Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#160

Assassin's Creed Odyssey is the best game of 2018

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Imabench
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1485
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct explained. Con had no bad conduct that I can see.

Pro says: "If something is popular and sells well, chances are it's complete trash. Because most people are fucking idiots. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you cunt breathed weasel."
This calls most readers of the debate 'fucking idiots' by default or at least by direct interpretation as debate fans may not be the 'most people' but even the term 'fucking idiot' to refer to most people is bad conduct. The tone of 'put that in your pipe and smoke it' is sardonic and then the 'cunt breathed weasel' is beyond recourse as an act of poor conduct.

Also this:

" I don't agree with your arbitrary metrics based on what a multitude of witless fucks decide to spend their money on. Notice which of these songs is mindless garbage and which one has quality then take a look at which one has millions of views and which one has only a few thousand"

This is saying that the majority of fans of any popular game is 'witless fucks' but what Pro forgets is that he is affirming the resolution, not opposing the resolution that would be Imabench as Pro to: "The best game of 2018 is game X" where Type1 as Con would then be entitled to question the basis on which Con defends the supremacy of the game over Assassin's Creed that he would represent from a defensive 'is potentially equal, if not better' stance. Also, aside from altering BoP and directly insulting most gamers and their taste he then refers to all popular songs as 'mindless garbage' which in turn is insulting all Music Artists who are popular as the producer of the mindless garbage is most likely mindless and of garbage quality. This was totally uncalled for and in no way all added a single point to their debate that Pro couldn't equally have achieved politely or in a stern but non-crude tone.

Let's analyse what Pro backs up ACO being the best game of 2018 with:
"It offers a vast and detailed open world in which you get to explore a virtual Ancient Greece, which in itself makes it a unique and fascinating experience."
Why does this make it better? I am a huge fan of having subjective-taste debates as in my eyes they are the only fair debates one can have because either side can win and it comes down to debating ability much more than Data but when we talk about something being based in Ancient Greece and say that in any way adds to its superiority over other games of 2018 we must at least hint at why this is subjectively more pleasing and/or impressive than being based in the settings of the other games of 2018. What Pro does is... To not at all explain why this makes it superior so Con needn't say a single word to this since it proves NOTHING about the resolution.

Pro then leads with

“But on top of that, it also surpassed my expectations (and the expectations of many AC fans) in a very crucial way. They did not entirely butcher or ignore the story opportunities, they took advantage of them to a fairly decent extent, shedding light on the origin of the Templar order among other things.”

Failing to butcher something isn’t being the best at it, it’s called being average or maybe ‘good’ at it. Con doesn’t attack this from that angle though, Con actually surpasses it by using data-backed reviews of God of War (on all accounts, including storyline-depth), Spiderman (on quality of the terrain/setting and quality of mechanics rewarding well-trained players who dedicate time and raw sales just as with his other games), Monster Hunter and a couple of others on grounds of pure measurable success be it speed of growth in popularity or quality of the game in general reviews.

He then rebukes Pro's entire case by explaining how the setting in no way at all is close to the quality of other 'open-world' games where the extent of the map and quality of the terrain are far superior to the Ancient Greece limited setting of ACO and frankly won by this quote alone:

"If its not the best story telling game, and its not the best character construction game, and now its not even the best RPG game or the best Assassins Creed game, then what is left?" Where he uses a concession made by Pro against himself and to strengthen his case in that he attacked the other aspects than RPG-quality.

It is sealed in the way he makes ACO out ot be nothing more than a reskinned prettyd-up version of other Assassin games reducing the quality of the game in ingenuity, originality and anything worth complimenting other than graphics.

Pro just responds with insults and rhetorical questions, Pro never explain what to judge the game on OTHER THAN popularity, sales and professional reviews so Con wins by default.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Ultimately, my vote is won by Con. The crux of Pro’s argument is inherently flawed because he never offers an objective method to measure the quality of each game. If I am not to rely on critical acclaim, what should I vote on? I am left with no answer from Pro, and I am left even more confused as to why this debate was started to begin with. While Pro does illustrate that ACO can be fun, he never adequately proves why it is the best game of the year in comparison to the games that Con brings up. I will buy that ACO has some fun, open-worlds, RPG elements, and naval warfare. ( As a side not: I could use some more justification through in-game elements and exactly what RPG elements are utilized effectively enough to make the game better.) However, after conceding more than half of Pro’s arguments, I see no path of victory for Pro. Con effectively refutes the flawed notion that critical acclaim and copies sold hold no water when discussing the quality of a game by suggesting that taking a handful of opinions instead of one allows for a source with greater authority. Perhaps popularity is not the main consideration someone should use when they are purchasing video games, but taking the opinions of a large amount of people is fair-game in a debate. We often refer to these tactics as “using a survey.” The rest of Con’s arguments are either jabs at Pro, (although to be fair, Pro does jab back,) or a hilarious example of argumentum ad populum per the YouTube links. This example does not negate the fact that fundamentally, a debate requires some type of evidence. In the absence of “objective opinions” I see no possible way to indicate the quality of a game without a majority of people enjoying it. Moreover, the alternative of simply buying Pro’s opinion is not accurate either. Con even tried to post some arguments relating to ACO being generic, which remain un-refuted by the end of the debate.

With literally half of Pro’s arguments dropped, and the aforementioned only offense that Con could generate being thoroughly refuted, I vote in the negation.