>>177118667Because he ISN'T. He's divided quality from playability as if the two have nothing to do with each other, and now that idea has caught like wildfire and games with a few great ideas in their design but ultimately little fun value get praised, and "shitty" games that are lots of fun are never mentioned.
Yeah fun is subjective, and it's possible to appreciate a game for merits in its design, but if a game can't pull you in then it didn't achieve anything it set out to. If you say a game is fun you're praising that it did a good job for you, but that doesn't work as a recommendation - you should say "if you enjoyed Y then you'll enjoy X" or something like this.
Nigger I want you and everyone else on this board to have fun the way you used to. But if games keep getting lauded for a few good ideas instead of being all-around fun and great then eventually /v/ will turn into /mu/.