It's Subjective, Money doesn't matter.

DrCokePepsi · December 2015

I was watching this and I literally wanted to high five this man from my computer chair. He wrapped everything up in a single statement.
In the following video, watch from 12:40-12:50, at least. Watch it all if you'd like, but watch AT LEAST that.

Every. damn. time. someone compares games, or MMO's for that matter, they bring which one made more money into the mix. That is such a ridiculously poor representation of how good a game really is. I'm going to be that Internet Warrior and say, everybody, if you are ever arguing about why games these days suck or are great...(they are terrible cash cows btw) do not. I repeat DO NOT, bring how much money a game made into the mix, that does not make it better in any way, in fact, it could be a fantastic representation on how scummy their business tactics are, or how good they are at false advertising and cheapscape marketing. Thank you. Now discuss.
~Drcokepepsi

waynejr2 · December 2015

Your little speech didn't make me interested enough to watch that video. How about you sum up the salient points that you want to discus? [mod edit]

nariusseldon · December 2015

"good" is subjective.

Money matters in where the game will go on, have more content patches, or similar ones will be made.

Loke666 · December 2015

nariusseldon said:

"good" is subjective.

Money matters in where the game will go on, have more content patches, or similar ones will be made.

Yeah, but when people pay for in game advantages you risk a nasty backfire, a lot of people including isn't interesting in a game where the one who payed most win. You need to figure out ways to earn money without affecting the outcome of combat if you want a game that last longer than a few weeks.

There is a good none MMO (and not even a computer game) you can use as example: Magic the gathering. Here the older formats are super pay2win unless you played since 1994 and have all the old expensive cards. You could not possibly win against a good '94 tornament deck and those will cost you at least $5000 (and usually more). The thing though is that there are almost no tornaments allowing those old decks because it just isn't fun for everyone else. And there is a lot of cheating when people buy false cards (knowingly or not), kinda like when people use cheats in MMOs for cashshop heavy games.

Magic is still very popular though but the difference is that you decide yourself what kind of tornament or casual format you want to play against. In MMOs there isn't specific servers for whales who pay loads of money and that meansyou will lose all players not interested in stuff like that.

I want to win a fight because I am best, not because I payed more money than my opponent. PvP in MMOs are already nowhere near as good as it should be and cashshops certainly doesn't help there.

In PvE the effect is at least less but it still feels wrong that I will complete content because I payed money for it. Sure, stuff like extra bag space is one one thing, that is just more convinient but not something that affect combat. Any game where combat is affected by money is on a slippery slope.

Narwrynn · December 2015

I watched about 5 minutes of it from the recommend start point. It mostly sounds like an ad for his class and less of an actual lesson. It also sounds like rambling nonsense. He rolls right from talking about spending his money locally to how art is subjective.

I'd argue that the sales numbers of a game is a decent indication of its quality assuming you knew noting else about the game. I rather play the game that sold $40 million worth of copies than $30k. I'm likely to get a triple A release with the former and a buggy, short indie game with the ladder. Most AAA games are at least enjoyable to play if you happen to like the genre. Most indie games are trash.

Honestly I think you and the man in the video have a similar issue with rambling. It is hard to see the point of your post past the fact that you don't like people comparing the amount of money games have made.

I don't know anyone who honestly thinks the best way to tell if a game is good or not is by looking as sales. I think this is a strawman you made up.

When people bring up the amount of money a game has made they are likely showing how people have voted with their wallet to indicate quality.

Someone says WoW is a bad game. Another person points out that millions of people still pay for the game every month. They are not saying WoW is obviously a good game, that word is subjective. They are saying millions of people have voted with their wallets disagreeing with you.

The question is if not money made, then what should indicate the quality of a game?

It doesn't matter what you say, I could just disagree.
I say the amount of money a game has made is a good indication of quality. You disagree.

Flyte27 · December 2015

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

Talonsin · December 2015

nariusseldon said:

"good" is subjective.

+1

MMO's are like the opposite sex, some of us like some back on our babes...

VestigeGamer · December 2015

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

Horusra · December 2015

VestigeGamer said:

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

Yes. Call it art all you want, but many artists starve to death cause the "goodness" of their work was not that good.

Horusra · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

Loke666 · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

Coca cola is far more expensive then the cheap colas my store have and still sells more... It wouldn't if they doubled the price on it again though but it is almost twice as expensive so you obvously can sell certain products for more and still sell more of it.

There are plenty of expensive premium products that are successful economically and a good MMO will earn money. Things are more complicated though, certain products target the same target group and almost all MMOs today target the exact same group of people (yeah, they are larger then other groups but I don't think they are larger then all the other groups put together).

Fast food in itself isn't a good comparision, it is more that hamburgers is the fastfood that sell most so here all fastfood resturants go for hamburgers. If you like Tacos, Sushi or pizza you are screwed here. And that really isn't very smart.

Comparing fastfood a locally made quality foods is more like comparing a AAA MMO with a cheap low budget game. Then you have the factor that you can make a cheap low budget burger or a premium one- With MMOs those things do both exists, but if you want something else than a burger you will only get the cheapest crap.

MMOs try to hard to be the next Wow even if things seems better now then 5 years ago. You can certainly makes successful AAA MMO that earns plenty of money walking a different way then everyone else but the whole thing is off topic.

Narwrynn · December 2015

VestigeGamer said:

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner.

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

Quantity has a quality all its own.

I'd take three cheap, "low quality," burgers over one "good" one almost any day.
The amount you get for the money, or value, is a relevant factor when deciding if something is good.
I'd say in this case that people have voted with their wallets and said the amount of food you get is worth more than the taste of that food. Meaning the cheap option is of better quality in its own right.

Flyte27 · December 2015

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Flyte27 · December 2015

Narwrynn said:

VestigeGamer said:

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner.

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

Quantity has a quality all its own.

I'd take three cheap, "low quality," burgers over one "good" one almost any day.
The amount you get for the money, or value, is a relevant factor when deciding if something is good.
I'd say in this case that people have voted with their wallets and said the amount of food you get is worth more than the taste of that food. Meaning the cheap option is of better quality in its own right.

Your body would be happier with one expensive high quality burger. No one needs three burgers which likely will be smaller anyway. That is too much meat. You only need a certain amount.

Serenes · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Narwrynn · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Narwrynn said:

VestigeGamer said:

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner.

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

Quantity has a quality all its own.

I'd take three cheap, "low quality," burgers over one "good" one almost any day.
The amount you get for the money, or value, is a relevant factor when deciding if something is good.
I'd say in this case that people have voted with their wallets and said the amount of food you get is worth more than the taste of that food. Meaning the cheap option is of better quality in its own right.

Your body would be happier with one expensive high quality burger. No one needs three burgers which likely will be smaller anyway. That is too much meat. You only need a certain amount.

Your subjective opinion that how healthy a burger is matters.
My opinion that I'd rather have more food.
It happens that the mainstream agrees with my opinion that having more is better than how healthy or tasty it is based on how they vote with their wallets.

Flyte27 · December 2015

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

nariusseldon · December 2015

VestigeGamer said:

DMKano said:

On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.

Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development

studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.

But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"

No one is saying that.

In fact, since "good" is subjective, it cannot be measured by ANY objective measure like money.

However, money DOES matter to whether a game will actually survive. No matter how much you think it is "good", you cannot play it if it is closed down.

Serenes · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I'm actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

How is cooking it up in lab any different than when the first person added pickles to the hamburger? They look for a way to make the product more attractive then its competitors.

Narwrynn · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

I didn't argue that health was subjective. (Although it is. What is health for a 70-year-old man and me is likely very different) I argued that, you, have decided that something is better based on a subjective opinion that healthier is better than more. Please don't strawman my arguments. You subjectively value healthier food. I subjectively value more food.

I'd recommend Penn & Tellers BS episode on Organic Foods.

The ability to make processed foods has enabled us to feed more people helping to meet the demands of a rapidly growing worldwide population.

So I can back my opinion that more is better with facts too.

It doesn't change the fact that I am still subjectively valuing quantity.

You want to eat healthier. You subjectively value health more.

To bring this back to the realm of games.
In my collection of steam games Skyrim is my favorite, I have 131 hours played on it. I also happen to have Banished and FTL.

I like both of those games less than Skyrim, however is forced to choose between playing just Skyrim or playing Banished and FTL I'd take the two games over the one. Because I value the quantity of games over the overall polish and appeal of Skyrim.

Flyte27 · December 2015

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

All the fast food burgers are good for is making your sick eventually. I know a lot of people who think they are healthy, but actually are not. It's actually been proven through research that these things are not good for anyone to eat.

Narwrynn · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

All the fast food burgers are good for is making your sick eventually. I know a lot of people who think they are healthy, but actually are not. It's actually been proven through research that these things are not good for anyone to eat.

You want to cite some of that research by chance?
To be honest, I don't even care really. I'll accept you premise that they are healthier.
Does make them better. Me and the majority of the population vote with our wallets that quantity is better than healthiness. I'm not saying you're wrong either. It is an opinion that is the point.

The amount of money something makes is a tool to see how peoples opinions actually line up with yours. If fast food was more expensive, tasted worst, and was less healthy no one would eat it.
It happens that processed food as one big advantage over organic food: it is cheap. Meaning you can have more of it. I'd reiterate my first sentence to you. Quantity has quality all its own.

Flyte27 · December 2015

Narwrynn said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

All the fast food burgers are good for is making your sick eventually. I know a lot of people who think they are healthy, but actually are not. It's actually been proven through research that these things are not good for anyone to eat.

You want to cite some of that research by chance?

All you need to do is go to a reputable website like MSN.com. They have health articles all the time about what food is good for you, what isn't, and why. They are there every day.

I'm willing to bet most people who would argue against what I say haven't really tried to change their diet. I was the same when I was young and had a lot of health issues. I thought it didn't matter. If you try eating natural food in the right quantities you will see a difference in your health. You don't need to be a intelligent. All you need is some basic trial and error testing to see what works.

Serenes · December 2015

Narwrynn said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

All the fast food burgers are good for is making your sick eventually. I know a lot of people who think they are healthy, but actually are not. It's actually been proven through research that these things are not good for anyone to eat.

You want to cite some of that research by chance?

He is totally right about in general fast food is bad for you, but this is caused by it having higher sodium and calories derived from fat. Obesity from fast food in general is caused from not being aware of the amount of calories in the food, and excessive amounts consumed caused by the cheaper price.

My point is still what is bad for some will be fine for others, being aware of the amount of food/calories that you are in taking and knowing what YOUR body can and cannot processes well goes a lot further in staying healthy than just not eating fast food.

nariusseldon · December 2015

Why are we suddenly talking about food?

I do know one thing though. Whether a burger TASTES "good" is subjective.

Serenes · December 2015

Flyte27 said:

Narwrynn said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Serenes said:

Flyte27 said:

Horusra said:

Flyte27 said:

I'm not defending anyone or anything, but would bring back the old example of food.

There is a lot of processed food that makes lots of money. It is of low quality.

There is a limited amount of quality food grown locally and people cook themselves. This food is a bit more expensive, but doesn't reach mass market appeal. Overall it makes a lot less money than the processed food.

Fast food is a good example of this.

The games are a success simple from a business and capitalistic point of view.

You could argue the games are all made with data gathering which is similar to cooking up something in a lab that is addictive/cheap (fast food).

But in your example the processed food is not necessarily "bad" and your local food might taste horrible. Without a non-subjective measure, like money made, everything else is just opinion.

One thing I've learned in life with food is that taste is of little relevance in food. It's weather it is healthy for you that counts. The taste is nice, but of secondary importance. This is what I was talking about with a lab. McDonalds hamburgers are crap made by scientists to get people to eat it. It's bad for you. Being a person who ate fast food most of my life as that is what was marketed I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Once I switched from fast food to the more expensive food without chemicals I got a lot healthier and had less issues.

Is it not still the persons choice?

I mean you can be perfectly healthy and eat fast food, you can be obese and unhealthy eating expensive foods. One size fits all for the human body is impossible.

Generally it is not subjective. It's true you can be unhealthy if you eat too much (I'm not sure I would always call it expensive. Natural might be a better word for it.) Processed food has been shown to produce more fat on your body for less eaten and cause lot of different diseases like diabetes. That is not considering that scientists cook these these up to attract people to them similar to have MMOs are now made with data mining/research to exploit their customers in the same way.

Saying generally it is not subjective is strange, because something rather is or is not subjective or objective.

I'm healthy, I actually am under my ideal BMI, and I eat fast food every other day.

One way for being healthy does not work for everyone. Everyone's body is different and handles things differently. Like I said before, its not a one size fits all plan. I may need more iron and that scientist cooked up burger may add more iron than the "Natural" burger.

All the fast food burgers are good for is making your sick eventually. I know a lot of people who think they are healthy, but actually are not. It's actually been proven through research that these things are not good for anyone to eat.

You want to cite some of that research by chance?

All you need to do is go to a reputable website like MSN.com. They have health articles all the time about what food is good for you, what isn't, and why. They are there every day.

I'm willing to bet most people who would argue against what I say haven't really tried to change their diet. I was the same when I was young and had a lot of health issues. I thought it didn't matter. If you try eating natural food in the right quantities you will see a difference in your health. You don't need to be a intelligent. All you need is some basic trial and error testing to see what works.

I've went weeks without eating fast food and completely cutting pop out of my diet, and drinking only water. I noticed no real change in my life, other than I was paying more for less.

Like I said I'm not obese you won't suddenly get fat for eating fast food now and then. The occasional pop has been shown to help with obesity.

It all comes down to knowing your body and eating and exercising to fit that knowledge.

Howdy, Stranger!

It's Subjective, Money doesn't matter.

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

It's Subjective, Money doesn't matter.

Comments