Then, responding to those who have said he’s “only doing this for the money", Szymanski tweeted: “Yes, no fucking shit. I make games for a living. If I didn’t want to earn money from them I wouldn’t charge money for them.”
The game follows the premise of being trapped in an underwater submarine out of necessity to capture deep pictures.
Okay, no, that’s fine. You can double down and say that you firmly believe someone saying “I don’t think this video game is worth $8” is an objective statement. Not exactly the move I would make but yunno you’ve got an uhh… interesting noggin on ya (don’t get too mad, that’s a subjective statement).
Waiiit a minute…
🤔
Hold on a second…
Oh! I figured it out!
That guy never said this.
Isn’t that basically what they said? Or are you outnerding them for paraphrasing inside quotation marks? In that case, sure.
If I can set aside the zingers for a second: kind of.
But this only works because we know there can’t be objectivity here. Minotaur even says that in one of his arguments.
The problem—and this is a huge pet peeve of mine, it’s kind of the reason these conversations always turn into pissing matches—is that this is an opinion disguised as a fact statement. Probably, to appear more important than it is.
If they had said “I wouldn’t pay $8 for this.” Well, that’s fine. They can do whatever they want. They’re dismissable.
But who wants to be dismissed, right? Is it fine if they’re the only person in a room of 100 who wouldn’t pay $8 for this thing?
It’s not fine because they’re not actually arguing about the game at all. They’re arguing about what has consensus.
“This game isn’t worth $8,” countered by “Yes, it is.” It should have had more content; the content it has is fine. The graphics should be better; the graphics are tastefully retro. This doesn’t lead anywhere. It can’t.
You can’t argue about what the game is or isn’t because it isn’t either one. So, what people end up arguing about is which opinion is more popular. The “correct” opinion is the one that has the larger army. This ends up being exclusively about social power. And, this is the reason why these conversations get so heated. Both sides, both incorrect, are fighting for the right to be correct.
So, can “this game isn’t worth $8” be interpreted as an opinion? I mean, sure. I do that all the time. It has to be said in good faith, though. If you start implying people are wrong to think it’s worth more, then you’re betraying your real purpose here a bit.
Yes they literally did. “This is not an $8 game” means “I don’t think this game is worth $8” when talking about a game that is in the real world price at $8.
No offense, but if English isn’t your second or third language or something you might genuinely have a reading/cognition problem. This is not like a strange use of language, this is just basic sentence structure that should be easily understood by middle school. It’s like the easiest question on the SAT
Does it?
Why not just say the second one, then?
You’re very good at english, so I wouldn’t mind a lesson from an experienced teacher.
Because there are multiple ways to say a particular sentence and some people opt to not use the most passive voice possible when speaking (taking an active voice).
Try it out sometime.
“I don’t think” and “I wouldn’t” are not passive voice.
So, by ‘passive’ you mean ‘weak’. Some people choose not to speak in a ‘weak’ way.
I’m really learning a lot here.
I mean yeah sure man if you want to make utilizing basic phrases and concepts into a “normal people vs pussies” type of dynamic where you are putting yourself in the latter camp sure dude, go ahead.
Whatever helps you
thing is, using a cognitive verb does not make the sentence in the passive voice