The inference being you like the opposite art style; i.e. non-stylised, ergo realistic or hyper-realistic (as in fake realism to make people think it's realistic when in fact it isn't. Too many browns and greys drowning out the primary colours in nature, etc). That said, I think you need to re-watch some cartoons. Nah, sorry, it wasn't meant as a "gotcha", I've just had a long time at arguments where people talk past each other, and a long time making the mistake of assuming something in the middle of a long post only for the other to go "aha well I didn't actually mean that". So I practise trying to nail down what people actually mean half of the time. In this case, you don't know! Which is fair enough. I can work with that without making the wrong assumption That and the Guitar Hero example from someone who doesn't like Guitar Hero threw me. I played quite a bit back in my university days, and playing against people (even without drinking games) always got more competitive than playing against yourself or a particular AI difficulty. Also there's a wealth of difference between pointing out the inherent flaws in saying "X is bad and the developers ruined it" (hyperbole) and "everything is subjective there's no point debating it". Of course there's point in debating it. But it isn't a debate if one side is convinced of their righteousness. You portraying me as someone only posting to tell others they haven't proven anything is also reductive. I'm acting in good faith here, but you're doing a fantastic job at dressing up snark in politeness. You believing that just because qualitative standards can't be proven to not exist, that you'd rather read a post from such a person who shares such a belief? Well of course, you're agreeing with yourself there. It's only natural. That said, you can't prove a negative. It's impossible. If you wish to prove these qualitative standards exist you have to prove them so. Basing your entire argument on the notion that they haven't been proven to not exist is shaky logic. The nature of computer science and the development of video games is pretty well-established, and decidedly not-shaky. Even the psychological aspect of how developers often explore the psychology of games to get consumers hooked on repetitive patterns in order to grow the bond of "liking" the product as a way to ensure franchise longevity. There's a lot to it. I replied to your post because you said "it sounds like (based on X) that the game is bad, rather than <these other things>". That was your statement; that it sounded like the game was bad. We then talked for a bit about game difficulty and how that didn't relate to fun, and now you're pedalling on the bike of "I don't prefer to read posts from people who believe that because of subjectivity things cannot be argued". Which most definitely is an attempt at a gotcha from your end (because I didn't say that), so I'm a bit exhausted in trying to debate this honestly and fairly. I have no doubt I'll slip up, but we'll see how it goes. The game is not bad. Things being fixable does not indicate that the game is bad, even though it could be. Bad things that are fixed can become good things, or stay as bad things, or be improved but remain flawed. There's a huge amount of nuance here, if you're willing to debate it.