If the way you choose to value a game is based on how “old” or “new” it seems to you then you should be prepared for people to question that because it’s meaningless.
If anything a game feeling “older” to me is a good thing considering the nickel-and-diming design by committee garbage that has taken over.
If anything a game feeling “older” to me is a good thing considering the nickel-and-diming design by committee garbage that has taken over.
You’re the one being dishonest. You and the other guy seem deadset convinced that calling something “old” is the equivalent of advocating for enshittified live service games. Here’s a hint: it’s not.
Your argument is dishonest because you are completely misinterpreting what I’m saying - in plain English, you’re putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said. Then you’re attacking that made up concept instead of actually engaging in a discussion.
Allow me to clarify:
You’ve attacked “old” as me somehow implying that “new” is automatically better, which not only have I not said, but also don’t believe in
With your Baldur’s Gate 3 comment you’re somehow implying that I think that ALL “old” titles are somehow bad, which is also not something I have said and also don’t believe in
So to reiterate: I don’t think that new games are automatically better and I don’t think that old games are automatically worse. This is where your dishonesty stems from. I hope you actually understand that.
Ok, then what does it mean to you?
I have said this multiple times already but I guess I’ll say it again: it means Deadlock is not for me because I find it uninteresting. I guess I am just really disappointed that a company as revered as Valve could churn out something so bland.
Bonus round:
Were you confused why Baldur’s Gate 3 was made too?
If a game genre feels old based on the date of its inception, you must only play… I guess battle Royale is the freshest genre? I guess since vr existed in the 80s, that’s old hat as well?
I swear people like you are why honest discourse and good discussion are dying. I’m not even hating on Deadlock, I just said it wasn’t for me, and you guys are coming at me with grade school arguments trying to dunk.
I didn’t start any argument. I said the game wasn’t for me. Then pathetic fan boys got upset that I’m not some sycophant blindly praising their new favorite game and started trying to deconstruct my opinion with shoddy bad faith arguments like we were having some sweat debate.
What’s up with this bad faith argument? How do you immediately jump to that conclusion after reading any part of my comment?
I essentially was saying I don’t think the game is for me because it feels old. To me, that is uninteresting and unfun.
If the way you choose to value a game is based on how “old” or “new” it seems to you then you should be prepared for people to question that because it’s meaningless.
If anything a game feeling “older” to me is a good thing considering the nickel-and-diming design by committee garbage that has taken over.
You’re the one being dishonest. You and the other guy seem deadset convinced that calling something “old” is the equivalent of advocating for enshittified live service games. Here’s a hint: it’s not.
Ok, then what does it mean to you? Were you confused why Baldur’s Gate 3 was made too? It’s an even older gameplay concept and did less to change it.
Edit: I’m also struggling to see how I was being “dishonest” by sharing an opinion.
Your argument is dishonest because you are completely misinterpreting what I’m saying - in plain English, you’re putting words in my mouth that I haven’t said. Then you’re attacking that made up concept instead of actually engaging in a discussion.
Allow me to clarify:
You’ve attacked “old” as me somehow implying that “new” is automatically better, which not only have I not said, but also don’t believe in
With your Baldur’s Gate 3 comment you’re somehow implying that I think that ALL “old” titles are somehow bad, which is also not something I have said and also don’t believe in
So to reiterate: I don’t think that new games are automatically better and I don’t think that old games are automatically worse. This is where your dishonesty stems from. I hope you actually understand that.
I have said this multiple times already but I guess I’ll say it again: it means Deadlock is not for me because I find it uninteresting. I guess I am just really disappointed that a company as revered as Valve could churn out something so bland.
Bonus round:
No.
If a game genre feels old based on the date of its inception, you must only play… I guess battle Royale is the freshest genre? I guess since vr existed in the 80s, that’s old hat as well?
I swear people like you are why honest discourse and good discussion are dying. I’m not even hating on Deadlock, I just said it wasn’t for me, and you guys are coming at me with grade school arguments trying to dunk.
You saying mobas are irrelevant because it’s not 2014 is honest discourse? Aight.
I just said it wasn’t for me. How do you read that and come back with this:
Is reading comprehension really that hard for you? Lol.
Honestly you started with a bad faith argument, then got upset when others did the same.
I didn’t start any argument. I said the game wasn’t for me. Then pathetic fan boys got upset that I’m not some sycophant blindly praising their new favorite game and started trying to deconstruct my opinion with shoddy bad faith arguments like we were having some sweat debate.