An ad hominem where you discredit the research to discredit the researcher to discredit the research.
Just use the right words, people. Cripes.

As well, I actually already covered that games in that era won acclaim more for their story and world. Now that graphics is also a factor, you can't just judge gaming as a whole by looking at which games are winning the most acclaim and then only considering story and world and condemning it. Now that graphics is a factor, if you want to find games that have good story and world *look* for those games, but they won't dominate the top-rated lists anymore because graphics is now also a serious factor.
Having to actually look doesn't mean good games are no longer being created, you babies (and by "you babies" I mean the whole complaining world).

If you make as much time to play games as a child would, the concept still applies. That would explain why your golden era of gaming is nearly 2 decades, which is like 4 video game eras.
And Skyrim doesn't have a rich gaming world because its gameplay is too "handholdy" for you? O...k... thoughts starting to seem a little crossed there.

It doesn't make any sense that game stories should suddenly get more complicated because graphics got better.
It used to be that games with the best/most original gameplay and story would be the gems that stood out in review and among peers. Now that graphics came into its own as a factor of quality, there are other games that stand out without necessarily having the best gameplay. Which means you might have to look for games you want to play instead of just taking the highest-rated games. But they're there.

Besides that, it's yet another thing in life that seems to have gotten worse since the better years which by no coincidence always happen to be the same time for everyone -when we were young and had all the time in the world to play every game exhaustively and repetitively to a mastery of every move, path, and secret.
We're gettin' old. Cure that and you'll cure Video-Games-are-Getting-Worse Syndrome.

I don't know what you're going on about, but was pondering the mindset of climate change deniers and the reasons why they vehemently defend their views despite disregarding reason and scientific rigor on the matter.

*facepalm* You seriously do not actually understand what an ad hominem is.
Whenever you're going to use "ad hominem" just use "attack." You'll actually say what you mean to say and won't embarrass yourself.

That address is like the village bicycle... or like all the villagers' bicycles.

When it says true things some people don't like to hear, so they say all media is yellow journalism/left wing/ivory tower/socialist/etc.

Dude, ad hominems are attacks on a person within the confines of a debate, not all attacks at all on a person.
If your funding gets cut, you get punched in the face, or anything of the sort it isn't an ad hominem.

Researcher criticized, making research look bad > ad hominem
Research criticized, making researcher look bad > not ad hominem
It is this simple. I wasn't saying it didn't hurt public acceptance of climate change. I was saying to knock off arguing that it's specifically an ad hominem just because you didn't quite grasp the Wikipedia pages you linked.

Yet they almost certainly must have the same lack of certainty of their own beliefs (except for those I'm underestimating the mental simplicity of).
I think either they're really susceptible to perceiving false equivalencies or they think it's virtuous to support their side for religion or as a competition.

The scientists losing funding also does not make it an ad hominem.
Read your own Wikipedia links. It isn't a matter of "ad hominems are bad" and "the attacks are bad" therefore "the attacks were ad hominems."
I know it's exciting to discover Wikipedia's "logical fallacy" page for the first time, but learn to distinguish them correctly.

It making the news does not have any bearing on whether or not they were personal attacks on the scientists or attacks on the credibility of their data/interpretations.
Yes, they were attacks. They were not, however, ad hominems. I hope you understand this some day.

You're rambling. It wasn't a valid point against global warming or climate change, but it wasn't an ad hominem either.

Facebook sold all the data that I entered into my Facebook profile after I made it as private as possible to scam site Mylife.com. Now that data is available to anyone and Mylife.com is more likely to fraudulently charge my credit cards than take down the info if I contact them.

There is no way I would want any sort of Facebook-government integration.

Nah, if they want to manufacture a scandal in the media, "gate" will still be the appropriate suffix to draw direct comparisons with regard to severity of the scandal to Watergate. It's like a Godwin's law variation.
"Leak" is only accurate and that's just worthless for yellow journalism.