Yes, I believe the same about novels, movies, paintings and all other kinds of art. I'm not saying you can't objectively say some games are better than others, just that you can't get much more specific than a general AAA level classification.

Video game awards as such are a joke, and anyone pretending to be able to say that any of those games is objectively better than any other is a fraud. You might say it's a personal evaluation you can't prove, which is fine, but then we don't really need awards enshrining Kotaku editors' opinions, now do we?

Here is the trolley problem answered by an Objectivist.

Yes, I know. I'm pointing out the fact that if they consider MW2 jingoism, then nothing will satisfy them. For them "jingoism" is a package-deal covering both nationalism and patriotism, and they do it on purpose so the former discredits the latter. The same concept applies to many other incorrectly defined terms:…

"bombastic jingoism"

Everything you're saying is just bizarre. I never once said any technology was bad, only its use without consent.

Yeah.

"The day that PC games stop existing is the day the whole world enjoys a toiletpaper-less bathroom."

It might increase, but it's not as easy to pirate on consoles. And if piracy does increase dramatically on consoles, then get ready for a future devoid of video games. People won't work (at least not well) if they're not paid, and if you steal from them, they're not paid.

This doesn't make sense. First, a contract is a contract, but the longer you wait to crack down on pirates, the longer you will have DRM, even if there will be a delay.

Data's at the end. And of course explaining the philosophical root of something isn't a "devolution."

As usual, people are blaming the victim instead of the criminal. Even if DRM didn't work, I don't see anyone calling for a crackdown on pirates, the source of the problem.

Observe the lunacy of what this person is asking. People like this want to be included, not as gamers, but as freaks who like games, and you have to acknowledge everything weird about them and shower them with approval because they are different.

No, no, you're right Luke, and so very "realistic" and pragmatic.

Oh boo hoo. You steal from his ilk, or defend (or refrain from condemning) the people that do, and then get pissed off when he decides to provide you nothing to steal. Well, that's the result of your thievery, and you can only look forward to more.

But the game is designed with the essence of morality being unseen. They shouldn't do that, because that's not how choices work.

That's a technical concern, but I don't see any major problem. In gameplay, reward what you believe is good; punish what you believe is bad.

No. If one's moral code made no difference, then the term would be meaningless. Morality is a set of principles that guides one's choices. If the universe were unpredictable, then there would be no such thing as morality, but since it is predictable, you can see the results of your ethical system in real life, and you…

What does that mean? There is a correct answer if the developer programs one in.

This is an incredibly useless and harmful approach to moral decisions in video game design. The game is going to give me choices...and then proceed to totally ignore them in calculating my rewards? How utterly profound.