•A lot of gaming enjoyment and performance is of nutrition. …

Yeah but that's not a criteria for a single meal tho, it's like answering "a healthy backlog is made of both good and trash games" to the question "is this game good or nah?"

Wrong. It's just objectively bad for you. It often tastes good however. It is objectively now not shit.

op is of faggot

Attached: 1490835369332.webm (800x250, 2.91M)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
mathworld.wolfram.com/FibonacciNumber.html

I think there is a point where art and "objectivity" come together. It's usually in the engineering world and isn't called art.

Attached: 1419308818587.jpg (1080x1200, 1.69M)

Attached: 1559115580627.png (1356x934, 71K)

Attached: 1559819739327.png (1546x657, 81K)

A game being good or not is subjective and not objective.

My biggest problem with fast food (and restaurant options) is that the calories are so pushed with various fats and sugars that it's ludicrous.

It's possible making similar meals at home, much more tasty, with specificity for what the flavoring profiles are, etc.

Nutrition is actually huge for energy levels, performance, personality, social interest and investment, and other aspects of genetic expression. [Image / 2]

Healthy meals being really flavorous is basically a stevia solution. Another is sodium citrate, and potassium (which brings out a lot of original flavors, e.g., the beans' early life, of brewed coffee).

"Do it, then."

Even anatomy is basing on simple rules of cellular propagation. Genes are some 99.5% similar, potentially 100%. The golden ratio is found in facial / bodily proportions, and measurements of DNA. Attractiveness is great because it's obtainable and pure – "the skillfulness of nutrition, fitness, et al." Giving consumer demographics that keeps their minds on their interests, and stimulates powerful sensations, which is what most of this is about …

Attached: Objectivity - Spatial Intensity.png (613x113, 13K)

That picture is describing fun, which is something everyone seems to think doesn't merit consideration.

Your shitty OP pops up like a gazillion times in fireden. That makes you 100% autistic.
Also, you can't prove fuck all objectively.

For every game you think is good, an uncountable number of people dislike. Same goes for art, food, etc. This removes all notion of objectivity. You cannot debate this.
Places like Yea Forums look for consensus, not objectivity.

Some people dislike shooters.
Thus said games are not objectively greater.
Anything else? You won't be able to get past this problem.

WOW WHAT GREAT FAGGOTY BLOG POSTS TO SHARE WITH US ON THIS VERY SERIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL WEBSITE

END YOUR LIFE YOU FAT SPASTIC MONG

It's not, because while eating is something experienced, games are basing on motivation, competitiveness, lasting appealingness, and other aspects of "interactivity".

>
Homemade food has a lot more for controlling ingredients, etc.

[Image]

With genes and rewards being so based on the same quantifiers and qualifiers, having similar opinions on something is really as simple as them understanding themselves. Science defined motivation as far back as 1985, and many articles are published on it for video games.

See the multiple points already posted.

Asserting variation in opinions is appealing to tradition. …

Suggesting …

When researched, even racism was dropped when social benefits were found. With something so common (and, often powerful) so easily displaced, it really evidences how effective specific incentives are.

They're based on so much commonality – specifically nutrition, fitness, hungers, rewards … E.g., the popularity of SP games vs. MP, and socialization – "mostly, they're simply hungry." (A lot of correlative are available, even specifically for the nutrition aspect, hungers correlating with energy homeostasis, cholinergic-dopaminergic rewards, neurotrophy, and even rewards from alcohol [wiki: ghrelin]. Specific inquiries are where a lot of the stronger arguments are.) With cellular propagation beings so similar, it's really reasonable.

Attached: 1553128404132.png (1017x743, 568K)

>See the multiple points already posted.
>Asserting variation in opinions is appealing to tradition.
It's not an appeal because it is 100% objectively observable and true that there are opinions that vary from yours. We're not having an argument: you're trying to pawn off your arbitrary opinion as fact—there is a difference.
It's not an appeal to point out that you're wrong and why.

Man, all that's great but some people dislike shooters and thus my points stands you're incorrect in your opinion-based assertion while I remain corre

>Suggesting …
You're claiming something subjective as something objective. You are going to loose your argument.

>See the multiple points already posted
>Asserting variation in opinions is appealing to tradition
What even is objectivity?
How can you even apply objectivity to "something even being good"?

Simple.
You would need 100% unilateral agreement from everyone alive in the world at any given moment.

You can make objective statements in regarding to games like "this game has 4 levels and this game has 5", but statements regarding to it being good cannot be objective since you can't tell anyone what to value in a game.
Every objective argument you can give towards a video game can be dismissed by "i don't give a fuck about that" or "i prefer it this way" and it will always be a valid answer

"Appealing to tradition" is asserting that simply arguing to past events is mediocre logic. Those opinions were neither tested with proper (scientific) qualifications, nor measured, bodily feedbacks.

Specifics are already available / existent.

Common standards, derived from physiology, etc.

That's still appealing to tradition. It's possible having objective quality, even if some opinions are specific ways. A lot of enjoyment is training (e.g., a "normative" interest in, and summary of, experiences – benefits such as from the spatial games, other types of skillfulness, etc.). It comes after playing games for a while, especially. The fundamental designs – simple, 2D platforming and such – are eventually repetitive, surpassed by more intensity, at least for a while.

Attached: accuracy - 'fun' vs specific qualifiers.png (624x219, 26K)

PS: The results within that image are obviously huge – "fun"'s 1% accuracy to specifics' 41%.

>Specifics are already available / existent.
That has nothing to do with anything.

Pointing out today, right now, that there are people that disagree with your opinion and thus it is not objective isn't an appeal to tradition.
Furthermore, you don't have the data to support your initial claim—only data that supports a certain type of people enjoy a certain type of thing.

You do not have the data, knowledge, or experience to make the claims your making... and nobody ever will.

Come back when you understand what objectivity is. In terms of art, food, games, traits, etc, objectivity holds that every person alive be unilateral agreement.

It's not an appeal to tradition. You keep saying that. Nobody is using people as a historical appeal frankly; they're citing inconsistency. Appealing to tradition needs a cohesive underlying logic that supports an argument. It is not an appeal to indicate some are different then others and as such the onus is on you to prove yourself within the realm of objectivity, which is universal appeal.