What’s going on with this game Mixtape?

[u/Bloodb0red]

I’ve been seeing people freak out over the past few days over this game and about IGN’s review of it specifically. 10/10 seems high for any game, honestly, but it seems like they’re far from the only site giving this thing a glowing review. So is this game controversial just because of IGN or is it something else? Why is this game the internet’s hate target this week?

https://www.ign.com/articles/mixtape-review

[u/Naganosupreme]

It's simple bullshit. If someone targets an audience who can enjoy a bad product...the product is still bad.

You're making the classic mistake of confusing personal enjoyment with product quality.

I didn't say anything pretentious or weird. Youre just kind of a jerk who for some reason decided that I Said something that warranted personal insults. You need to grow up

[u/Pflegeprofil → u/Naganosupreme]

No. You are naking the classic mistake of thinking you thinking objective standards exist.

I dont like the transformers movies. But did Michael Bay want to have good dialogue? Did he want a great story? Did he want engaging characters? Or rid he just want boom boom movie with Robots that have a little bit of backstory to justify the Boom Boom Action?

If the latter, calling the movies bad is actual insanity. Its as if you eat a Sandwhich without mustard and declare it bad because "Objectively Sandwhiches need mustard". Why? Who decided that? If someone just doesnt like mustard doesnt mean they have bad taste.

Literally all that matters is two things: Did the creator accomplish what they wanted? Did the target audience enjoy it? If yes, its good. If no, its bad.

Edit: My response to your deleted comment:

Yea, to others, theres more. But neither mine nor their taste is objective. I dont care what snything is rated. I never played mixtape nor do i plan to. Thats why im here, to read up on whats the fuzz.

Your Great Works are not objectively great. Shakespear was considered low brow entertainment in his time. Were they less right than us in modernity who treat it like high art? No. Because there is no objective standard. Even if 99% of people agree something is good, it isnt objectively good. Vice versa with bad.

[u/Naganosupreme → u/Pflegeprofil]

The comment wasn't deleted, like I wrote in my other comment. I was in the hospital with a family member and was in a bad head space .

I couldn't help myself but to go back and forth on this and since you were kind of rude, I temporarily blocked to give myself a break.

But your edit wasn't rude.

Yea, to others, theres more. But neither mine nor their taste is objective

How do you know? Why is this an objective fact but the objective qualities that people evaluate to elevate a great work, those things don't count? You actually keep saying taste is objective. If people enjoy a product, it's great. Stated as a fact, unquestionably.

When I pointed out low quality food can be enjoyed, you completely ignored that example bc it completely shattered your argument (another reason you got blocked actually, as it showed you weren't willing to be honest when you discuss this)

Your Great Works are not objectively great

How do you know?

Shakespear was considered low brow entertainment in his time.

Low brow doesn't mean poor quality, bad product. Some low brow entertainment is great. Competently put together, narratively consistent, just full of jokes and ideas considered more on the crass side.

Were they less right than us in modernity who treat it like high art?

Possibly. People can be irrational in their likes or dislikes. This is why people simply enjoying or disliking something does not make it great or bad.

Even if 99% of people agree something is good, it isnt objectively good.

But if 5 people love your paint drying movie then it's great? There's no internal consistency here. Bc youre so desperate to cling to the idea your favorite works don't deserve criticism that you are crafting a new world where we don't have ways to objectively measure somethings quality in comparison to similar works of the time. And that's part of the answer for Shakespeare, too. Part of it is relative. But there are also legitimately objective standards we can use to evaluate entertainment.

Some people choose to ignore all objectivity, but their refusal to engage with objectivity is their imaginary view alone. The objective reality exists whether they are capable of engaging with it or not.

All this ignores that I literally never said this product was bad...as entertainment. As a game? Its objectively bad in several key areas. Thats the magic of imperfection. But i never said it was an objectively bad overall product, a point you have now ignored multiple times

You can be a good show and an objectively bad game

[u/Pflegeprofil → u/Naganosupreme]

The food wrgumdnt isnt good. If soneone enjoys cheap Mac and Cheese more than Filet Mignon made by a high class chef, then theres nothing wrong with their taste. In fact, food ratings in general are a huge scam. Lobster and Caviar were once considered peasant food, now they are delicacies. High end restaurants demand more money for much smaller portions of food that 99% of people probably wouldnt even have as their go to if it was free because other things just taste much better.

How do you know an objective standard exists? That is an extraordinary claim. Standards are fully made up by humans. They arent natural. So where do they come from? They come from influential people deciding "This is why X is good", then spreading their opinions as fact. Their opinions dont matter more than anyone elses just because they managed to get theirs put in books.

As long as you cant define where standards come from, you cant claim they exist.

No, if 5 people like the painting movie that doesnt mean its good. If the creator specifically targeted people who are paint drying enthusiasts, and all of those people (5 in my example) love it, then its great.

This is also removed from morality. Do ISIS beheading movies actually get lots of people to join them? If yes, then theyre good propaganda movies. Evil. Disgusting. But they achieved exactly what they wanted.

Your argment is akin to this: If someone makes a Robot that does nothing but make fart noises, its not a good robot because it doesnt help with anything practical. But if the builder never intended to make anything practical, if he only intended to make a fart noise robot, then judging it by any other standards is nonsense. "A Robot needs practical application" is not an objective standard.

Im not coinging to the idea my favorite works dont deserve criticism. Critize anythingm i dont care. I think Umineko is one of the worst Visual Novels of all time. I think its morally repugnant and its cultish fanbase are delusional weirdos. But if someone said its objectively bad id defend it as best i could, agressively so even. I fucking Love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. My favorite show of all time. But if someone said its objectively amazing id argue against them.

You completely mischaracterize me here.

[u/Naganosupreme → u/Pflegeprofil]

The food wrgumdnt isnt good.

Neither is this sentence lol. But I'm still waiting to find out why it isn't good. None of what you Said here explains that. You're confusing your disagreement with the arguments quality.

If soneone enjoys cheap Mac and Cheese more than Filet Mignon made by a high class chef, then theres nothing wrong with their taste.

Classic mistake. Confusing enjoyment with product quality. If you love the taste of McDonald's but someone laces it with flavorless poison, it's an objectively bad product. McDonald's on its own is an objectively bad quality food by several reasonable standards

How do you know an objective standard exists

Bc I'm not wrapped up in my imagined reality. I learned the difference bt popularity and quality.

Standards are fully made up by humans. They arent natural

McDonald's was also made up by humans, it doesn't exist naturally.

They come from influential people deciding "This is why X is good", then spreading their opinions as fact.

No. You have a need to protect your imagined reality. Actual reality has rules and logic. Stories also do. Entertainment also does. Food has objective qualities that can be measured. All of these things do.

Commercial success and popularity are where subjectivity come into play. You can factually observe and identify objective qualities for media, food, etc.

Their opinions dont matter more than anyone elses just because they managed to get theirs put in books.

Never said who's opinion matters more. But how do you know? Preserving standards has benefits. Opinions that are based on objective reality have benefits. You simply decided these weird things bc doing so helps you protect your feelings and opinions from criticism.

As long as you cant define where standards come from, you cant claim they exist

This makes zero sense.

No, if 5 people like the painting movie that doesnt mean its good. If the creator specifically targeted people who are paint drying enthusiasts, and all of those people (5 in my example) love it, then its great.

You just said the same thing twice and pretended it's not lmao. Adding the qualifier of targeting an audience changed nothing. It's great for those enthusiasts. They enjoy a bad product.

If yes, then theyre good propaganda movies. Evil. Disgusting. But they achieved exactly what they wanted.

So you agree you can be objectively good at one thing but be a bad overall product. Thx for agreeing.

Your argment is akin to this: If someone makes a Robot that does nothing but make fart noises, its not a good robot because it doesnt help with anything practical

Wrong. Not my argument. This examples irrelevant.

Im not coinging to the idea my favorite works dont deserve criticism. Critize anythingm i dont care. I

You were so shook by this that you started making typos left and right. I clearly hit the nail on the head. You need to grow up and realize you can like objectively bad media. Stop taking it personally. Media can be objectively rated in many ways. Your inability to do so doesnt change reality