ProudSkibidiTolietAryan
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 18 de Abr, 2025
This is going to be a very weird post but stay with me.
Today with extreme video essays and reviews most people have a "extremely concise" opinion on almost every form of media.
These do not reflect my views but rather im making a point of the general consensus on something
Heartbound is considered a "BAD" game
Deltarune is considered a "AMAZING" game
Undertale is considered a "MASTERPIECE"
The point is that TODAY rather than having a bunch of people all having differing opinions on something we have a bunch of people all having the SAME opinions about something.
So does this mean that people are simply alot smarter? That they come to these opinions organically.
No
Im going to tell you that MOST people nowadays do not have organic thoughts or opinions and rather there taste in things that they subconsciously consume would be considered "Shit" by most of the reviewers that they follow. This thread is to tell you that if you enjoyed something that people consider objectively bad. Don't be afraid to say you LIKED it.
Halo 5 Guardians(2015)
Considered one of the WORST games in the halo franchise Halo 5 guardians is a bad game. That much is known, its considered so bad that people say its a perfect example of "How not to write a story". The gameplay is considered good but the story is hated by EVERYONE. The ENTIRE halo community hates Halo 5s campaign. For good reason to, it has a lot of plot-holes almost every line is poorly written, it takes away what made halo so great, it lied in its marketing ALOT and the entire story it was hinting at in the marketing never happened, it replaced chief with a spartan named Agent Locke who was also poorly written and gave chief barely any missions, the game could be completed quickly. The story is nonsensical and Is generally one of the WORST story's written in gaming for a triple A studio.
Now most people would say they are smart enough to understand when a story is terrible or THIS poorly written. Most will think they are smart enough to recognize when a story sucks.
Now I want to do something. Im going to find a video of one of the missions played by IGN and sort by the OLDEST comments. So we can see what people thought of the game before a COMMON CONSENSUS that people could latch onto was formed. This is the second mission of the game, where it becomes clear that the games story is really bad. Even to newcomers.
I could go on and on but mainly people LIKE IT?
Whats more is that the people voicing concerns are giving the worst talking points, like the gameplay being the same as halo 4(Which is wrong in every way) ALL the complaints given are like complete bullshit compared to the OBVIOUS talking points we talk about once a common consensus on the game was formed.
Lets look at another video. The credits of the game and look at the oldest comments.
The only COMPLAINTS In here are about the ENDING being a cliffhanger.
One of the LEAST of halo 5s problems is the main talking point in this comment section, that they wanted to see MORE of the story that they were invested in.
So what am I arguing with this information?
Well im saying that BEFORE a common CONSENSUS about something is formed on something we get to see for a brief moment a glimpse into what someone ACTUALLY thought about something before it goes into their subconscious and replaced with what video reviewers say.
Most people are actually extremely "dumb". They will not only consume one of the worst written story's in gaming but actually LIKE IT, and by a margin. My theory is that there is a separate language of emotions that we subconsciously speak, with descriptions that NO language could put into words, thats why despite something being when on paper universally bad it can still be enjoyed a huge margin. There is a seperate language that we speak in our brains that can describe things no english textbook could ever do. Its why the idea of something being objectively wrong is something that inferates me.
As with people liking something that is universally hated before conforming to the norm, such the opposite with hating it is true we will get into that soon enough.
Fallout 3(2008-)
Considered THE worst 3d fallout BY FAR its interesting to view this game BEFORE a common consensus was viewed. People tossed it off as BAD. People originally thought that Fallout 3 was better which I will use as a example soon.
Ill briefly explain everything wrong with fallout 3 and why today its considered a "Bad" game and why I put bad in quotes. This is one of the intresting examples of a game that is OBJECTIVELY bad and should be considered objectively bad, but its built such a repuation BEFORE a common consensus could come out that its NOT considered bad just "flawed'. Because people had so many good memories with it that video essay people can not say its "Extremely bad".
Some reviewers today have GUTS to say its bad regardless
Some don't and instead say "ITS A NIGHTMARE" to avoid directly saying its bad(Is it a nightmare because of its atmosphere etc. or is it because its bad?). They don't have the stones to insult the game even though they have OBJECTIVE reasons because so many people played this game before a common consensus was born and as such its considered good to ALOT of people despite being a objectively bad game.
Reasons for fallout 3 being "bad" are extremely long but ill boil it down
(You can use https://www.hadzy.com to sort youtube videos by oldest.)
(Its funny because one of the biggest complaints of fallout 3 is that its more of a shooter than RPG. Even that complaint does not cross the average person when playing)
Its mostly uamerious praise from all across the board.
Intresting right? This is one of the reasons why the idea of media literacy pisses me off so much. Media literacy is not as bad init of itself, on paper at least.
Grand Theft Auto V(2013):
Loved by critics, fans and generally EVERYONE who played games GTA V was considered THE BEST game of ALL time by people.
However when you put the thing on paper.
Well its because something can be bad on PAPER when put into english but also BE AWESOME and have alot of value EMOTIONALLY. How? Because our brains speak a seperate language that describes the EMOTIONS something brings out. Often being greater and more complex than what can be written down in English or ANY languages with no words to describe its limitless vocabulary.
Here is a example
Trevor is considered one of the worst written main protagonists in the 3d universe(No not counting stories or any expansions or gta 3. Were talking Vice city, San Andreas, IV, ballad of gay tony, and 5)
However? Most people after first beating GTA V like a majority would say once the credits roll that TREVOR was there favorite.
Why?
Because despite being poorly written he spoke DIRECTLY to that emotional language that primitive human words can not describe.
Side note but imo GTA Vs satire is not worse than GTA IV. The whole "Poltically incorrect owning the ultra-offended hahahahah" style of satire was simply because it was RELEVANT at the time.
Closing shit
Im not going to tell you how to think. I mean I just spent this ENTIRE blogpost talking about thinking for yourself it would be pretty ironic to say "This is what you should take outta this". Agree or disagree with this id like to hear it or if you have you own examples id like to read it.
Today with extreme video essays and reviews most people have a "extremely concise" opinion on almost every form of media.
These do not reflect my views but rather im making a point of the general consensus on something
Heartbound is considered a "BAD" game
Deltarune is considered a "AMAZING" game
Undertale is considered a "MASTERPIECE"
The point is that TODAY rather than having a bunch of people all having differing opinions on something we have a bunch of people all having the SAME opinions about something.
So does this mean that people are simply alot smarter? That they come to these opinions organically.
No
Im going to tell you that MOST people nowadays do not have organic thoughts or opinions and rather there taste in things that they subconsciously consume would be considered "Shit" by most of the reviewers that they follow. This thread is to tell you that if you enjoyed something that people consider objectively bad. Don't be afraid to say you LIKED it.
Halo 5 Guardians(2015)
Considered one of the WORST games in the halo franchise Halo 5 guardians is a bad game. That much is known, its considered so bad that people say its a perfect example of "How not to write a story". The gameplay is considered good but the story is hated by EVERYONE. The ENTIRE halo community hates Halo 5s campaign. For good reason to, it has a lot of plot-holes almost every line is poorly written, it takes away what made halo so great, it lied in its marketing ALOT and the entire story it was hinting at in the marketing never happened, it replaced chief with a spartan named Agent Locke who was also poorly written and gave chief barely any missions, the game could be completed quickly. The story is nonsensical and Is generally one of the WORST story's written in gaming for a triple A studio.
Now most people would say they are smart enough to understand when a story is terrible or THIS poorly written. Most will think they are smart enough to recognize when a story sucks.
Now I want to do something. Im going to find a video of one of the missions played by IGN and sort by the OLDEST comments. So we can see what people thought of the game before a COMMON CONSENSUS that people could latch onto was formed. This is the second mission of the game, where it becomes clear that the games story is really bad. Even to newcomers.
I could go on and on but mainly people LIKE IT?
Whats more is that the people voicing concerns are giving the worst talking points, like the gameplay being the same as halo 4(Which is wrong in every way) ALL the complaints given are like complete bullshit compared to the OBVIOUS talking points we talk about once a common consensus on the game was formed.
Lets look at another video. The credits of the game and look at the oldest comments.
The only COMPLAINTS In here are about the ENDING being a cliffhanger.
One of the LEAST of halo 5s problems is the main talking point in this comment section, that they wanted to see MORE of the story that they were invested in.
So what am I arguing with this information?
Well im saying that BEFORE a common CONSENSUS about something is formed on something we get to see for a brief moment a glimpse into what someone ACTUALLY thought about something before it goes into their subconscious and replaced with what video reviewers say.
Most people are actually extremely "dumb". They will not only consume one of the worst written story's in gaming but actually LIKE IT, and by a margin. My theory is that there is a separate language of emotions that we subconsciously speak, with descriptions that NO language could put into words, thats why despite something being when on paper universally bad it can still be enjoyed a huge margin. There is a seperate language that we speak in our brains that can describe things no english textbook could ever do. Its why the idea of something being objectively wrong is something that inferates me.
As with people liking something that is universally hated before conforming to the norm, such the opposite with hating it is true we will get into that soon enough.
Fallout 3(2008-)
Considered THE worst 3d fallout BY FAR its interesting to view this game BEFORE a common consensus was viewed. People tossed it off as BAD. People originally thought that Fallout 3 was better which I will use as a example soon.
Ill briefly explain everything wrong with fallout 3 and why today its considered a "Bad" game and why I put bad in quotes. This is one of the intresting examples of a game that is OBJECTIVELY bad and should be considered objectively bad, but its built such a repuation BEFORE a common consensus could come out that its NOT considered bad just "flawed'. Because people had so many good memories with it that video essay people can not say its "Extremely bad".
Some reviewers today have GUTS to say its bad regardless
Some don't and instead say "ITS A NIGHTMARE" to avoid directly saying its bad(Is it a nightmare because of its atmosphere etc. or is it because its bad?). They don't have the stones to insult the game even though they have OBJECTIVE reasons because so many people played this game before a common consensus was born and as such its considered good to ALOT of people despite being a objectively bad game.
Reasons for fallout 3 being "bad" are extremely long but ill boil it down
- Your choices rarely have any weight.
- The bad guys are poorly written and lack depth or understanding
- The choices in the game(A RPG GAME) mind you are "Do the good thing" or "Commit a holocaust and do something that has no moral justification". Compared to the previous fallout games and new vegas where the choices of villians had MORE depth and not just "Im a evil asshole for no reason". Not even in other fallout games in basic MEDIA and literature there are greater reasons. Literal PRESCHOOL books have more depth for the bad decisions made by the characters than in fallout 3.
- Bad dialouge
- Recycles ALOT from the previous fallout games, where the main VILLIAN is already one we fought in fallout 2(The enclave) and the Good side we fight for was ALREADY introducted in the FIRST fallout game. The main factions are recycled and it makes for a story that does not have any real suprises for people who played the first 2 games.
- Extreme bugs and crashes, and framerate issues.
(Its funny because one of the biggest complaints of fallout 3 is that its more of a shooter than RPG. Even that complaint does not cross the average person when playing)
Its mostly uamerious praise from all across the board.
Intresting right? This is one of the reasons why the idea of media literacy pisses me off so much. Media literacy is not as bad init of itself, on paper at least.
Grand Theft Auto V(2013):
This is one of those times where I talk about this more in detail.
Loved by critics, fans and generally EVERYONE who played games GTA V was considered THE BEST game of ALL time by people.
However when you put the thing on paper.
- When compared to OTHER games in the series GTA V had some plotholes and its story(Not characters) was not as engaging as the previous games
- The gameplay was simplified and details were removed from GTA 4 in order to make the game looking graphically better on the surface.
- The driving was dumbed down to where many people nowadays complain about it compared to GTA 4.
- It has the best story because its problematic and super offensive(Yes this is what you and many others thought before a CONSENSUS was formed) Its more fun than GTA 4s dark and grittiness
- The gameplay made things alot better with checkpoints in missions instead of having to restart the ENTIRE mission.
- The driving was FINALLY fixed from the DOGSHIT GTA 4s driving
How can you play something that is objectively bad but eventually have to COME TO HATE IT, rather than just hating it out of the gate? With all the good media out there why would something thats "Bad" on paper be considered GOOD at first?
Well its because something can be bad on PAPER when put into english but also BE AWESOME and have alot of value EMOTIONALLY. How? Because our brains speak a seperate language that describes the EMOTIONS something brings out. Often being greater and more complex than what can be written down in English or ANY languages with no words to describe its limitless vocabulary.
Here is a example
Trevor is considered one of the worst written main protagonists in the 3d universe(No not counting stories or any expansions or gta 3. Were talking Vice city, San Andreas, IV, ballad of gay tony, and 5)
However? Most people after first beating GTA V like a majority would say once the credits roll that TREVOR was there favorite.
Why?
Side note but imo GTA Vs satire is not worse than GTA IV. The whole "Poltically incorrect owning the ultra-offended hahahahah" style of satire was simply because it was RELEVANT at the time.
Closing shit
Im not going to tell you how to think. I mean I just spent this ENTIRE blogpost talking about thinking for yourself it would be pretty ironic to say "This is what you should take outta this". Agree or disagree with this id like to hear it or if you have you own examples id like to read it.
Archivos adjuntos
Última edición:
