We’ve all experienced this at some point. Purchasing a game with our hard earned money only to discover it doesn’t live up to expectations or is simply garbage. This tragedy confronts us with one of two options… Admit we made a mistake (which in my family meant carving a tiny symbol of shame into your flesh with a red hot knife). Or allowing cognitive dissonance to kick in. Your brain will do amazing things to protect you. We must be suspicious of our tastes at all times. Don’t allow cognitive dissonance to help you ignore a games flaws just because you invested money (or mommy and daddy did more likely in most cases) into it.
Admitting games like Star Wars: Battlefront are just total rip-offs and defending the quality of poor story campaigns (such as, Halo 5) just misleads some poor persons into making the same mistake you did. For a laugh, log on to Amazon and read the five star reviews of Duke Nukem Forever. Powerful cognitive dissonance is in play with many of those. And I know what you are thinking, “Uncle Rumble, your so awesome and I get lost in your eyes just picturing them, but isn’t it possible that people actually like the bad games previous mentioned?” Yes. People can like things that suck. I like Beastmaster and Samurai Cop and those movies are terrible. People like bad things all the time. But it’s important to acknowledge they are bad.
I bought duke nukem for $5 and it was fun to play. I enjoyed it, because I knew what to expect and it was only $5. H5’s story was lame, but the multiplayer support is phenomenal. I’m enjoying H5 despite its flaws and short comings. It’s a good game, but not a perfect game.
Duke Nukem Forever was badly reviewed because it strayed too far from the original series, adding in regenerating health and the like, blah blah blah, don’t act like you worked the coal mines as a kid, everyone has to buy their suit from mommy and/or daddy at some point.
If anything, spending money makes you more critical, reviewers give games such high scores because they didn’t lose money buying it, unless they are independent, that’s the exception, because they have to pay.
SW Battlefront almost was a one-sided opinion base, nearly all of the veterans including myself hated the game, and we told them we hated it in the beta, they still didn’t listen. But idk what it’s ripping off of, a game can be terribad in its own unique way.
> 2533274924183412;3:
> Duke Nukem Forever was badly reviewed because it strayed too far from the original series, adding in regenerating health and the like, blah blah blah, don’t act like you worked the coal mines as a kid, everyone has to buy their suit from mommy and/or daddy at some point.
>
> If anything, spending money makes you more critical, reviewers give games such high scores because they didn’t lose money buying it, unless they are independent, that’s the exception, because they have to pay.
>
> SW Battlefront almost was a one-sided opinion base, nearly all of the veterans including myself hated the game, and we told them we hated it in the beta, they still didn’t listen. But idk what it’s ripping off of, a game can be terribad in its own unique way.
I did work in the mines as a child, but rarely. I spent most of my childhood as a trigger man at a local slaughterhouse (until I got carpal tunnel and my dad beat me with a raw fish). And my parents never bought me playthings as a child because playing was considered sinful. Due to the “religious nature” of my child labor it was overlooked by state law officials and my community kept to itself. I didn’t start playing video games until I was older.
Also Duke Nukem wasn’t rated badly because it strayed too far (at least not entirely) it had poor graphics, mechanics, level design, just about every aspect of that game was terrible.
I’m just pleased enough that there’s someone else around here who knows what “cognitive dissonance” is.
But with Halo 5 I think there’s more going on. It really isn’t a bad game. Or, more accurately, there’s a really good game in there somewhere struggling to get out. I see glimmers of it through the sweat, past the heads of the Spartans who are faster and better than me who I’m constantly pitted against and teamed up with, through the fog of game modes that leave the casual player twitching on the ground. This game is built around the level 8 player with his light of urs and his banshee ultra. I’m just trying to stay alive with the pistol I can’t get rid of until the match is 3/5ths over. So yeah, there are some design flaws. But in the end I’ll still take it over anything else I can think of.
> 2533274864426652;4:
> > 2533274924183412;3:
> > Duke Nukem Forever was badly reviewed because it strayed too far from the original series, adding in regenerating health and the like, blah blah blah, don’t act like you worked the coal mines as a kid, everyone has to buy their suit from mommy and/or daddy at some point.
> >
> > If anything, spending money makes you more critical, reviewers give games such high scores because they didn’t lose money buying it, unless they are independent, that’s the exception, because they have to pay.
> >
> > SW Battlefront almost was a one-sided opinion base, nearly all of the veterans including myself hated the game, and we told them we hated it in the beta, they still didn’t listen. But idk what it’s ripping off of, a game can be terribad in its own unique way.
>
>
> I did work in the mines as a child, but rarely. I spent most of my childhood as a trigger man at a local slaughterhouse (until I got carpal tunnel and my dad beat me with a raw fish). And my parents never bought me playthings as a child because playing was considered sinful. Due to the “religious nature” of my child labor it was overlooked by state law officials and my community kept to itself. I didn’t start playing video games until I was older.
>
> Also Duke Nukem wasn’t rated badly because it strayed too far (at least not entirely) it had poor graphics, mechanics, level design, just about every aspect of that game was terrible.
You’re right, that’s what happens to a game when it’s been through 100 different directors in 10 years of delays.
> 2533274873843883;5:
> I’m just pleased enough that there’s someone else around here who knows what “cognitive dissonance” is.
>
> But with Halo 5 I think there’s more going on. It really isn’t a bad game. Or, more accurately, there’s a really good game in there somewhere struggling to get out. I see glimmers of it through the sweat, past the heads of the Spartans who are faster and better than me who I’m constantly pitted against and teamed up with, through the fog of game modes that leave the casual player twitching on the ground. This game is built around the level 8 player with his light of urs and his banshee ultra. I’m just trying to stay alive with the pistol I can’t get rid of until the match is 3/5ths over. So yeah, there are some design flaws. But in the end I’ll still take it over anything else I can think of.
That’s why Warzone=salty chocolate balls.
I hate the req system and consequently Warzone, should’ve added 24v24 btb instead.
I acknowledge that this is my opinion, though.