CptMorganCA

i feel like there's a lot of simmering passion in this thread (be it against dan's personality, the site's editorial/rhetorical tone, and/or giant bomb's treatment of past games) that this discussion has inadvertently reignited.

but ultimately the piece that didn't square with me is how the 'red-dead-cannot-be-most-disappointing' crowd seemingly would not entertain the notion of the game coexisting on both 'most disappointing' and 'best game' lists (as if those accolades are mutually exclusive). the lists are never completely endorsed by all members of the staff- and how many times over the years have we heard, 'well i don't agree with [X], but if you want the real truth look to my personal list..." i forget who said it, but i thought it was a really salient point when someone in the deliberations mentioned that by including read dead on 'most disappointing' it was a more accurate portrayal of the site's diversity of opinions on the game.

by simultaneously existing in the various subcategories (best story, most disappointing, etc) as well as the top 10- that feels like a much more honest product of the site's deliberations than if red dead had simply been in only positive categories...which is why i'm pretty satisfied with the outcome.

I understand where the OP is coming from on Dan's thing, at least I think I do. It stinks, but he was playing the room. It comes across as a bit manipulative. Someone else will concede some small negative detail to express that they don't think the game is perfect or anything, but overall it's good or great.. And then you'll see a smirk on Dan's face, and then he'll latch onto that small negative detail and continually bring it up in his argument. Like "Well, Vinny, you said you had an issue with X, and Ben said he had that problem one time with Y.. Sooo?" And then that stirs up the whole thing again.

If you watch him, you'll see him smirk a lot. I know because I'm a pretty manipulative person, as much as that is something I don't like to admit. But it's all part of the deliberations "game" so to speak. You need to rally more people to your side. There was a point where Abby suddenly chimed in after an awkward moment I think and said some real shit, it might've been about how or why Dan thinks RDR1 is so incredible and yet this is practically the same thing and somehow it's the worst game ever. It flipped the tone in the room, but only briefly, I think because Dan responded and changed the subject a bit. Also, he was trying to use that "one person before was able to passionately argue for something to get on a list" card, except it was totally shot down by.. Actually, that was a game that people felt indifferent about and looked fine from a distance. Not, hey.. this game is loved by a few people in the group, liked by others, and disliked by a person who clearly was never going to like it in the first place. I don't think he had enough of a valid case for it to be in those three.

And I agree with what @humanity has been saying. It comes off as shitty for me to say this, but I think if the game type is clearly not for you, maybe your opinion on these games should hold less value. I don't really play fighting games, and I suck at them, so I think it would be really unfair for me to come in and say "DragonBall FighterZ sucks. I can't do combos or anything, everyone beats me every time. It plays like shit." and then Jason says.. "Actually, the entire fighting community is in love with it.. It's highly praised for it's controls and gameplay.." and I reply with.. "Well it's shit. They're all crazy." On the other hand, if I were to talk about a racing sim, I think I know what I'm talking about more than say.. Jeff, who has expressed complete disinterest in that genre and specifically wants something super arcadey. If he doesn't like a racing sim.. well that's kinda irrelevant.

Imagine if Jeff had just opted to not play RDR2, knowing he probably wasn't going to like it? Which a lot of people on the forum predicted based on his tastes we've seen over the years. Then he might've taken a much more measured, more mediator role in the argument and not swayed it so far into the negative even only playing it for a couple hours.

It is what it is.

This is a topic from 2015 where someone has crudely scratched out and replaced 'Witcher 3' and 'RDR2'.

I dunno, he repeatedly said that Brad liking the game is valid and that having opposing opinions is fine. It's a mature way of handling a discussion when people don't agree.

He was talking about how the game personally made him feel.

I still think his take on the game was bad and I wish there had been a bit more interrogation on WHY RDR1 is his "game of the generation" because it doesn't really line up with his stated values. However, I never felt he was being particularly difficult in the way he was arguing.

...I feel like this process was All Knives in the past so maybe we have differing histories...

Isn't this..

Kind of what this whole process is for?

Like.. I'm going to tell you why this is the most disappointing. Not Convince me Why This Isn't the most disappointing.

I definitely thought Dan was a little dismissive of Dream Daddy last year, but I don't know where you're coming from on Red Dead. All his complaints appeared to be sincerely held and he acknowledged the things that did work for him, like the story.