"Forbes is the new Spot for Pro-Gamer Reporting" - That didn't last long.

[Frozen Fox]

No i am sorry but this kind of shit pisses me off. Murder is not good if you enjoy it games are not good if you enjoy them. Games are good if they are well executed or are artistic and unique.

ROFL at your murder = games analogue. I'll let you figure out why that's ridiculous. You can consider it a fun exercise in not coming up with facile analogies.

The problem with trying to objectively summarize whether a game is "good" or "bad" is that games have many disparate working parts, and one's enjoyment of those parts is often a subjective question. I might really love a particular art style and hate another. I might adore one mechanic and hate another. One person might love a deep, complex game with a dense rule set, another might find that game tedious in the extreme, and prefer a classic game with simple, intuitive rules.

At the end of the day though, gaming is both recreation and art form, and is best measured by the pleasure it delivers. If you found something to love about a game, then there was something to love in that game. For you, that's a good game.

The only people who hand wring and obsess over whether something is objectively viewed as good or bad are people who are insecure about the things they love and need a constant stream of validation for their choices, or desire a pulpit upon which they can stand and fling derision at the choices of others.

Best game ever = all games ever made. I am sorry that is all "bad is purely objective" can boil down to as far as gaming gos. all reviews of any form are to be utterly ignored

 

[halfeclipse]

I resent the scaled down, dumbed-down social games that have cropped up over the past few years. It's an insult to discerning gamers' intelligence to mention them in the same breath as more complex, comprehensive games.

But iOS and social games are the future of gaming.

If that's the future of gaming, then KILL ME RIGHT NOW. No current "social" or iOS game could compare to the depth of something such as Fallout New Vegas.

http://kotaku.com/5895620/youll-be-able-to-play-baldurs-gate-on-your-ipad-this-summer/gallery/1

So there's your point rendered moot in regards to iOS games. Some one more familiar with the system could likely find a currently released game, but given that the iPhone could happily run any game released before 2005, let alone the iPad, and that there are currently flash games with depth comparable to New Vegas (Not that New Vegas was exactly kin to Ulysses or such.) I'm certain they exist.


As for social games, you've got over two weeks of total play in them on your steam account alone, so yea?


edit:

They're very shallow gamers, sharing very little in terms of gaming habits with someone who actually inputs considerable thought and dedication into a game. The subtle implications that such represents the "future" of gaming is what irks me the most. I can't help but see them with some emnity if they're playing such tosh as Angry Birds and FarmShit by the tens of millions whilst shunning or ignoring more sophisticated games.

Tell me, what was the first games you played? Did they demand you memorise complex controls with eight different buttons and two sticks doing all different things you had to know to succeed? or did it use a single joystick and three or less buttons to play?

Everybody started their gaming experience with games that are 'shallow' by today's standards, and many of those 'shallow' games are well loved classics cherished and beloved. Those who have a taste for the more complex will seek those out. Those that aren't, play the the games they enjoy. Either ways, we have new, happy gamers to welcome to the fold.

Pokemon Gold Version and Super Mario. The former takes some dedication and exploration and the latter is to be expected because I was a child. That and I did not have access to a PC or games console. I later went on to play Age of Empires II and 007: Nightfire.

I'd like to see serious examples of people starting gaming with Angry Birds and then showing an interest in something more complex, because it seems rather different to someone who started with a gameboy and then became an enthusiastic Playstation 2 and PC gamer.

Probably the same ones who started with Tetis. Or Pacman. Or Pong. Or Sinistar. Or Space Invaders. Or Asteroids. Or Frogger. Or Q*bert. Or Super Mario Bros. Or Mega Man. Or Final Fantasy. Or Duck Hunt. Or Excitebike. Or Missile Command. Or Punch-Out.

Actually fuck it, just go find a list of games between 1976-1989. Bash your head with a mallet for every game on there. Do the internet a favour and get a few good whacks in at Broca's area and Wernicke's area.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Angry Birds players don't want to read about Angry Birds. As a 'hardcore'/'mainstream' gamer, I don't want to read about Angry Birds either. So who would they be covering it for?

Who the hell knows what people do and don't want to read about. I'll leave that to the guys analyzing site traffic to figure out. It's not like you're not capable of skipping over articles that don't interest you. I don't expect the entire universe to tailor itself to my specific interests. If it did, you'd be reading a lot about fucking turn based strategy titles and MMOs, and I bet that would just thrill you to death.

Best game ever = all games ever made. I am sorry that is all "bad is purely objective" can boil down to as far as gaming gos. all reviews of any form are to be utterly ignored

Reviews exist to give you information and opinion about the game, which you're then meant to think critically about. They're not meant to supply you with objective evidence of a game's quality.

 

[irishda]

Oh, I accept that they are gamers in a loose sense, that doesn't mean I have to like or view them positively. Every time I hear someone parroting on about how Angry Birds is the greatest game ever, I despair for the future. It's foolish to neglect such concerns about where gaming is headed, until the future of "premium" gaming is secured. I find it rather obnoxious that people can consider FarmVille and Angry Birds more interesting games than say, Deus Ex or Fallout. My expectations of a game are higher. About the only positive function of social games is as a gateway to premium games for those who haven't been exposed to them. Yet I'm not aware of any examples of people who've done just that, who started with social games and then realised that there were much better and bigger games out there that they could have been playing all the time.

Kind of like how people still parrot on about how Mario Bros. is the greatest game ever, eh? Or the first Legend of Zelda? Gee, THOSE were some complex pieces of gaming right there. For fuck's sake, Harvest Moon IS fucking FarmVille and you STILL hear a ton of people talking about how awesome HM was but looking down of those stupid gamers that play FV.

You know what I find obnoxious? Assholes like you that think that everyone has the same goals when it comes to their video games. Most people AREN'T looking to be bothered by a story. It's like porn, they just want to spend some time getting a bit of satisfaction. So when a game like Angry Birds fulfills these objectives, yeah they're gonna think it's a much better game than "immersive" games that are gonna try and pull them into this world that they don't really care about.

People don't give a shit about your apocalyptic wastelands/cybernetic dystopian futures/zombie apocalypse narratives. They came to a game to have fun, and those 99 cent social media games provide a lot more fun than the more AAA games. Oh don't get me wrong. The "hardcore" stuff is more fulfilling, but the "casual" gamers just want fun. And there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, the two games I've ever had the most fun with because of all the memories of playing with my family and friends were Little Big Planet and Bomberman.

 

[Dthier]

Hello,

I wrote the Forbes article, and it's great to see so much good discussion over here at the Escapist.

I agree that bits are a tad incediary in there, but I tried to make sure it was clear I was not talking about all gamers, but a vocal population with an outsize presence on the net. It's a broader trend to somehow classify the games that we're used to as "good" and games that we're not as "bad." Angry Birds, Tiny Wings, Plantz vs. Zombies and yes, even Farmville, are excellently crafted and executed games. You may not like them, but dismissing them wholesale just seems petty and childish coming from those that would argue that games are art.

To me, Infinity blade is the exception that proves the rule -- gamers rally around it because it looks like games they're used to.

To the broader notion, Forbes is neither pro-gamer, nor anti-gamer, nor anything really. Articles I write are mine and mine alone, and they are just my opinions. Sometimes, those that are lumped as "gamer" like them, sometimes, they don't.

 

[Limecake]

I find this is mostly the case whenever someone brings up CoD or madden, that's where I feel our 'snobbery' shines through. Getting upset that CoD is the best selling franchise of all time is ridiculous people will like what they like.

I agree with the OP though, I have no idea why forbes is getting so into the 'gaming news' (maybe it's because of how much money is in gaming?) but when people would link me articles on Diablo 3 from forbes I would just think "Why the hell is forbes getting upset over Diablo 3?"

(please don't turn this into another Diablo 3 thread I was just using it as an example)

EDIT:

Plantz vs. Zombies and yes, even Farmville, are excellently crafted and executed games.

Wait who's talking bad about plants vs zombies? that game was incredible.

 

[Woodsey]

Angry Birds players don't want to read about Angry Birds. As a 'hardcore'/'mainstream' gamer, I don't want to read about Angry Birds either. So who would they be covering it for?

Who the hell knows what people do and don't want to read about. I'll leave that to the guys analyzing site traffic to figure out. It's not like you're not capable of skipping over articles that don't interest you. I don't expect the entire universe to tailor itself to my specific interests. If it did, you'd be reading a lot about fucking turn based strategy titles and MMOs, and I bet that would just thrill you to death.

'It's not like you're not capable of skipping over articles that don't interest you.'

Yeah, and as I said earlier I'll happily start skipping sites that give large amounts of attention to FB games. My point was that when you look, none of them are actually fucking doing it.

My point overall is that a) the kickback from 'regular gamers' isn't surprising because it's not the same market, and b) most gaming sites aren't actually covering it all that much anyway, so when it starts bleeding over because that's what sites think people want to read about along with their RTS and MMO news, and when publishers start claiming everyone loves the FB model, it is naturally going to rile people up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wait who's talking bad about plants vs zombies? that game was incredible.

Popcap preceded Zynga as the Devil Incarnate in the war between casual and hardcore gamers.

Yeah, and as I said earlier I'll happily start skipping sites that give large amounts of attention to FB games. My point was that when you look, none of them are actually fucking doing it.

I've got a couple of gaming mags I read that occasionally have large inserts on social and iphone games. I don't read them, but I admit it never occurred to me to throw the magazine across the room in a snit because they dared to cover a subject that wasn't to my specific tastes.

 

[Frozen Fox]

Best game ever = all games ever made. I am sorry that is all "bad is purely objective" can boil down to as far as gaming gos. all reviews of any form are to be utterly ignored

Reviews exist to give you information and opinion about the game, which you're then meant to think critically about. They're not meant to supply you with objective evidence of a game's quality.

In other words "reviews are objectively worthless" and as far as i am concerned that makes them absolutely worthless

 

[BloatedGuppy]

In other words "reviews are objectively worthless" and as far as i am concerned that makes them absolutely worthless

I'm not sure why you would leap to that conclusion, but we've established that as far as you're concerned murder = games, so I can't say I'm a sure hand at following your logic at the best of times.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

It's the most dangerous game!

Steady!

Spoiler: This is the most dangerous game!

Aside from that I effectively agree with you.

I don't really see a problem with the article; it was well written and had quite a few good points.

 

[Dthier]

I agree that reviews are objectively worthless -- but they are subjectively very valuable.

 

[Dthier]

I agree that reviews are objectively worthless -- but they are subjectively very valuable.

 

[MammothBlade]

Kind of like how people still parrot on about how Mario Bros. is the greatest game ever, eh? Or the first Legend of Zelda? Gee, THOSE were some complex pieces of gaming right there. For fuck's sake, Harvest Moon IS fucking FarmVille and you STILL hear a ton of people talking about how awesome HM was but looking down of those stupid gamers that play FV.

I have never said anything about Mario or Zelda being superior. Harvest Moon does not have a silly micropayment system, it has a free roaming adventure mode, there are a lot of differences which in my view, make HM a far superior game to FarmVille.

You know what I find obnoxious? Assholes like you that think that everyone has the same goals when it comes to their video games. Most people AREN'T looking to be bothered by a story. It's like porn, they just want to spend some time getting a bit of satisfaction. So when a game like Angry Birds fulfills these objectives, yeah they're gonna think it's a much better game than "immersive" games that are gonna try and pull them into this world that they don't really care about.

Premium games don't have to centre around a story to be good. Take Borderlands for example. A paper-thin plot which just amounts to an excuse to go shooting up a crapsack wasteland to obtain loot and guns by the number. There are plenty of premium games which have kinetically stimulating gameplay without so much as a smidgen of a story, or which keep it optional. There are plenty of multiplayer games which meet your apparent specifications without dumbing down the gameplay.

Pandering to the expectations of the lowest common denominator of which you speak tends to impact upon the satisfaction of people with more sophisticated tastes.

People don't give a shit about your apocalyptic wastelands/cybernetic dystopian futures/zombie apocalypse narratives. They came to a game to have fun, and those 99 cent social media games provide a lot more fun than the more AAA games. Oh don't get me wrong. The "hardcore" stuff is more fulfilling, but the "casual" gamers just want fun. And there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, the two games I've ever had the most fun with because of all the memories of playing with my family and friends were Little Big Planet and Bomberman.

I'm sure they don't, some people have such tragically short attention spans and poor imagination that they can barely even take in a short children's novel. I find Fallout New Vegas both highly fun and higly fulfilling, they are by no means mutually exclusive as you are trying to imply.

 

[Freechoice]

I thought I was going to hate this guy for saying

" IGN, always a good source..."

But then I kept reading.

"for some of the worst commenters on the internet, provides some choice examples."

I love this guy (no homo). Imma go and read his shit. He sounds like a decent, god-fearing man.

 

[chimeracreator]

Hello,

I wrote the Forbes article, and it's great to see so much good discussion over here at the Escapist.

I agree that bits are a tad incediary in there, but I tried to make sure it was clear I was not talking about all gamers, but a vocal population with an outsize presence on the net. It's a broader trend to somehow classify the games that we're used to as "good" and games that we're not as "bad." Angry Birds, Tiny Wings, Plantz vs. Zombies and yes, even Farmville, are excellently crafted and executed games. You may not like them, but dismissing them wholesale just seems petty and childish coming from those that would argue that games are art.

To me, Infinity blade is the exception that proves the rule -- gamers rally around it because it looks like games they're used to.

To the broader notion, Forbes is neither pro-gamer, nor anti-gamer, nor anything really. Articles I write are mine and mine alone, and they are just my opinions. Sometimes, those that are lumped as "gamer" like them, sometimes, they don't.

In that case thanks for writing the article. It was well thought out and mostly on point.

 

[Burst6]

No, iOS games are not the future. Sure they're very easy to make, but they don't give a lot of profit unless they become insanely popular, and that won't happen that often. A lot of the people who play these games aren't that interested in video games in general. There's nothing wrong with casual gamers, but they probably won't keep a large library of games. Most of these games won't give enough profit to support a large company. New developers can make a cheap game to sell for 99c, but if they want to expand they need to make bigger games.



Personally these games can never keep my attention. They're generally way too simple and repetitive. Angry birds, for example, just gets so boring after a while. I had fun for the first 20 or so levels, but then it just lost me.

 

[repeating integers]

Best game ever = all games ever made. I am sorry that is all "bad is purely objective" can boil down to as far as gaming gos. all reviews of any form are to be utterly ignored

Reviews exist to give you information and opinion about the game, which you're then meant to think critically about. They're not meant to supply you with objective evidence of a game's quality.

In other words "reviews are objectively worthless" and as far as i am concerned that makes them absolutely worthless

You see that? What you just did was called "providing a subjective opinion". See how easy it is to do?

In your opinion, reviews are absolutely worthless if they are no more than just the opinion of the reviewer. This does not make them objectively worthless.

 

[irishda]

Kind of like how people still parrot on about how Mario Bros. is the greatest game ever, eh? Or the first Legend of Zelda? Gee, THOSE were some complex pieces of gaming right there. For fuck's sake, Harvest Moon IS fucking FarmVille and you STILL hear a ton of people talking about how awesome HM was but looking down of those stupid gamers that play FV.

I have never said anything about Mario or Zelda being superior. Harvest Moon does not have a silly micropayment system, it has a free roaming adventure mode, there are a lot of differences which in my view, make HM a far superior game to FarmVille.

You know what I find obnoxious? Assholes like you that think that everyone has the same goals when it comes to their video games. Most people AREN'T looking to be bothered by a story. It's like porn, they just want to spend some time getting a bit of satisfaction. So when a game like Angry Birds fulfills these objectives, yeah they're gonna think it's a much better game than "immersive" games that are gonna try and pull them into this world that they don't really care about.

Premium games don't have to centre around a story to be good. Take Borderlands for example. A paper-thin plot which just amounts to an excuse to go shooting up a crapsack wasteland to obtain loot and guns by the number. There are plenty of premium games which have kinetically stimulating gameplay without so much as a smidgen of a story, or which keep it optional. There are plenty of multiplayer games which meet your apparent specifications without dumbing down the gameplay.

Pandering to the expectations of the lowest common denominator of which you speak tends to impact upon the satisfaction of people with more sophisticated tastes.

People don't give a shit about your apocalyptic wastelands/cybernetic dystopian futures/zombie apocalypse narratives. They came to a game to have fun, and those 99 cent social media games provide a lot more fun than the more AAA games. Oh don't get me wrong. The "hardcore" stuff is more fulfilling, but the "casual" gamers just want fun. And there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, the two games I've ever had the most fun with because of all the memories of playing with my family and friends were Little Big Planet and Bomberman.

I'm sure they don't, some people have such tragically short attention spans and poor imagination that they can barely even take in a short children's novel. I find Fallout New Vegas both highly fun and higly fulfilling, they are by no means mutually exclusive as you are trying to imply.

And simplistic control isn't mutually exclusive from complex execution or difficulty. Your implications are that these are simple games that distract from attention the larger games in scope (we'll stick with you NV example). And you lament the idea that these simple games are the future.

But let's be clear. These games aren't the future, if only because they are ALWAYS more popular than the larger titles. Tetris, Asteroid, even that helicopter game was infinitely more popular than Deus Ex. Those numerous "Bubble Shooter" clones dominated the scene for the early part of the millenium. For as long as there have been games, there have been those quick, easy-to-play/hard-to-master games that everyone loves to waste some time on. It hasn't led to the downfall of gaming. Major developers didn't shut down cause everyone was too busy playing some free-to-play top down shooter. You're always gonna have these types of games, and no one, I mean NO ONE, suffers for it.