Should someone's skill in a game determine whether or not they should have a say on whether a game is good or not...

Should someone's skill in a game determine whether or not they should have a say on whether a game is good or not? I've notice that people tend to call games they're good at "good games" despite the general consensus being that the game they're playing is trash (CSGO, PUBG, Overwatch, etc). Inversely, I've had friends call objectively good games like Dark Souls and Hotline Miami terrible games, the one thing they all have in common is that they're bad at these games (DSP is also an example of this).

The thing that should determine whether someone has a say in whether a game is good or not is if they have at least a basic understanding of game design.

Are you still trying in 2018 to mix (subjective) opinions and (objective) game quality

Are you still trying to banter and troll X or Y games' quality instead of discussing like
- "i liked X"
-"Oh cool, can't like it but i liked Y"
- "Y is cool i guess, let's have another beer"

Are you still trying to get the high ground on your """"friends""""" opinions

Are you still trying to pull some 2006 tier discussion here? Go to the archive, check any opinion thread and replace the topic with your game. It's gonna be exactly the same.

You guys are getting pretty close. The opinions I value the most in anything tend to come from people who are well read in whatever they are talking about and have a genuine interest in their subject.

The problem with opinions here is that a love for games isn't what drives the vast majority of posts.

The answer is no all across the board. It's like you didn't even read my post.

In terms of having a legitimate opinion on balance only the top 5% or so of a playerbase matters.

You should be at least competent at a game to be able to give it a notable score. If you were to be graded on how you played the game you should be able to get a c- before you can be trusted at all

Is it memes that drive the posts then?

I'd say this is legit. They would have the most detailed knowledge of the different parts of a game and how they relate to each other. If they didn't, they wouldn't be at the top.

Ok i'll dumb down my point so you can get it.
Opinion IS NOT objective.
Therefore, your friends opinions are just, well opinion.
No, skill should not determine one's say in a game quality.

The real question is, to get closer to my original point, why do you care about their opinion stated as fact? Why do they feel entitled to judge a game's quality? They can't. end of line, case closed, etc.

Memes, blowing off steam, shitting on something to feel less pathetic, or putting something popular down just to feel like you've accomplished something.

We share a great hobby, it's just that gamers aren't always the most self-aware or articulate.

>the general consensus being that the game they're playing is trash (CSGO, PUBG, Overwatch, etc)
do you live in some kind of Sup Forums bubble?

I honestly hope you don't actually enjoy any of these games user, otherwise I feel bad for your parents

i dont play any of them. i also dont pretend like Sup Forums's opinion is anything but the most contrarian faggotry out there

Whats your rank on CSGO? If it is anythin below sherif 2 you are awful at this game

Shitting on games because they're popular is a giant fucking meme

In a competitive game, yes. Otherwise, not necessarily, but you do need to play a lot. No matter how much of a 200iq game design genius you think you are you can't properly judge (many) games after only playing an hour. Similar principle applies to other mediums too.

Someone should be competent enough to play a game without any difficulties to potentially sway their bias if they're giving an honest review of a game and its inherent mechanics. Sadly since most people are absolutely retarded, this means you're typically above average.

There's usually the issue that some games get by solely on their production values, while their complexity and depth (or lack thereof) are never factored into the equation.

A better solution would be to talk about games you feel are better and explain why.

It's stupid to draw attention to bad games, you only make people more curious about them.

I'LL KILL YOU

What is a “good” game?
What is a “bad” game?

You should have answered these questions in your OP.

Except they are objectively terrible games

As long as most of the ad revenue comes from the people who make those games, I can't see that problem going away.

If you don't know these already then it's obvious you don't even play video game and shouldn't be posting here.

it's really not, most good players are running on a very complex, adaptable autopilot and understand close to zero of the games they play on an analytical level, and most of them are even worse about pushing favoritism for things that they like using over game balance, if you got together a bunch of pro players and told them to design a new game they thought was better 9/10 of them would be useless and have awful ideas or just copy the previous game directly with arbitrary changes based on things that annoy them

Despite the fact that you haven’t explained why they are “objectively terrible”, why does it matter if as many people enjoy the games as they do?

Because nu-v cant stand spending time on a game to improve.

Ok, so this is just a shitposting thread. Should have stated from the start, mods don’t give a fuck anyway.

Except they aren't. Stay mad, Dark Soys fanboy

Doesn’t answer the question.

You're not smart enough to make objective statements about anything.

Except that at least two of those three games aren't bad games at all (I haven't played PUBG), I'd love to know why you think they are, without resorting to autist-tier Sup Forums memery

>t. Person who tortures himself playing garbage

.

Generally, the people who have the most experience in the game best understand what makes it good or what makes it bad.
On the flipside, people who play one game a lot just tend to grow so used to it that they prefer playing it to other things. A good portion of these people probably understand this though.

People with over thousand hours in a game often enough call a game like CS:GO, PUBG or Dota2 bad or don't simply praise it to heavens. I've never seen people particularly actively call them the best games there are.
A game that people repeatedly find it worth it to invest time in likely has some merit to it. The time shouldn't be directly convertible to how good something is but it can indicate a lot. Something like WoW might be somewhat timesink, EVE online doesn't actually take whole lotta time overall but if you keep getting better at something completely action- and performance-oriented like the other games mentioned even after ages of playing, that's a good indicator that the game has a reasonable depth to it and enough variety to keep the players going.

It's fun to learn Dust 2 well enough that you can kick most player's ass at it. And when you start to get tired of that, you also have a good selection of other great maps to play and master.

i already said i dont play those games, why do autistic people always assume explaining something is the same thing as supporting it

>dark souls and hotline miami
are you 15?

Those games are years old now

Because autists are the ones who fail to understand other people, ie. "why would someone like this when I don't" kind of stupid.
Despite those games being iconic to a meme level, they are still good games. They rely on mechanics for the entertainment and do far above the average on that merit compared to competitors.

>people can't play games after release date
dark souls and hotline miami - "mommy i wanna look hardcore"

People, overall, who have invested enough time in a game to become fundamentally capable of the game's mechanics are able to make an objective statement regarding the game's mechanics.

People, overall, who may not be able to grasp the fundamental mechanics of a game are able to make a subjective statement regarding a game, which, depending on the quality and quantity of such statements, could also reflect in a game's design.

Both have their places. In my personal opinion, objective say is greater than subjective say, but both are equally integral in discussing a game's quality.

The reverse is also true, where people may say that a game is inherently flawed in several ways but may still enjoy playing it nonetheless. I enjoy World of Warraft despite its glaring flaws, and I've played it long enough to have objective opinions on it and have played enough MMOs to have subjective opinions on it. In the end, I think it's fundamentally a bad game but it is a fun game.

Long story short? Skill matters, but so do numbers. If a lot of people say it's bad, it's probably bad, subjectively. Of course, Sup Forums is the idea of "contrarian" incarnate, so all of this goes out the window because Sup Forums will like a game before it's released and hate it when it's out simply by virtue of popularity.

CSGO takes infinitely more skill than both of those. Dark souls mechanics is about spamming roll and attack, there really isn't anything hardcore about the series, everyone plays it. The "super difficult" myth is a marketing ploy. And hotline miami is essentially an enhanced flash game.

>objectively good games
>dark souls

point entirely invalid

Just type "ISHYGDDT" like a normal person.

Thank you for the effort of your post, user. I'm glad to hear someone else also reflects the same mindset I have and I of them.

Have a fantastic day, friend.

>discussing a game's strengths and flaws is a worse discussion to have than "everybody is entitled to their opinion bro!
go have another beer retard

t. shit at dark souls

>Should someone's skill in a game determine whether or not they should have a say on whether a game is good or not?
Player skill doesn't fucking matter.
The skill of the developer in making the game good or not, is what actually matters.

> single player game
> only a campaign
it's shit

> multiplayer game
> no bots for when 0 players online
it's shit

> a game
> it has bugs
IT'S SHIT

> game crashes
> ever
SO SHIT IT'S UNPLAYABLE

how can you be bad at a single player game with checkpoints?

by being unable to travel from one checkpoint to another

Because the videogame industry starts making videogames that appeal to them instead of me, contributing to the degradation of videogames. Therefore, it's within my interests to convince people to enjoy the same things I do.

And even if it didn't affect me, I am free to laugh at you for enjoying such terrible games.

A person's skill should give them a say in how good a game is in a competitive aspect and only in some portions of it.

Otherwise, to determine if a game is 'good' or not, the person reviewing it must at least be able to perform whatever the game requires of them to complete it. Then with that hurdle passed, the person should at least have a basic understanding of game-design.

Would you trust an electronics review site that ran articles by tech-incompetent seniors?

So to proove your very point you literally just said

>shit im good at = good game
>shit im bad at = bad game

Holy shit retard..

But those top 5% are autistic people who are crazy. Just because the game is fun for them doesn't make it good.

The fact that you write off anyone who is decent as "autistic" tells me you're usually trash. Why would anyone care to balance a game around a trash player. Top 5% isn't even that crazy and is pretty attainable.

>Top 5% isn't even that crazy and is pretty attainable.
In league of legends that's pretty hard to attain. 2000-3000 hours may not seem alot to you but it is alot. You're probably autistic too.
The people who rank top in runescape are those who had the autism to click for thousands of hours to max their skills.
Just because autistic people like something doesn't mean it's good.

Not at all what I said, read again.

I'm so bad at dark souls that I actually despawned all almost all the enemies in each area in ds2. But it's my favourite souls game.

Yes, why would you ever trust the opinion of someone who is shit and uneducated over someone who isn't? Look at IGN's Wonderful 101 fiasco for this exact situation of idiots giving the game a lower score because they're idiots and can't figure anything out. Or fuck look at that IGN thing with the Doom remake.

thats only because ds2 scholar of the first sin is objectively the best game in the series

Top 5% in most competitive games isn't that nuts. Over half the players drop the game right after buying it, so you're automatically top 50% like 25% of them are borderline retarded so you're top 25% then you just need to climb from there.

That is an incredibly stupid opinion to hold. People like you are the reason AAA games are the dumbed-down hand-holding trash that they are. AAA devs need to treat their player base like they're new-born infants and can't shit on their own.

No, since most players are low tier their opinions should matter more. The crazy high tier people will adjust because they've already invested too much time to just quit while making the game more fun for the casual will bring in new people and keep the people who aren't as likely to stick around.

Lots of game require grinding if you calibrate low. Requires thousands of hours.

can you beat it without playing in easy mode (i.e. summons, magic, shields, healing, leveling)? if not you're bad at it.

I played a late version of ds2 though. Not scholar because I couldn't find it to download it.

Sounds like you just play mobas dude. I'm thinking of fighting games mostly.
You can't balance for shitty players. I can't make a skillshot do a ton of damage just because bronze players can't land it, it would ruin the game for competent players.

No, its exactly what you said. You took “shit you like” to mean “objectivley good or you are just bad at the game”

scholar is the late version

>it would ruin the game for competent players.
In a non-esports game, it has to be based around the ordinary players because otherwise only the 5% will enjoy it and then it will die.
Esports games can get away with this because then normies will watch and get inspired and addicted and dream being good.

It wasn't scholar but it was close.

No, all games need to be balanced for competent play. Maybe not top 5% but you can't balance for shit players. A shit player is too bad to notice balance issues but a competent one will.

Imagine having reading comprehension this poor