Can you overlook things that aren't flaws, but just things you don't like in a game?

[GonzoGamer]

Spoiler: Spoiler is long and says obvious themes

I'd argue that narratively speaking John's death was a lot more about the inevitability of escaping your past and the general theme of the death of the old ways in a changing landscape. And the effect was achieved at least to the extent that I generally had the idea we got him home clean, only for his past to come knocking on his door one last time.

But they really beat you over the head with that theme don't they?
I got that. In fact I think that everyone got that before getting halfway through the game. That coupled with the fact that I'd already seen the guy get shot, trampled, fall off a cliff, get mauled by a bear, and set on fire; it all just made his last stand seem pretentious, predictable, and as such, a little unnecessary. The federals couldn't do anything to that guy the world (or me for that matter) hadn't already done to him. I didn't really care about his death at that point.
Same thing with the guy at the end of LA Noir. Or GTA4; it's hard to feel for the character's loss when you have him driving top speed through pedestrians on the sidewalk. It's like hiding a delicious meatloaf... but inside a delicious chocolate ice cream cake. Sure you enjoyed the ice cream cake, but why would they ruin the meatloaf like that?

You're right to say that some of those aspects are hamfisted to you. But regardless of some gameplay mechanics (i.e. you can die in a lot and often hilarious ways), it does fit and is in a way the logical conclusion. John Marston as the living embodyment of the Old West fought till his last straw to preserve his way, but change waits for no one. And it can be seen how we, as a whole, can be ruthless (almost zealot-like) in the name of progress. Was it forced on you after all was done? Perhaps, but maybe despite what we all wanted and what Mr. Marston wanted, the story was NOT done until then. It was as much forced on him as it was on us, the player, so to say.

Well, that's what bothers me about it I think. If they want gaming to be taken seriously, like an art, they need to start treating us like adults because, let's face it, many of us are.

Considering how blatant they were and how many people were confused and/or pissed, I think treating us like adults is a bad idea if they want to sell games. I don't know, I'd like to be treated more like an adult. I just think that we're probably in the wrong hobby for that.

I didn't realize people got confused or pissed. At what, having to switch to a new protagonist? The only thing that pisses me off is that they (and R* isn't alone in this) seem to think the only way they can have an emotional impact is by killing someone off and that kind of makes things more predictable and sort of pointless when the medium of video games itself usually requires the protagonist to die a few times; even just in trial and error/even if the player is not a sadistic weirdo that throws his character off cliffs just to watch him ragdoll.

Really, I would just like to see them get more creative. I think the game story which had the most powerful climax to me was Soul Blazer. Maybe it was because I was a teenager with a lot of hormones at the time but I attribute it more to the sweet Wings of Desire type (okay complete rip off) love story. At the very end you give up everything, even your memories and ability to talk in order to get back to the woman you love. That game ending brought me to tears; it was beautiful...not so much visually of course, though it was pretty for its time, this was an old 16 bit game.

I liked everything else about RDR. It's one of the greatest games of this gen. So (to bring things back OT) if they don't want to treat us like adults, that's fine too as long as the gameplay is fun. But if that's the case we can't get all up in arms when some old guy says video games aren't an art...which is still stupid when you consider that any game is at it's most basic a collection of art assets the viewer/player arranges but whatever, you get my point. We shouldn't be pleased that they think we're idiots with the emotional depth of a teaspoon. Some might make it seem that way but I don't think most of us are really.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

If I don't like a game I don't like it but when it comes to small flaws I can generally overlook them. Anybody familiar with the Playstation remakes of Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy II may not know what I mean but I had a problem with the text boxes...they just seemed to be of really low quality but I couldn't point to an example of exemplary text boxes if pressed. I liked FF-Origins but stopped playing when other, better games were presented to me (like Earthbound on the Wii U).

I can't think of any games that had minor flaws which compelled me to stop playing the game though...the song "You're My Inspiration" (I think) on Elite Beat Agents isn't a minor flaw in my opinion...and it didn't stop me beating the game...alright bad example...I'll come back to this maybe.

 

[Something Amyss]

I didn't realize people got confused or pissed. At what, having to switch to a new protagonist? The only thing that pisses me off is that they (and R* isn't alone in this) seem to think the only way they can have an emotional impact is by killing someone off and that kind of makes things more predictable and sort of pointless when the medium of video games itself usually requires the protagonist to die a few times; even just in trial and error/even if the player is not a sadistic weirdo that throws his character off cliffs just to watch him ragdoll.

I'd point out there's gameplay dead and story dead. Part of that ludonarrative dissonance people are often on aboot.

It's always one thing when you kill off your player/party/robot/whatever, and another when someone else takes it from you. People ***** about killing in cutscenes after you've probably mowed down a small country in a given game.

People are angry and confused because they think it comes out of left field (despite the themes), because they feel it makes no sense ( despite the themes), and because ponies, basically. I know GameFAQs isn't exactly the height of intellectual discourse, but the outraged there kinda highlighted it. Large user base that is probably typical+outrage and confusion over points oblivious to theme probably=significant issue for overall base.

I'm not saying we're all dumbasses, but there seems to be less and less incentive to treat the base as intelligent in ANY medium, let alone games. And we ain't exactly known for the highbrow.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I didn't realize people got confused or pissed. At what, having to switch to a new protagonist? The only thing that pisses me off is that they (and R* isn't alone in this) seem to think the only way they can have an emotional impact is by killing someone off and that kind of makes things more predictable and sort of pointless when the medium of video games itself usually requires the protagonist to die a few times; even just in trial and error/even if the player is not a sadistic weirdo that throws his character off cliffs just to watch him ragdoll.

I'd point out there's gameplay dead and story dead. Part of that ludonarrative dissonance people are often on aboot.

It's always one thing when you kill off your player/party/robot/whatever, and another when someone else takes it from you. People ***** about killing in cutscenes after you've probably mowed down a small country in a given game.

People are angry and confused because they think it comes out of left field (despite the themes), because they feel it makes no sense ( despite the themes), and because ponies, basically. I know GameFAQs isn't exactly the height of intellectual discourse, but the outraged there kinda highlighted it. Large user base that is probably typical+outrage and confusion over points oblivious to theme probably=significant issue for overall base.

I'm not saying we're all dumbasses, but there seems to be less and less incentive to treat the base as intelligent in ANY medium, let alone games. And we ain't exactly known for the highbrow.

I get that but many of the people Making games are at least pretty smart. Why wouldn't they want to raise the bar for their audience; an audience by virtue of their choice of hobby actually appreciate challenges?

I didn't realize people were upset over the loss of the character but yea, I don't spend much time on gamefaq either. It was pretty predictable even if you never saw a western or played a R* game from this gen. I guess there is the loss of control you mentioned. I don't know, it's not like Fallout 3, you still got to freeroam at least. Like I said, it didn't upset me, it's just not doing anything for me. I guess what irks me is that R* has become the kid on the playground that runs over to the kid who's about to cry and says "are you going to cry?" then stands there leering. If they want to make an honest emotional connection they seem witty enough to be able to make it fit better or at least get some variety; shit, we all know they're a bunch of witty bastards.

 

[balladbird]

And the only reason I liked it so much is because I overlooked something that wasn't really a 'flaw', and more of something I didn't really like about it - the actual porn bits. I say it isn't a flaw because that's what the game was made for, and it seems that a great storyline with good characters were accidentally thrown in.

I hear this line of logic from a certain percentage of Monmusu's fans, and while at the end of the day I chalk it up to 'live and let live' I always have to go on record for not understanding the logic.

Whether you play it for the porn or not, it's the fact that it's a hentai game that is the only reason most people have even heard of it. It's regarded as a game with good gameplay and story for a porn game

Without that very, very important distinction, it's just a cookie-cutter, predictable plot filled with overused archetypes, and a very simplistic, almost impossible to lose battle system (provided you resist the urge to lose on purpose.) Again, I'm not saying you have to LIKE the porn, but wishing that monmusu didn't have it is like wishing soda didn't have carbonation, it may be better without it, but you're taking away what helped form its identity.

ah, but I digress. I don't really get what the topic is asking, but I can play games that have things I don't like. I enjoy games like Bioshock despite my strong dislike of the flat first-person viewpoint.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sometimes. I really like Dragon Age Origins, but the thought of playing the Fade again prevented me from buying it on the steam sale.

I just found the Fade really freaking tedious.

Is tedium the only reason people hate the Fade. Am I the only person who didn't mind it? Sure it wasn't the best part but I don't remember it being bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

I get that but many of the people Making games are at least pretty smart. Why wouldn't they want to raise the bar for their audience; an audience by virtue of their choice of hobby actually appreciate challenges?

Do we appreciate challenges? I mean, I know that we appreciate hard difficulty, but strong narratives and intelligent discourse are not things that sell games. And even difficulty divides the fanbase. After all, games are largely easier than they were a decade ago. When something requires an ounce of thought, we tend to run for FAQs (granted, some games have puzzles that only make sense if you are literally in the devs' heads, but....)

To paraphrase, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average gamer.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I get that but many of the people Making games are at least pretty smart. Why wouldn't they want to raise the bar for their audience; an audience by virtue of their choice of hobby actually appreciate challenges?

Do we appreciate challenges? I mean, I know that we appreciate hard difficulty, but strong narratives and intelligent discourse are not things that sell games. And even difficulty divides the fanbase. After all, games are largely easier than they were a decade ago. When something requires an ounce of thought, we tend to run for FAQs (granted, some games have puzzles that only make sense if you are literally in the devs' heads, but....)

To paraphrase, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average gamer.

Good turn of phrase. I like Mencken.
While I know there are gamers who don't like challenges I think most of them do. Look at how well Dark Souls did. And when I jump into a game of CoD, I've never been hit with a game full of quickscopers, there's not even one in every game. But yes that's gameplay.
And when it comes to strong narratives, you're right, I never turn to video games. So why do they insist on using dramatic turns that may work in literature and film but don't work in games? Once again, I think a compelling romance is easier to write into a game (or maybe I should say it can fit better) as opposed to a tragedy...at least in games where you're killing people all the time. In some games (like GTAs for example) I get into this mindset that everyone in that game is fit for slaughter, so I can't get all emotional when I get near the end of the game and someone "important" dies.

 

[Something Amyss]

Is tedium the only reason people hate the Fade. Am I the only person who didn't mind it? Sure it wasn't the best part but I don't remember it being bad.

Well, there's also crappy level design that borders on Guide Dang It! but mostly it's just boring, out of place (Hey, remember when this was an oldschool party-based RPG?) and time-consuming.

Fair play if you didn't mind it, but I almost didn't bother finishing it.