Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6137229" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Interesting ≠ informative, which I made clear when I said "I don't think it's particularly interesting, but I can see how that might help inform game design, yes."Which wasn't what you were commenting on whatsoever when I replied to you. You were stating that certain subjective things seem more objective ("They may be snobs, but who seriously goes up to them and says the Bordeaux isn't any better than their $8 bottle of Ripple?"). I'm rejecting that notion. You weren't commenting on whether or not people evolved to like the taste of nutritious things when I replied to you.Okay.In regards to what "fun" or "un-fun" is, most definitely.No, I'm speaking much more universally than that. I'm not saying some preferences are subjective and personal, I'm saying that they all are, at least as far as "fun" or "un-fun" goes.It seems like it is.I'm not going to bother arguing with you over whether or not "fun" or "un-fun" is subjective. To question that is ludicrous, and if you want to have that conversation, take it up with another poster.On fun, dude.We can objectively measure how well systems perform certain tasks, like give consistent results. We can't say that it's objectively more fun, though. We're only measuring, objectively, how a certain system achieves certain results (that's not based on preference).No, I disagreed with this. Hopefully you can see why, now.Right, which you can do. Just not "fun." I never, ever questioned the fun he had. Make sense? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification