when your companions, though have an expression of fear, are just standing staring at you while you blast or hide away from zombies. It makes me feel like the producers and designers were lazy after creating this seemingly flawless game.

 

Story momentum and progression. Though the character development is realistic, I didn't enjoy the background and progression to the story. Unless this disease had mutated overnight and instantaneously swept across the United States, it wouldn't have been as bad and easily contained. The army would swoop in, things would be quarantined, and people would have been taken out and infected killed (As was seen in the prologue to the game when the soldier takes no hesitation to threaten and shoot Joel and his daughter). Though some anarchy would ensue, they wouldn't be able to gain enough momentum to do anything as a whole. I see how this would completely destroy the game though, but felt there was room for a bit if not a lot of explanation.

 

I tend to enjoy games with a bit of choice and relation. Though I originally felt for Joel soon I was just stuck in his position unable to react or change anything that was going on. I felt some of his actions weren't justified. In the end, this character I had come to bond with became someone I didn't like as a person. He ultimately and literally chose Ellie over humanity, which for him as a character would happen but me as a player felt was wrong.

 

The virus. I personally hated the idea of the way this virus spread and what type they chose. Cordyceps are a fungus and were probably the best choice if the developers wanted a fungus. The original fungus normally takes a hold of insects (normally ants) and brings them to a point where the fungus can spread at its best. They also got down the idea that it normally replaces bodily tissues and causes deformation. The problem with a fungus virus though, is that they are very slow spreading and easy to combat. Fungus' are normally spread through the air, and that is how the disease started in game. But as you can even clearly see in game, is that all you really need to combat a fungal virus, is a gas mask. You truly don't even need the fancy one they had in game, just a medical mask. Also, a fungus like that would have the hardest time mutating to the point where it could take over the mind of a human without an acting outside force.Unlike with other zombie games where the virus is spread via a virus, disease, bio-hazard, etc. those are easier to picture and believe that they can spread and mutate. It was cool that they tried to put a different twist on it, but it was the wrong twist for me.

@Cjdgame, yeah, I have no problem with you not liking the game. I just find opinions based on word of mouth rather than first hand experience in games is insufficient to coming up with your own assessment of a game. I mean, there are plenty of games that I can't stand that a lot of people like, but I wouldn't say I hated them unless I've played them (TWEWY comes to mind, I hate that game, and I have played it, where as FFXIII I've never played so I can't really comment on whether it is good or not, I can comment that it doesn't interest me, but that isn't in any way a statement towards the quality of the game).

Yes, I completely agree with you on that. I feel you have to at least give a game a try before you come to a conclusion. This can be said about a lot though. Like with food... specifically durian comes to mind... you have someone who has had it before dealing with someone who claims it's a bad tasting fruit because they've heard it smells bad.

@Cjdgame: Thanks again for responding to the pm, like I said there my initial request on this topic was nothing but an attempt to sate my curiosity on the subject, which you've done now and I appreciate it and have no problem with your dislike of the game either. (Like I said in pm, but I'll try not to repeat that because the reason I responded to your second post in pm in the first place was to try and let the derailing on this subject die.) Because the argument really stopped having anything to do with the Last of us about a page ago anyway, from the perspective of someone who knows and has played the game telling me it's shortcomings with them I have no reason to be angered in the slightest, or even slightly bothered. Because said criticisms are actually valid points and not pointless conjecture comparing it to dissimilar games that you believe it to be essentially a clone of. 

@Touchfuzzy: I really need to learn how to keep my points as concise as you do, it amazes me that you can make virtually every point I've attempted to make in a lengthy paragraph-wall in 2-3 small paragraphs and not seem to lose anything from it.

Ah, back on topic now hopefully for good.

Saint's Row 3: I know that this genre of game has always been more about screwing around than anything else and a lot of it's charm comes from the fact that you can screw around if you want but at this point these games just freaking lost it and stopped seeming to include anything in the game 'except' that you are screwing around. During Gta4-saint's row 2 time I preferred saints row to gta because I found gta's story to be a little washed out and dull while saint's row, while a bit ridiculous, at least had a little charm to it and did still attempt to sort of tell a story.(Also, in saints row you don't have to constantly mash a button over and over until your controller breaks to run, which pushed it over the edge for me at the time.) Then I got 3 and it was just way to freaking over the top and had no other substance to it to the point that when SR4/GTA5 came around I went with gta.

@Touchfuzzy

I never said I was "so attuned to sniffing out good games".  Funny you should think that I did though.  Also, opinions are opinions.  They can't be validated one way or the other, that's why they are opinions.  Stop confusing opinions with fact.  Seriously, dictionary dot com the word "opinion" and you'll see right in the definition it says "A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty".  The definition under that says "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal".  You cannot, by its very nature, discuss the validity of one's opinion.  That's why it's opinion.  It cannot be judged "wrong" or "invalid".  It can only be judged to be "an incomplete opinion".  How is your opinion of the game any different than mine?  You have experience I do not, that is all.  I decided to form my opinion based upon previous experiences instead of trying to form it based upon a new experience.  Gamers do this all the time (as do people who read books and who go to movie theaters and etcetera).  To say someone's opinion is "arrogance" or "less valid" because they haven't played a game is to admit that critics and reviews of media have no place in society (you form an opinion of something long before you ever purchase it, otherwise you'd just buy absolutely everything and wouldn't try to discern if one product is better than another without wasting your money).

If we're getting into the whole "Tai_MT is attacking the game!", just stop there.  I have said that I simply think the game is mediocre and is very overhyped.  That's the worst thing I've said about the game (unless you somehow count the whole "other games have done this before and it's not that unique or interesting" thing as some kind of attack).

If I had said that I did play the game, but had all those same opinions, would you have taken it more seriously?  I'm curious because that seems to be what you're hung up on.  It's kind of a silly thing to be hung up on.  It's my opinion, it has no bearing on what you personally thought of the game.  I can't see myself playing it because I think it's just a retread of the hundreds of other zombie games before.  To you, this isn't true for whatever reason.  That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  But, if you want to try to debate the "validity" of my opinion, then of course I'm going to fight back and debate the "validity" of your opinion as well.  My initial post on the subject was simply why I never purchased the game or had interest in it with a few of my own personal biases thrown in so people would understand where I was coming from.  I got a rather lengthy reply about the whole thing which basically told me that I wasn't allowed to have my opinion because I "hadn't played the game".  I was then told to go find gameplay of it and watch people play it.  Naturally, every post since has basically been me trying to defend my right to hold my opinion while everyone tells me that I'm not allowed to have it because of arbitrary reasons.

I don't think I even once said you weren't allowed to enjoy the game.  I think the worst I ever said was that people who think the game is "near perfect" or who think it's "really good" make me angry.  Does it matter why those things make me angry?  I can't imagine anyone who actually enjoyed the game would care.  They'd go, "what a weirdo" and ignore me.  I believe I even explained why these phrases make me angry.  Mostly, it boils down to people not really thinking about what they'd just experienced.  They "live in the moment", then say "Best. Game. Evar!!!!" and move on to the next game, never touching their "really good" and "nearly perfect" game again.  I'm not even sure I asked for some kind of "debate" about my opinions.  I simply invited people to try to convince me that I was wrong.  Alexander did a fine job trying it (at least, when he was explaining the game to me, he was).  My reply was simply to point out that some of these game aspects were not really "new" or "unique" and other games in the zombie genre had done them before.  After that, the race was on to insult people for their opinions!

I even tried to defuse the situation a few times.  I've said numerous times "if you enjoy the game, then enjoy it and don't care what I say about it".  In my second post on the subject I even said "Let's just agree to disagree", which is a blatant admission that really don't know a whole lot about the game because I haven't played it, but I will hold to my opinion on it because that's my prerogative.

So, with all that vitriol spewed from both sides of the argument, how about we do something else?  Let's agree to disagree.  Your opinions of the game are no more "valid" than my opinions of the game.  Your opinion does not affect the end product of the experience and nor does mine.  There's no "wrong" or "right" on the subject, just people bashing each other for holding opinions they think are silly.  It's little more than a schoolyard fight that we all instigated and propagated.  There is little reason to continue this random silly fight that makes everyone involved look rather...  well... moronic.  Yes, that includes myself.  Reading through all the posts again, I've noticed that pretty much every post in our little discussion is "facestairs" worthy.  So, let's all shake hands, grumble to ourselves about how the other side are whatever insults we want, and then go back to being nice community members and maybe even friends if the mood strikes us.

Most importantly, let's smile about the whole situation.

But, if you'd like, I will simply say "I was wrong" and then we can move on in our day and drop the issue entirely.  I'll admit to being wrong if it helps the situation out any.  So, smile.  Laugh.  Also, get back on topic!  Ha ha.

---

In reply to Confederacy:

I think the point of locking the game to "always online" is because Bungie has said most of their content is based in the multiplayer sections of the game (things like Strikes, Raids, Versus, etcetera).  It's a shooter with some MMO elements, so I think they just wanted to say "you know what, always online would just solve a lot of problems from the get-go and telling people now will let them decide if it's worth getting because it's a large point of contention".  I'm not saying it's good that the game is locked to "always online".  I'm just saying I kind of understand why they would do so.  You can also drop out of the Strikes and Raids and such by simply getting "too far away" to take part.  They've said that participating in these events is as easy as getting within range and firing off a few shots.  So, these things, while they may go on around you, seem to be completely optional.  Not that it matters much, as they might still get to be a flustercluck or a pain in the rear if you're just out exploring an area and one pops up on top of you.  It kind of is what it is, I guess.  It's already got stuff in it that is going to annoy me and not please me at all (like no real "open world", just chunks of world you can explore).

As for Titanfall...  I have no idea how it'll really work.  I liked the Parkour stuff in CoD Black Ops 1.  Titanfall just looks like a massive extension of that (which I like).  Whether it actually plays exactly like a CoD game with its broken and unbalanced guns and connection/glitch manipulators is another thing.  I, for one, will not pick the game up if that stupid "Quick Scoping" glitch is in it.  I did put in to try out the Beta, so hopefully I can get in and decide whether or not I actually want to keep my preorder lined up.  It's one of those games that could either be really good or really terrible depending on how they've made it.  I don't think there's a "mediocre" in there for what they're trying to do with Titanfall.  But, again, we'll see.

"A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty"

You realize that insufficient to produce complete certainty can be anything from 0%-99% right. All opinions are not made equal. You can have any opinion you want, but your opinion doesn't hold a lot of validity if its based on nothing but second hand knowledge in a situation where gaining first hand knowledge is easy and hurts no one.

The difference is that my opinion and Cjdgame's opinion (who you will remember does not like the game, and I'm fine with that) is based on what we know, while yours is based on what you THINK you know.