Opinions can be wrong, and that is when they ignore the facts. An opinion is right when the former of that thought takes into account all of the relevant facts. Thus, if when faced with the same facts the former doesn't change their opinion, it is because either those facts were already taken into account or the former does not value those facts as highly as the facts used to form the opinion.
Consider this example: party A is a Neo-Nazi, and party B is a typical liberal college student. According to A, who is unemployeed, their job was taken by non-aryans, and in their mind it is a fact that non-aryans are inferior to aryans like him or herself, so affirmative action becomes a cultural attack on his way of life. This belief is supported by certain immigration, education, employment, and salary data, and thus A feels fully justified in his or her mind. However, party B sees inequity in education systems, in welfare, etc, that can be traced through the same facts and figures and forms the opinion that affirmative action is still necessary and useful in promoting diversity and helping minorities to become de-marginalized.
Same facts, but interpretted with a different value system, lead to very different results. You believe average review scores and sales represent the only worthwhile aspect of reality to consider, while I try to include the whole history of the games industry as well as games as appreciable features of culture. Thus your reality is shaped by the concensus of review scores, which is a decent digital indication of the game's value, while others (such as I) try to consider the intangible values of a game's impact on culture, industry, and the market, as these values will have concrete volumes and forms in the future.
Thus, one opinion is based purely in reality but is of little value in discussion of games as a cultural or commercial phenomenon outside of creating a dry backdrop for the major players to act against, because those realms are dominated by incalculable features of the human mind: demand, interest, relevance, memory, etc. This deeper perspective is, however, prone to corruption by faulty definitions and its own admission that the Mind of the Public is impossible to read.
This is, of course, my humble opinion, explained in hopes to NOT create a middle ground, but to show that, fundamentally, opinions are always wrong somehow because, in order to form an opinion, one must ignore the crucial fact that all of the working of humans are an insignificant sputter on the fringes of a galaxy that is not composed of people and ideas but particles and atoms that move irrespective of these thoughts and suggestions.
Thus, by forming an opinion, you ignore the impirical fact that the universe doesn't care. By sharing that opinion, you ignore the fact that people don't ask for your opinion to copy it as thier own, but as more information to adapt into their own opinion to make it relevant to more than their own brain cells. Discussion is naturally a subjective process because whatever pure reality is being referenced must be interpretted through the participant's expectations, experience, and value systems, then conveyed through the participant's capacity to form those filtered ideas into words (or music, or visual art, or whatever medium) for others to recieve. And even there, some kind of noise or static like a language barrier, incomplete expression of the thought, etc, etc, can interfere with the message.
THUS, it's an impirical fact that discussion is only relevant to the participants' perceptions of reality, and little to do with reality, and is thus worthless except to pass the time between now and when one dies. Opinions about opinions? Extra worthless.
And spelling has nothing to do with opinions. It's Spelling.