JohnCoffey wrote:
Bamba wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever?
For sure. It's right up there in the subjectivity stakes along with 'how much someone enjoyed a particular video game'. Reviews of anything are subjective at every level, that's rather the point. Come on man, you know that.
Then why did that guy review it? Sounds like he didn't enjoy the first two either. As said, one of its charming qualities is the humour. The problem I have is that he's saying that the humour in the game is dated and not funny any more. To him, he means. The problem is that every reviewer now thinks they are the authority of what they do. At least that's how they see themselves. So why are they reviewing the games if it's not their sort of thing and thus they know it's going to be negative?
I tell you, the older I get the more this planet confuses me
I wouldn't mind but most reviewers now are just corporate shills.
Borderlands is silly, it is childish, it's rude and sometimes gross but that's why I like it lol.
This is so obviously going to be one of those things you just keep banging on about without ever trying to understand the other viewpoint but let's give this a shot.
Every reviewer
is the authority of what they do; because what they do is give a completely subjective opinion on the completely subjective subject of 'how good is a video game'. Every person in the world may or may not like certain bits of something. That's up to them. That's their opinion. That's fine. It's more than fine, in this case it's exactly what they're supposed to be doing. In the same way you're perfectly welcome to disagree.
If they said something was, I dunno, available for the PS4 when it wasn't then that's a factual error that they should absolutely be pulled up for.
If they praised the cutting edge graphics and it actually looked like ten year old horseshit then that's absolutely a point worth making.
If they say they don't find something funny though? Yeah, fuck off, you don't get to tell anyone what they actually think is funny because that's genuinely more subjective that 'how good a video game is to play'.
Bonus round:
JohnCoffey wrote:
I wouldn't mind but most reviewers now are just corporate shills.
The 'corporation' in this scenario would be Gearbox, the massive multinational game publisher.
If the guy you're shitting on was a corporate shill then he'd be spending the entire review telling everyone how hilarious and awesome the game was.
He's totally not doing that.
In fact, that's what you're annoyed about.
Please give some consideration to how completely nonsensical that makes your stance.