Top 40 Pop anything sucks ass. Always has and it always will, MMOs included
Theeeeere it is!
More Forum Cool Points in anti-popularity. Always. Why the biggest selling video games, movies, music, anything--universal disdain from the hipsters.
Na...
To put it in todays terms, there is a difference between lets say Eminem and Miley Cyrus. 30 years from now they will still talk about Eminem... Miley???? not so much.
In games, just like music there are a few classic's that will be talked about over generations and then there is the "Here today gone tomorrow" crowd.
"Universal disdain from the hipster"??? Is that cool speak or something?
Even though I owned Nintendo when it was first released, I skipped the rpg games. I later would discover rpgs through Playstation. FF7 being my first RPG besided paper and table top. I loved it! It was such a good balance between story, gaming, and everything that pulled at heart strings for a rpg game.
I never did play the originals until recently. My next game will be WoW (vanilla) at release. I was hooked. I quit and tried so many other games (have end game characters everywhere). Nothing filled the gap FF7 has going for it. I know they are different beasts, which is why I have a current F2P mmorpg I play just for "progress" and watching numbers get bigger and doing something game related.
I have tried all the other games on disc. Chrono trigger, Skyrim, etc... meh. They are different but none are delivering that beautiful balance. Every one is in the game to over do violence, graphics etc. It is like movies today, all graphics no brains.
I recently installed modulators and replaying old snes adn nes titles! WOW! IT is insane! You can even see the roots of theme park gaming in this level. I love Final Fantasy 2, It is AMAZING and has key elements that are like in 7. I played final fantasy 6, it is ok. Super theme parked out and a great example of what happens when you have success and keep trying to rake in money before redoing the drawing board (FF7). FF6 has free class building, any class can build whatever, mele can have healing spells etc. The story is just poor excuses to move one place to another. Sudenly in a desert, to suddenly in a rich Operah house. Not to mention the most displaced mobs ever. It is just a huge "look what we can do so we did it". This will re-appear in Kingdom of hearts etc...the whoring out of the title in bad projects. Now look at FF2:
Each class unique, magic caster hace super sucky mele, the progress is logical and the transitions interesting. The emotions, although presented in that japanese "he looked at me *turns red* we should get married" sort of style, does happen to slow it down and do some pretty adult themed and serious dialog. In 6 it is very much like Chrono Trigger dialog: "teehee you so silly"...
Fast forward to today the same pattern exists. Good start in a franchise ruined by greed and whored out business. The question today is if games can do what FF did, and restart on a new platform with an epic title that will blow you away before being re whored out again... Perhaps STar Citizen. Perhaps it is when gaming goes google glasses 3D. PErhaps never...Until then enjoy our sad sad sad world of mediocre greed games.
I didn't start a discussion. I asked a simple question. Should I refrain from pointing out you have yet to give examples of how newer games are better than older in your opinion.
You are free to point out how utterly pointless it is to ask, but at least have the common courtesy of answering the question.
Just a question. Pretty simple. You can even laugh at me the whole time, but at least answer.
OP wasn't the one trying to quantify these games, was he? He was talking about a neurological phenomenon and proposing that this had a connection with the general discontent among many veteran players.
I explained how any attempts to quantify "quality" in these games is pretty much futile, so no I am not going to try and quantify them.
I know why I don't like them (and yes I've tried), but there is no way to measure how much and why exactly. It is entirely subjective.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I've noticed that the reason why games I played 15 years ago seem so different than the games of today is mostly due to the fact that I myself am so different, today, compared to 15 years ago.
I disagree with the OP. I think older games were better because they had to deal with memory limitations so it wasn't all about the graphics, they pumped up the story. Now it's all about the graphics and they could really care less about the story of the game. Modern games are about making money by selling the most popular rubbish, early games were about making a fun game that was going out to a way smaller audience than we have today.
Kind of like how most modern MMO's are just pumped out copies with good graphics, but lacking in substance.
Originally posted by Quirhid Music is a poor metaphor since the mere repeated exposure (repeated listening) has been shown to make you like a song or artist more.
Or despise them
I recall hearing songs on the radio so often that I stopped liking them. (The theme song from "Friends" comes to mind here...)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Quirhid Music is a poor metaphor since the mere repeated exposure (repeated listening) has been shown to make you like a song or artist more.
Or despise them
I recall hearing songs on the radio so often that I stopped liking them. (The theme song from "Friends" comes to mind here...)
Titanic theme. And anything by Whitney Houston.
Musak just loved 'em, 40 times a day, each. I wonder if there was an unexplained upswing of intra-office stabbings during that period.
I disagree with the OP. I think older games were better because they had to deal with memory limitations so it wasn't all about the graphics, they pumped up the story. Now it's all about the graphics and they could really care less about the story of the game. Modern games are about making money by selling the most popular rubbish, early games were about making a fun game that was going out to a way smaller audience than we have today.
Kind of like how most modern MMO's are just pumped out copies with good graphics, but lacking in substance.
MMOs got caught in the trap of trying to look as good as solo games. Originally no one cared they were a step behind, but in order to lure in the solo crowd graphics became king. This resulted in a stripped down approach, taking away starter areas or making them quite small and so on. Then they changed open worlds into rat runs.
The audience size was certainly a factor, but it was also who they were aiming at. When they wanted to expand into the solo market, they had to make their games more solo. Now they are pandering to the values of the social media crowd. EQNext had a question on should characters be account based, that sort of question comes from wanting to make Facebook and Twitter uses feel at home. The impact on MMO gaming of going for social media types will be quite different from when they chased the solos. That was a clash of gaming ethos, now they are chasing those who have no gaming ethos. But this new market already has a cash shop mentality bedded in, so you can expect even more commercialisation.
Buying top level characters and gear (like in EQ2) is where MMOs are now headed.
The idea that people become less capable of adapting and get stuck in their ways as they get older is a misconception. Psychologies and researchers have known it's a misconception since the mid twentieth century.
...shows that improving cognitive functioning in seniors actually changes an aspect of their personality, namely openness to experience...'The common assumption about personality is that it is hard-wired and wont change, but this study contradicts that quite strongly,' said Brent Roberts, professor in the department of psychology at the University of Illnois at Urbana-Champaign and co-author of study.
Whatever the reasons for "rose tinted glasses", an inability to adapt to new things because of age isn't one.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMOs got caught in the trap of trying to look as good as solo games. Originally no one cared they were a step behind, but in order to lure in the solo crowd graphics became king. This resulted in a stripped down approach, taking away starter areas or making them quite small and so on. Then they changed open worlds into rat runs.
The audience size was certainly a factor, but it was also who they were aiming at. When they wanted to expand into the solo market, they had to make their games more solo. Now they are pandering to the values of the social media crowd. EQNext had a question on should characters be account based, that sort of question comes from wanting to make Facebook and Twitter uses feel at home. The impact on MMO gaming of going for social media types will be quite different from when they chased the solos. That was a clash of gaming ethos, now they are chasing those who have no gaming ethos. But this new market already has a cash shop mentality bedded in, so you can expect even more commercialisation.
Buying top level characters and gear (like in EQ2) is where MMOs are now headed.
yeah .. that is probably where MMOs are going to go. It is not a "trap" though. That is how markets work.
It is really too bad (for me). I like solo-centric MMOs much more than "social media" MMOs. The good news is that i have tons of alternatives in entertainment so if all MMOs go facebook, i will just move on (not that i am not used to moving on from specific games anyway).
MMOs seem better because they were novel experiences for many of us and were born at a time when the bounds of the internet were measurably closer, when the number of offerings was far smaller, when social media was virtually non-existent, and before gaming (particularly console gaming) exploded into what it is now. For me it's like asking why haven't we had another proper Woodstock (despite later attempts) to recapture that experience. Sure, we still have great musicians, plenty of motivated young people, and ample venues but having all the parts just isn't enough to reproduce that event.
I can't emphasize enough how often this or very similar questions are posed in every artistic genre we humans are capable of. You cannot talk movies, television, music, literature, theater, art, dance, or journalism without running into it. There will always be a group of "veterans" who likely got their first or early exposure at a time they now consider to be the apex of the form, the high point that all subsequent efforts fail to reach. It's such a common occurrence and transcends so many bounds that we have to start questioning its validity and whether it's just a basic part of human existence. Either across the board, in nearly every facet of human endeavor, we are simply becoming less talented, less inspired, less capable and discerning. Or, there's a strong predilection towards mythologizing what came before despite our best efforts at seeing things clearly.
I'm greatly inclined to believe it's the latter.
This....I fall into the same thing all the time but when i think clearly, I'm just living in the past, rose tinted glass is what people call it.
Originally posted by Hothlove Oh no not old everquest, 5 minutes to zone, stuttering sound and everything camped.
Yeah .. very horrible game (to me).
I wouldn't take a game designed like that with a ten foot pole in the future.
You played that game for a year, bud. People DO NOT stick around that long if they are not enjoying themselves. So you don't get to say you thought that EQ was a "horrible" game.
Life is much more rewarding when you're honest with the people you interact with and more importantly, honest with yourself.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I feel like there is no sense of accomplishment I remember it took me 400 hours to hit level 50 on my scout in DAOC I was proud i finished him. or SWG I was proud that i was the first master doctor on the server. If its easy for everyone there is no pride in what your doing.
In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.
An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.
How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.
Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.
(Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)
Originally posted by Holophonist May I ask why we should take this "it's all nostalgia" argument seriously when in every other facet of my life my opinion has grown and changed? I don't miss power rangers. My favorite show of all time, Breaking Bad, just ended. I don't listen to alt rock anymore. My favorite band, Between the Buried and Me, is still around. Why is it only videogames, and in particular MMORPGs that make me miss the old times?
Anybody? I find it hard to believe that my opinions are constantly changing about almost everything else in my life aside from video games, particularly MMORPGs, and it 's because of nostalgia. What about nostalgia for everything else?
In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.
An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.
How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.
Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.
(Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)
I totally agree. There's a strong tendency 'round these parts to just shut down completely once you deem something as being "subjective." As you say, that shouldn't stop you from having a discussion. And that discussion can absolutely be based in objectivity. It's not hard to agree on some objective standards of what makes a game "good" or "better." At that point you absolutely can debate the merits of two differing games or game types.
Originally posted by aspekx why older games seem better...
'Cause they ARE!*proudly (re-)playing FFE currently* :P
For you. They are much worse games for me.
No way! really? I would never have thought it!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.
An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.
How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.
Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.
(Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)
I totally agree. There's a strong tendency 'round these parts to just shut down completely once you deem something as being "subjective." As you say, that shouldn't stop you from having a discussion. And that discussion can absolutely be based in objectivity. It's not hard to agree on some objective standards of what makes a game "good" or "better." At that point you absolutely can debate the merits of two differing games or game types.
Lots of people, not just posters on here use the term subjective to label something as 'impossible to determine what is better or what is right or wrong'. Well life can be rather subjective, so lets not make a decision about anything in it! It ties in with the trendy idea of being too "judgy", another label which I think is being used be people to just to dismiss the ideas of those who do not think as they do.
It is the natural function of a rational mind to weigh data and reach a conclusion, one at least most can agree on. It is just as well we are not as subjective as some people think otherwise civilization would not have made it out of the stone age. However I do think reaching objective standards is difficult, gaming is not a science. For me it is the dismissing of the attempt to reach common ground that makes it look like posters are simply trying to dismiss the arguments.
Even two curates eggs can be objectively classified as eggs.
Lots of people, not just posters on here use the term subjective to label something as 'impossible to determine what is better or what is right or wrong'. Well life can be rather subjective, so lets not make a decision about anything in it! It ties in with the trendy idea of being too "judgy", another label which I think is being used be people to just to dismiss the ideas of those who do not think as they do.
It is the natural function of a rational mind to weigh data and reach a conclusion, one at least most can agree on. It is just as well we are not as subjective as some people think otherwise civilization would not have made it out of the stone age. However I do think reaching objective standards is difficult, gaming is not a science. For me it is the dismissing of the attempt to reach common ground that makes it look like posters are simply trying to dismiss the arguments.
Even two curates eggs can be objectively classified as eggs.
You are confused.
Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.
I see the opposite. Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.
Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.
Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.
Comments
Na...
To put it in todays terms, there is a difference between lets say Eminem and Miley Cyrus. 30 years from now they will still talk about Eminem... Miley???? not so much.
In games, just like music there are a few classic's that will be talked about over generations and then there is the "Here today gone tomorrow" crowd.
"Universal disdain from the hipster"??? Is that cool speak or something?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Even though I owned Nintendo when it was first released, I skipped the rpg games. I later would discover rpgs through Playstation. FF7 being my first RPG besided paper and table top. I loved it! It was such a good balance between story, gaming, and everything that pulled at heart strings for a rpg game.
I never did play the originals until recently. My next game will be WoW (vanilla) at release. I was hooked. I quit and tried so many other games (have end game characters everywhere). Nothing filled the gap FF7 has going for it. I know they are different beasts, which is why I have a current F2P mmorpg I play just for "progress" and watching numbers get bigger and doing something game related.
I have tried all the other games on disc. Chrono trigger, Skyrim, etc... meh. They are different but none are delivering that beautiful balance. Every one is in the game to over do violence, graphics etc. It is like movies today, all graphics no brains.
I recently installed modulators and replaying old snes adn nes titles! WOW! IT is insane! You can even see the roots of theme park gaming in this level. I love Final Fantasy 2, It is AMAZING and has key elements that are like in 7. I played final fantasy 6, it is ok. Super theme parked out and a great example of what happens when you have success and keep trying to rake in money before redoing the drawing board (FF7). FF6 has free class building, any class can build whatever, mele can have healing spells etc. The story is just poor excuses to move one place to another. Sudenly in a desert, to suddenly in a rich Operah house. Not to mention the most displaced mobs ever. It is just a huge "look what we can do so we did it". This will re-appear in Kingdom of hearts etc...the whoring out of the title in bad projects. Now look at FF2:
Each class unique, magic caster hace super sucky mele, the progress is logical and the transitions interesting. The emotions, although presented in that japanese "he looked at me *turns red* we should get married" sort of style, does happen to slow it down and do some pretty adult themed and serious dialog. In 6 it is very much like Chrono Trigger dialog: "teehee you so silly"...
Fast forward to today the same pattern exists. Good start in a franchise ruined by greed and whored out business. The question today is if games can do what FF did, and restart on a new platform with an epic title that will blow you away before being re whored out again... Perhaps STar Citizen. Perhaps it is when gaming goes google glasses 3D. PErhaps never...Until then enjoy our sad sad sad world of mediocre greed games.
OP wasn't the one trying to quantify these games, was he? He was talking about a neurological phenomenon and proposing that this had a connection with the general discontent among many veteran players.
I explained how any attempts to quantify "quality" in these games is pretty much futile, so no I am not going to try and quantify them.
I know why I don't like them (and yes I've tried), but there is no way to measure how much and why exactly. It is entirely subjective.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I joined the 40+ club a few years back.
I've noticed that the reason why games I played 15 years ago seem so different than the games of today is mostly due to the fact that I myself am so different, today, compared to 15 years ago.
I disagree with the OP. I think older games were better because they had to deal with memory limitations so it wasn't all about the graphics, they pumped up the story. Now it's all about the graphics and they could really care less about the story of the game. Modern games are about making money by selling the most popular rubbish, early games were about making a fun game that was going out to a way smaller audience than we have today.
Kind of like how most modern MMO's are just pumped out copies with good graphics, but lacking in substance.
I recall hearing songs on the radio so often that I stopped liking them. (The theme song from "Friends" comes to mind here...)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Titanic theme. And anything by Whitney Houston.
Musak just loved 'em, 40 times a day, each. I wonder if there was an unexplained upswing of intra-office stabbings during that period.
MMOs got caught in the trap of trying to look as good as solo games. Originally no one cared they were a step behind, but in order to lure in the solo crowd graphics became king. This resulted in a stripped down approach, taking away starter areas or making them quite small and so on. Then they changed open worlds into rat runs.
The audience size was certainly a factor, but it was also who they were aiming at. When they wanted to expand into the solo market, they had to make their games more solo. Now they are pandering to the values of the social media crowd. EQNext had a question on should characters be account based, that sort of question comes from wanting to make Facebook and Twitter uses feel at home. The impact on MMO gaming of going for social media types will be quite different from when they chased the solos. That was a clash of gaming ethos, now they are chasing those who have no gaming ethos. But this new market already has a cash shop mentality bedded in, so you can expect even more commercialisation.
Buying top level characters and gear (like in EQ2) is where MMOs are now headed.
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
The idea that people become less capable of adapting and get stuck in their ways as they get older is a misconception. Psychologies and researchers have known it's a misconception since the mid twentieth century.
From just one study (there are many others that come to the same conclusions):
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=198874
Whatever the reasons for "rose tinted glasses", an inability to adapt to new things because of age isn't one.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
yeah .. that is probably where MMOs are going to go. It is not a "trap" though. That is how markets work.
It is really too bad (for me). I like solo-centric MMOs much more than "social media" MMOs. The good news is that i have tons of alternatives in entertainment so if all MMOs go facebook, i will just move on (not that i am not used to moving on from specific games anyway).
Yeah .. very horrible game (to me).
I wouldn't take a game designed like that with a ten foot pole in the future.
This....I fall into the same thing all the time but when i think clearly, I'm just living in the past, rose tinted glass is what people call it.
You played that game for a year, bud. People DO NOT stick around that long if they are not enjoying themselves. So you don't get to say you thought that EQ was a "horrible" game.
Life is much more rewarding when you're honest with the people you interact with and more importantly, honest with yourself.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.
An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.
How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.
Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.
(Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)
*proudly (re-)playing FFE currently* :P
Anybody? I find it hard to believe that my opinions are constantly changing about almost everything else in my life aside from video games, particularly MMORPGs, and it 's because of nostalgia. What about nostalgia for everything else?
I totally agree. There's a strong tendency 'round these parts to just shut down completely once you deem something as being "subjective." As you say, that shouldn't stop you from having a discussion. And that discussion can absolutely be based in objectivity. It's not hard to agree on some objective standards of what makes a game "good" or "better." At that point you absolutely can debate the merits of two differing games or game types.
For you. They are much worse games for me.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Lots of people, not just posters on here use the term subjective to label something as 'impossible to determine what is better or what is right or wrong'. Well life can be rather subjective, so lets not make a decision about anything in it! It ties in with the trendy idea of being too "judgy", another label which I think is being used be people to just to dismiss the ideas of those who do not think as they do.
It is the natural function of a rational mind to weigh data and reach a conclusion, one at least most can agree on. It is just as well we are not as subjective as some people think otherwise civilization would not have made it out of the stone age. However I do think reaching objective standards is difficult, gaming is not a science. For me it is the dismissing of the attempt to reach common ground that makes it look like posters are simply trying to dismiss the arguments.
Even two curates eggs can be objectively classified as eggs.
You are confused.
Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.
I see the opposite. Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.
Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.
Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.