There are two concepts of thought here, the first I'll address is the realist concept.  
 
In the video game world, especially on forums, we always see (and most of the time angrily respond to) outlier opinions. The realists in these situations realize this either don't respond or tell others not to. In Exempli Gratia I recently came across an obvious troll who said there were no fun parts in half-life 2. Without naming names, we'll call these troll bloggers the jaysonguy complex (specifically calling out games that are almost factually good). Everyone in the middle is everyone in the middle. 
 
Anyways, here's what I'm wondering: why the fuck do people feel the need to do these small rebellions. The jaysonguy complex is clear: they want to sound like the 'higher class.' They want everyone to know that they payed for their 7.0 or lower average score (which is fine). But because games like Half-Life, Ocarina of Time, and so on score, sell, and rep really well, they purposely go against those. 
 
They, to me, come off as part of the troll crowd. I mean, come on, we all know big games like those mentioned above, especially Half-Life, are really good. Calling them out and saying you would rather settle for the lower game. It makes you sound stupid, but its hard to write this blog when yeah, games are all subjective; however, this trend is tasteless. It's really hard to explain what I truly mean, but hopefully calling it the jaysonguy complex gives it away.

LIke yours? ZING! 
 
Just kidding, I actually completely agree.

" LIke yours? ZING!  Just kidding, I actually completely agree. "

Dude, maybe he just didn't like it. Who tells you it's factually good, most people agree that it's a good shooter, it's obviously well made but there will always be people who just didn't find it to be as fun. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them trolls.

The new family guy episode is exactly about this! To be honest I think they believe it's cool to be a rebel and not accept popular opinion.

" Dude, maybe he just didn't like it. Who tells you it's factually good, most people agree that it's a good shooter, it's obviously well made but there will always be people who just didn't find it to be as fun. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them trolls. "

" The new family guy episode is exactly about this! To be honest I think they believe it's cool to be a rebel and not accept popular opinion. "

" @Goly said:

" Dude, maybe he just didn't like it. Who tells you it's factually good, most people agree that it's a good shooter, it's obviously well made but there will always be people who just didn't find it to be as fun. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them trolls. "

This what I knew was gonna happen, but I don't blame you 'cause I didn't explain it very well.  The trend is what I'm talking about, not the exception. Games are subjective, but not mindsets. If you knew who jaysonguy was.... man.  "

I know what you're talking about and I hate it too. 
 
Trolls can either be awesome or awful.

God of War III is a shoddy, shallow, mind-numbingly boring button masher with the most pathetic excuses for boss battles I've seen this generation, and I'd much rather play the lower-rated PS2 masterpiece God Hand.

Does this make me a jasonguy?

Just because you like it doesn't mean every single person on the planet is obligated to like it, or they're lying. 

Grow up.
 
 After the great 30 minute opening to Half-Life 2 it turned into an average shooter where you move from an area to area and kill dudes, considering the reputation that game has of being the greatest god damn thing that has ever been made into existence, that's kind of bad. I made the thread you're obviously referencing because I was honestly wondering what the hell is up with that, and if there's a specific point I should reach where ANYTHING ACTUALLY INTERESTING STARTS HAPPENING.
 
Turns out the last 30 minutes are also great, so yeah.

There are people on GameFAQs defending Quantum Theory... 
 
People saying it plays better than Gears of War. 
 
If you're the type the treats everyone's opinion equally...you are crazy.

I would say it's fairly obvious why someone who has a very different opinion of something would be very vocal about it. They feel they're being excluded and need to be heard. 
 
What sucks is when people keep stating their feelings on something as fact. Love HL2? Great, but some don't.... Hate KnL2? Sure thing, but some people enjoyed it. This is culture people, there isn't any answer key you can check if something is good or not.

I think the point the OP is trying to make is similar to a (fictitious, I assume) anecdote about a professor addressing a freshman class.  I can't remember if it was art history, film, or literature, but it works for any of them really.  "These works are classics that have stood the test of time.  If you think Hamlet (or the Mona Lisa, or Citizen Kane) is garbage, that reflects more on you than it possibly could on the work in question."
 
I'd hesitate to grant any video game that status right now, but I think there are some games that probably qualify as objectively good.  That doesn't mean everyone has to like them or find them fun, however.  StarCraft II I think is an objectively good RTS, probably one of the best, but I don't enjoy RTS games and I'm not good at managing economies on the fly, so it's not a game I can really have fun with.  I think it's good, but I don't like to play it.

I know what you mean, though there are people that have these opinions legitimately, as @Ventilaator pointed out. I've found that most people who actually do it for the "rebel" appeal (see: attention seeker/douchebag) tend to have opinions that might as well be void overall by not contributing in a constructive way and constantly badmouthing. This sort of behavior varies from community-to-community and, luckily enough, GiantBomb has very very few of these "douchebags" compared to most games sites like GameTrailers. 
 
I say, if they state a reason outside of "it just sucks lololol" then live and let live.

" ... Anyways, here's what I'm wondering: why the fuck do people feel the need to do these small rebellions. ... "

I don't think Half-Life 2 is very fun. Does that make me an "obvious troll"?

Part of it is that its just the way they are. They rebel against popular opinion. 
  
Then again its popular opinion to go out and buy every Halo if you have a 360 and every COD if you have a PS3 or 360. If you don't like those games you're an outlier but you're definently not factually wrong in your dislike of the game. There are a large number of reasons to not like Halo or COD outside of "just because its popular"

I'm pretty sure I know the guy you're talking about and I genuinely don't think he was trolling, I think he was just bemused that he wasn't enjoying the game as much as everyone else had. That being said I've seen plenty of people who repeatedly flaunt their opinions in the faces of everyone else purely for the purpose of trying to look different. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but sure enough these people who think they are somehow better than everyone else by carrying a non-mainstream opinion are assholes but they've been around for a long time and I'm sure they'll be around for a long time to come. Much like pretty much every other type of idiot on the internet in most cases you just have to ignore them and not take the bait that they put out there. Fortunately there's almost none of that crap going on at Giant Bomb.

Ah, those wonderful bubble headed contrarians too thick to realize that instinctively railing against whatever is popular makes your opinions just as bound to pop culture as people who automatically embrace it.

I've tried three or four times to finish Half-Life 2 over the three years I've owned it.
 
 
I've never succeeded. I just don't find it incredibly fun or moving like everyone says it is.

I just hate when people call things garbage and shit, simply because they dislike them. 

here's what I'm wondering: why the fuck do people feel the need to do these small rebellions. 

Pretty much every game I have ever truly loved has never gotten more then an average score, while all the games I hate and can't stand get 8's, 9's and 10's. It's all about personal taste or the lack there of. Just because it's popular doesn't mean I automatically have to like it and get labeled a troll because I don't like that kind of game. I learned a long time ago to just not bother commenting on peoples opinions on games because both people know they are right and the other is wrong. You both just end up wasting everyone's time. 
 
For example, I hate and can't stand the Halo games, the Gears of War games, Bioshock games and Fallout games yet if I said so I immediately get labeled a troll and an idiot just because I don't like the same crap that get's shoveled out to the main stream every year. 
 
And you know what? I don't give shit what anyone says or thinks. I know what I like and I know what I consider to be crap. All the kids out there who feel the need to beat there chest, stomp around, froth at the mouth and start throwing shit like a monkey because someone doesn't like the same games they do can go fuck themselves.

I remember that guy. I thought his post was fine. I didn't reply, but did read the comments. I really didn't see it as trolling.
 
My main problem on these boards belong in the off-topic. Religion topics in particular. I just need to stay out of those topics. I come off as a dick, being a dick is bad.

" I just hate when people call things garbage and shit, simply because they dislike them.  "

" I think the point the OP is trying to make is similar to a (fictitious, I assume) anecdote about a professor addressing a freshman class.  I can't remember if it was art history, film, or literature, but it works for any of them really.  "These works are classics that have stood the test of time.  If you think Hamlet (or the Mona Lisa, or Citizen Kane) is garbage, that reflects more on you than it possibly could on the work in question."
 
I'd hesitate to grant any video game that status right now, but I think there are some games that probably qualify as objectively good.  That doesn't mean everyone has to like them or find them fun, however.  StarCraft II I think is an objectively good RTS, probably one of the best, but I don't enjoy RTS games and I'm not good at managing economies on the fly, so it's not a game I can really have fun with.  I think it's good, but I don't like to play it. "

My only problem with your post is that Half-Life 2 is somehow unapproachable.  The physics ussually devolve into seesaw puzzles, the main character not talking means there is almost no plot or particularly good reason why you are doing anything, and the pacing is pretty bad in spots.  That said, I think episode 2 is pretty great, and really illustrates what is wrong with Half Life 2 in comparison. 

It's probably just as heinous or whatever to respond to their opinion--which itself does not line up with yours--with pejoratives like "troll".  
 
The issue is probably too complex to really analyze on some internet forum. But I think I'd start with the (trite) fact that people just have different tastes based on how they've grown up around video games and what sorts of things they've been conditioned to like (which sometimes occurs outside of their control).  
 
From there, I'd think about how upsetting it is to dislike something that everyone else is crooning over. People can be all anti-conformist as they want, but ultimately, there's a certain uncomfortable distance when you've got something you really take pride or leisure in, and when that thing is only acknowledged by a greater majority for its faults. The converse is also true. Think about a time when you've disliked a game that was almost universally acclaimed, when you just don't fall for the same qualities that other people--most other people--rally around. It's frustrating.  
 
Beyond this, everyone has a right to voice their perspective on whatever topic they want, so there's no reason to deny them their totally valid ability to affirm or argue against the value of a thing. I mean, sure, you might take issue with the way they're doing it, because maybe they're doing it in an overtly-aggressive or spiteful manner. But that's just the frustration manifesting on the surface, that desperate desire to be agreed with. It's not even about being "the superior party" or whatever you said. Because there isn't such a thing. But it's nice to have a discussion where people agree with what you're saying.  
 
Besides. There should never be total agreement.  

Ahem, as a massive fan of Orwell (and if you know much about his work you can understand why I find this subject to be something of a dilemma) I am reminded of an essay that he wrote about Tolstoy's hatred of Shakespeare. Here is the relevant bit, which I think speaks for itself:
 

  There is no argument by which one can defend a poem.
It defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible. And if this test
is valid, I think the verdict in Shakespeare's case must be "not guilty".
Like every other writer, Shakespeare will be forgotten sooner or later,
but it is unlikely that a heavier indictment will ever be brought against
him. Tolstoy was perhaps the most admired literary man of his age, and he
was certainly not its least able pamphleteer. He turned all his powers of
denunciation against Shakespeare, like all the guns of a battleship
roaring simultaneously. And with what result? Forty years later
Shakespeare is still there completely unaffected, and of the attempt to
demolish him nothing remains except the yellowing pages of a pamphlet
which hardly anyone has read, and which would be forgotten altogether if
Tolstoy had not also been the author of WAR AND PEACE and ANNA KARENINA.

" Ahem, as a massive fan of Orwell (and if you know much about his work you can understand why I find this subject to be something of a dilemma) I am reminded of an essay that he wrote about Tolstoy's hatred of Shakespeare. Here is the relevant bit, which I think speaks for itself:
 

  There is no argument by which one can defend a poem.
It defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible. And if this test
is valid, I think the verdict in Shakespeare's case must be "not guilty".
Like every other writer, Shakespeare will be forgotten sooner or later,
but it is unlikely that a heavier indictment will ever be brought against
him. Tolstoy was perhaps the most admired literary man of his age, and he
was certainly not its least able pamphleteer. He turned all his powers of
denunciation against Shakespeare, like all the guns of a battleship
roaring simultaneously. And with what result? Forty years later
Shakespeare is still there completely unaffected, and of the attempt to
demolish him nothing remains except the yellowing pages of a pamphlet
which hardly anyone has read, and which would be forgotten altogether if
Tolstoy had not also been the author of WAR AND PEACE and ANNA KARENINA.

   Oh, and here is a link to the essay if anybody thinks that they might possibly be interested in such a thing.
"

" @Claude: Thats not really what I was trying to illustrate (though I can see where you got it). I was more thinking about the notion that the best objective measure of an artwork's quality is whether or not it lasts. Its not a good measure, and it should be the result of discussion before it is ever the premise for an argument, but its the only broadly functional one that we have. Therefore we can at least consider calling somebody's opinion "wrong" if they declare that a piece of art which has stood the test of time to be "bad." It may be true to say that I detest Walt Whitman, but as he lives on I will have less ground to stand on if I claim that he was not of some value. "

I didn't really enjoy Half Life 2 much. Probably because I started on like Part 2 or something and I had no idea what was going on though :)

 
First of all, I don't think that the majority has ever weighed in on their thoughts about their video game likes and dislikes. I imagine (now I don't have any proof of this) that for every person who praises the virtues of Half Life (or any game for that matter), there are dozens who've played the game and have never been inclined to share their opinion. For all we know, maybe a lot of people who have played Half Life think it stinks. 
 
Second, I think opinions about subjective things such as art, music, television, movies and video games have really become a "me too" issue, ever since one could voice their opinion anonymously on the net. Perhaps this took place before the net, but suddenly it's wrong to have an opinion that doesn't go along with everyone else's. 
 
I don't like 3D Mario, Shakespeare is over-rated, The Beatles never existing probably wouldn't affect my life directly in any way, and soccer is more interesting than football. Why are we so interested in coming up with a definitive answer when there isn't one? I guess everyone is tired of debating if God exists and has moved on to whether or not video games are good or bad. I hope there aren't crosses this time around.

How very subtle of you. I'm sure no one understood who you were referring to.
 
And your title is the most ironic thing in the world. He didn't like it, deal with it. He gave sound reasons for it. A game cannot be factually good because it all boils down to the players feelings about it. I'm not a fan of HL2 either, does that make my opinion wrong? No. No it doesn't. 
 
Get a reality check, please.