Apparently I've been banned from responding further in the Spider-Man 2 preview thread. No response given.
Despite saying multiple times that I liked the original, that Spider-Man 2 will likely be great, and that I will be playing it eventually, I've been accused (whether implicitly or explicitly) of having some sort of ulterior motive. One person even said I was "blatantly trolling."
That's pretty absurd and makes me assume that actual legitimate, critical discourse is discouraged on this forum. I assumed that Neogaf was better, from a censorship perspective, than ResetEra, but I guess it isn't. Kinda disheartening.
Shouldn't we, as enthusiasts, be open to discussing praise and criticism about games, regardless of the platform on which they're played? Do we really want this place to be an echo chamber, validating our own purchasing decisions and discouraging people from making us feel FOMO and Buyers Remorse? Shouldn't we want to engage in critical thought surrounding our hobby?
I imagine this will also be banned, and possibly lead to my own banning, but I'm okay with that if this site is only for disingenuous discourse. So, with that said, I'd like to finish my point that I couldn't in that thread:
My larger point was that when one says "This is Game of the Year," they are generally saying, "This is THE Game of the Year, based on majority critical consensus of major publications and sites." Otherwise if Steve from down the way says that Disney Illusion Island is his Game of the Year, we'd have to call it a Game of the Year.
With that in mind, my argument is that Spider-Man 2 will not be Game of the Year, based on majority critical consensus of major publications and sites.
I'm sure the game will be great, and I'll definitely be playing it eventually. Not Game of the Year though. I will bet $1.00 that the majority critical consensus from major publications/sites will be either Tears of the Kingdom or Baulder's Gate III.
Despite saying multiple times that I liked the original, that Spider-Man 2 will likely be great, and that I will be playing it eventually, I've been accused (whether implicitly or explicitly) of having some sort of ulterior motive. One person even said I was "blatantly trolling."
That's pretty absurd and makes me assume that actual legitimate, critical discourse is discouraged on this forum. I assumed that Neogaf was better, from a censorship perspective, than ResetEra, but I guess it isn't. Kinda disheartening.
Shouldn't we, as enthusiasts, be open to discussing praise and criticism about games, regardless of the platform on which they're played? Do we really want this place to be an echo chamber, validating our own purchasing decisions and discouraging people from making us feel FOMO and Buyers Remorse? Shouldn't we want to engage in critical thought surrounding our hobby?
I imagine this will also be banned, and possibly lead to my own banning, but I'm okay with that if this site is only for disingenuous discourse. So, with that said, I'd like to finish my point that I couldn't in that thread:
My larger point was that when one says "This is Game of the Year," they are generally saying, "This is THE Game of the Year, based on majority critical consensus of major publications and sites." Otherwise if Steve from down the way says that Disney Illusion Island is his Game of the Year, we'd have to call it a Game of the Year.
With that in mind, my argument is that Spider-Man 2 will not be Game of the Year, based on majority critical consensus of major publications and sites.
I'm sure the game will be great, and I'll definitely be playing it eventually. Not Game of the Year though. I will bet $1.00 that the majority critical consensus from major publications/sites will be either Tears of the Kingdom or Baulder's Gate III.
