- OrderedComa
- |
- Noble Member
Posted by: Matu Flp Krawfe
Popularity: a measure of how many people like a particular thing.
Assumption: the more people that like a game, (IE. the more popular it is) the more people will play it. Ergo, popularity can be inferred from an online population.
It may not be the only indicator, but it's certainly one you can use here.
The populations count is an indication of its popularity, yes, but it is not the ultimate and deciding factor of whether it is really popular or not. This has been brought up before, and it's a very good point so I'll say it again, a lot of Halo's original players have grown up a lot since they first started playing, they can't be on every single second of every day or even be on every day anymore (that is most definitely the case with me) and not everybody is solely focused on or obsessed with one game, sometimes I just don't want to play Halo.
And not to mention there are more great (or just popular) video games these days than ever before, and that also effects population. So yes, it's good to get an estimate from, but a population count is not absolute law in determining what is popular or not.
An entertainment product that fails to actually entertain the user is, by definition, a failure. And I can say that in an objective sense because I'm damn well sure that whatever you're getting out of Reach, it's not fun, joy, or any other positive emotional response that could satisfy the above criteria of "entertainment." Schadenfreude or the junky's rush, perhaps, but nothing relevant to the discussion here.
Bull--blam!---blam!-! Who are you to say whether I enjoy a game/movie/book or not! You're not me, you're not in my head, you have no way of knowing what I do or do not enjoy. I enjoy Reach very much, I have joy (and rage, and sadness, and any other emotion one can have while playing any game, video game or otherwise) while playing the game. Reach is just as much fun for me as any of the other Halo games ever were. I -blam!- KNOW what I enjoy, and it's not your place or anybody else's to tell me that I don't enjoy it! Don't try to tell me what I do or do not like or whether I enjoy it or not!
An opinion is not necessarily fact but that is not to say that it can't be fact. It was Darwin's opinion that the biodiversity of life was in part a product of natural selection, and despite his subjective perspective he hit upon the truth there to describe fact.
And in the same way, with the powers of observation and reason anyone here may be striking truth with their "foolish" opinions so please don't act like a jackass and discount anyone for not being omniscient.
And Darwin's theory of Natural Selection was proved, for the most part, accurate through scientific observation and examination. And far as I have heard and read Darwin didn't really go around touting his theory as absolute and irrefutable fact, unlike a lot of the people I have seen making claims about Reach. And I have certainly not seen very many people using any sort of scientific approach to backing up their claims.
What I have seen on here the vast majority of the time is making claims that ultimately boil down to, in its very simplest form, "Reach sucks, and that is a fact" using nothing to back it up other than that is what they think.
And I'm not trying to say that anyone is automatically wrong, I am saying that it would be far wiser to not claim their opinion to be irrefutable fact. By all means they can say what they want and think what they want about the game, but rather than saying "Reach is the worst game ever, I know this for a fact and you're ignorant and a fanboy/girl for disagreeing", they should be wording their claims more like this "I don't like Reach, I think it was a horrible game and one of the worst I've ever played, here's why I think that *proceed to give evidence/examples that backs up and supports point*".
See the difference and which one is better?