Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[lacktheknack]

What even IS a "AAA" game? I mean I've heard of AAA beef...does someone actually decide this, or is it a budget category?

It's a really general term, but essentially, if the developer pours more than ~$25,000,000 into the production, then it's "AAA".

So yeah, budget category sounds right.

In current gaming, you have the choice between AAA (EA, Activision, Zenimax), B grade (Meridian4, Codemasters), shovelware (Zynga, most Wii third-party support), and indie (Spiderweb Software, Tale of Tales). All people really care about on this site is AAA and indie.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Modern Warfare 3. I DARE you to come up with logical, factual reasons why that game isn't a shit sandwich served with turd cola on a poo-poo platter.


Go on. I'm waiting. one of the biggest AAA releases, sold millions, is absolute shit. Campaign is shit, multiplayer is imbalanced as fuck, full of hackers, laggy, can't level on dedicated servers, it looks like arse. Prove to me the game is good despite all of that.

Easy. Taste is subjective.

Point proven.

Yes it proves his point not yours. He asked why the game is good not why someone might think the game is good as differing opinions is not a valid reason to say a game is good. At least give reasons why. Imbalanced multiplayer is not something that can be subjective but I can't speak from experience here regarding MW3.

Given the track record of recent CoD games as I will not play another one(ie I haven't played MW3) I have to make a comment on some of the recent ones. They have had pretty abysmal faults that can't be it solved in an argument "Is good due to opinion". You can like a bad game but it is still a bad game. Well at least multiplayer was bad but the single player does get leeway due to subjectivity.

OT: Congratulations you realised some people hate things that are popular and for shitty reason. People have different opinions and you can't change that. Generally no they are shit but general a lot of them tend to be bland affairs made to appeal to everyone even non gamers which every needs a starting point. This means it is perfectly valid to hate and dislike them.

 

[TrevHead]

I think most ppl who think most AAAs are shit are those oldschool and "hardcore" gamers that go out of their way to find the very best that gaming has to offer. Sometimes there isnt much separating whats an average game of its genre and the best. For thyem dumbing down and streamling isnt what they want.

Most gamers simply dont care or dont bother doing the research into which are the very best and are happy to buy the next over hyped game with the biggest marketing budget. Then there's fantards who wont even look at similar games even if they are better.

Its a shame that marketing is more important than quality but this console generation has many critically acclaimed games that didnt sell.

 

[T8B95]

There's a HUGE gap between being shit and being contrary to your taste. You can not like GOW, and that's fine. I don't like Zelda games. But that doesn't mean I can argue that Zelda is shit. Or rather, I shouldn't. Because if I'm reasonable, I can see the strengths that simply don't click with me. In reality, if you call a game shit, your insisting that everyone else conform to you. Maybe, rather then your opinion being an objective aesthetic truth, you just have an opinion outside of the high points of the bell curve. Staatistically, we are all pretty likely to be outliers at some point.

This=/thread. Seriously, you won. You said the best thing in the best way.

I've been saying for a while now, "Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad game." Yes, you can say that quality is subjective and all that horseshit, but if someone's going to tell me with a straight face that Skyrim or Halo are equal or lesser in quality to some licensed shovelware, that's just not true.

For everyone who calls out that a highly-rated game is shit, I just have this to say to you: what's more likely; that everyone else is wrong and that you're the one voice of truth, or that you have a differing opinion to everyone else?

 

[Xanadu84]

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design. The experience may be subjective, but what goes into crafting that experience is not. It may be complicated beyond much of our understanding, but it is no pres objective.

Also, you admit that subjectivity is important in this discussion.

So why, then, does someone out there considers Duke Nukem Forever their favourite game of all time, despite having played Portal?

The illusion of objectivity comes from the subjective opinions of the majority. Our culture and conditioning has dictated these as 'the good things', so many people will think they're good. However, one glitch in the system, like the above example, the thousands of Morrowind haters, or me not liking BioShock eliminates any chance that game quality - or that of any other art - is anything but subjective.



I mean, even outside art this pops up. Ice cream is generally eaten at a cold temperature, say 0-10[sup]o[/sup]C. But if there's even the chance of someone liking to eat it at 100, it can never be an objective truth. Unless you want to tell them they're wrong for liking it, in which case you're a moron.

But on topic: AAA games are just the same as any other. Some of my favourite games have multi-million dollar budgets, but there are plenty of great indie games, and plenty of AAAs I hated.

I never said that games weren't subjective. They are both. Objective things are the only things that account for concensus, subjectivity the only thing that accounts for differences. Unless you disagree with me when I say that some games are generally liked, but people always disagree a little, you have to acknowledge both subjective and objective elements. And there ARE trends, and there ARE dissenting opinions.

 

[Gene O]

You're right. AAA games are generally not shit. However, since AAA games are the most expensive games to produce and buy they should be aiming their sights higher than 'not shit.'

 

[ResonanceGames]

If games lacked any objective element, there would be no mechanism to distinguish one from another. When millions of people agree on something, and a fraction of that disagree, something is happening outside of the subjective. Sure, it a hell of a lot more complex then any single mechanic, but that doesn't make it any less objective. Chalking it all up to subjectivity amounts to nothing more then laziness.

Actually, laziness would be the argumentum ad populum, which you just invoked. That is in no way evidence that something is happening "outside the subjective."

Millions of people also agree that Transformers 2 was a great movie. Are you willing to chalk that up to objectivity too? If not, then what would the percentage of the population who liked Transformers 2 have to be before you would admit that it must be objectively good, 95%? 99%?

The fallacy here is very clear.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm kind of tired of hearing everyone in online gaming forums complain about how some AAA title that's gotten heavily positive reviews is actually shit.

Stop listening? It's not that hard to do.

Generally speaking, games that are very high-profile and were made by a respected developer with a large budget generally aren't terrible. If you're going to complain that they're overrated, fine, but unless the game is universally panned by critics and gamers, it's not going to be awful.

Duke Nukem Forever? Spore? Shadow Harvest: Phantom Ops? Duke Nukem:Critical Mass? Transformers: Dark of the Moon edition?

Basically, I'm just asking for the gaming community to have a bit of perspective, that's all.

How about you take the same perspective and work out that this is less about overall quality, and more about false hype.

If something is really turdworthy, it will disappear from radar very quickly.

If something is very high profile, made by a respected developer and have a large budget; they will have just-short-of-outright-lies printed about them. This is what people are raging about. In the same way they rage about ANY item that doesn't live up to it's hype, because they feel they will have been lied to.

Which, realistically, they have. Games like Modern Warfare 3 exist to make you feel a yearly update gets more intense each year, when that's technically impossible.

So "Shit", in this case, means "going back on what is claimed to the extent that an earlier iteration is actually more enjoyable".

And if you don't want to hear about it, just go outside for a bit. I hear it's nice out there.

 

[Bomberman4000]

What I see a lot of people saying is that "hype" is more the problem than quality of the games in question. People see commercials, read articles, watch trailers and expect a lot from games, as they should. I agree with the original poster that most AAA Titles (which in no way refers to how good the game is, Kane and Lynch is a AAA Title, as are Too Human and Two Worlds, but I digress) are quality if somewhat formulaic games. The companies that make poor quality games don't get to make games for long. Anyone ever heard the phrase "the cream will rise to the top"? The people who are at the top of the industry are there for a reason. They may not make games you personally like, but OVERALL (we all know there are exceptions) the OP is right on the money.

To address the "hype" issues I keep reading about: hype only gets you as excited as you let it. You have to take everything with a grain of salt. People who run websites, create commercials, or sell products are there to keep your attention/interest for the duration of their product. Advertising agents want to hype products because the better that product sells, the better their company looks. It's all a business model. A commercial is not going to show you the bugs or flaws in a game, and they're also going to only give you snippets of information about the game just to create that spark of intrigue.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about what they like to play, that goes without saying really. But please keep this in mind: hype only works as well as you let it. If you personally don't get excited about something, it'll be a lot harder to be let down by it.

Also keep this in mind, Advertisers are not concerned with the quality of the game they're peddling. The games you see constant advertising for are going to be games that the developer believes will sell the most copies and make the advertiser, and the developer the most money.

 

[Xanadu84]

There's a HUGE gap between being shit and being contrary to your taste. You can not like GOW, and that's fine. I don't like Zelda games. But that doesn't mean I can argue that Zelda is shit. Or rather, I shouldn't. Because if I'm reasonable, I can see the strengths that simply don't click with me. In reality, if you call a game shit, your insisting that everyone else conform to you. Maybe, rather then your opinion being an objective aesthetic truth, you just have an opinion outside of the high points of the bell curve. Staatistically, we are all pretty likely to be outliers at some point.

This=/thread. Seriously, you won. You said the best thing in the best way.

I've been saying for a while now, "Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad game." Yes, you can say that quality is subjective and all that horseshit, but if someone's going to tell me with a straight face that Skyrim or Halo are equal or lesser in quality to some licensed shovelware, that's just not true.

For everyone who calls out that a highly-rated game is shit, I just have this to say to you: what's more likely; that everyone else is wrong and that you're the one voice of truth, or that you have a differing opinion to everyone else?

Ages ago, I started a thread about games that are good that you DON'T like. Its amazing how vehemently people resisted that idea. I think that my efforts to understand the strengths of games that I disliked have done moe then anything else to help me think critically about games. And backhanded compliments like, "Halo was an adoption of the shooter to consoles, so the bar was low" Didnt Help. There is wisdom in crowds, as much as we feel cool when we deny that.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Yes, everyone who doesn't like a "popular" or high profile AAA game is a dirty hipster who is hating because it's the cool thing to do to. It has nothing to do with their own standards of quality. They're all petty jerks.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

You need to realize, OP, that what you're encountering is internet hyperbole.

"This game is shit!" translates to "I was moderately disappointed by this game!"

It's just like it's polar opposite:

"This game gets a 10/10! GOTY!" which translates to "I found this game satisfactory."

And no, so long as people can spew their opinions on the internet, there is no way to combat this. Just sigh and try not to get upset over it. That's what I do.

 

[StriderShinryu]

But.. but.. but... surely if I personally don't like something then it must be absolute shit. I mean, there's no way anyone could actually have a valid opinion on something if that opinion doesn't exactly match my own!

*mindblown*

 

[Dr Jones]

I have a golden rule i follow, when i have to judge games.
"Am I having fun?". If the answer is yes, then the game is usually good. I don't see the reason why anyone would hate AAA games. It almost seems like a form of hipster snobbiness to me. I dig Skyrim, i dig Halo, i dug CoD (played a bit too much).

 

[Xanadu84]

Easy. Taste is subjective.

I, and millions of others, enjoyed the shit out of that game. Hypothesis rejected.

Logical, factual reasons. I'm still waiting. I've run it through checklists of features that good games, both single and multi player, have, and features bad ones mishandle or don't have. Every single box is checked "Not present" or "So poorly implemented it had to be coded through a hangover".


The fact that people manage to find enjoyment in a box of excrement boggles my mind most of all.


Do I hate it because it's AAA or popular? Nope. I like plenty of popular AAA games. It's popularity has absolutely nothing to do with why I see it as a turd in a box.

I wish I could be a little less curt with this, but in what way is what you just said not HUGELY prententious? Should games not be fun, or should people not have fun with things you don't like? I'm sympathetic, I cant stand halo. I had the same indier-then-thou attitude to halo fans. But I largely got over it. Now, I avoid halo like the plauge, but obviously it did what it set out to do. Your criticisms can go to more critical thinking about games, and some criticisms may even be valid. That's great. But in this observable reality, CoD is doing a thing that is great for games to do.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Most are not, you're right. However, lots, like dragon age 2 for example, have huge resources behind them, and are still massively hyped. Even though the end products are terrible.



Oh yeah, people who are into sports titles arent onthis site.

And i ran a poll, 2% of respondents said they had a wii. Most people who answered are pc and ps3 gamers

How thorough was your poll though? Did you account for people with multiple systems? What did you actually ask? Ehm, not that this is particularly on-topic of course...

I own a Wii, and use it a lot. But if forced to choose I'd still claim to be a PC gamer. That's been the case most of my life though. I played a console, but I also owned a lot of PC games. Looking at it you'd be justified in calling me a Nintendo fan though, but really, I'm the kind of person that would own everything ever made if I had the money.
But whatever. That's kind of irrelevant.

As to the OP, well, AAA games may not be terrible, but they can be. And when you consider the money spent making one, they aren't necessarily as good as the cash spent on them would imply.

Is a game that cost 100 million to make 100 times better than one that cost 1 million? Very unlikely.
(Then again, it probably falls victim to a statement frequently made with regards to engineering; 90% of the cost lies in the final 10% - which is really just a generalisation that shows just how little extra benefit you get from trying to push things to the upper limits of performance.)

 

[T8B95]

Ages ago, I started a thread about games that are good that you DON'T like. Its amazing how vehemently people resisted that idea. I think that my efforts to understand the strengths of games that I disliked have done moe then anything else to help me think critically about games. And backhanded compliments like, "Halo was an adoption of the shooter to consoles, so the bar was low" Didnt Help. There is wisdom in crowds, as much as we feel cool when we deny that.

Indeed.

What I find facsinating is this: people will readily admit to liking a bad movie/game/TV show/brothel. However, they will defend to the death their opinion that a film/interactive media/television serial/lawnmower that they disliked must automatically be terrible.

What's so hard about saying "Oh, that's a good game, but it's not to my taste"?

 

[T8B95]

**snip**

You need to realize, OP, that what you're encountering is internet hyperbole.

"This game is shit!" translates to "I was moderately disappointed by this game!"

It's just like it's polar opposite:

"This game gets a 10/10! GOTY!" which translates to "I found this game satisfactory."

And no, so long as people can spew their opinions on the internet, there is no way to combat this. Just sigh and try not to get upset over it. That's what I do.

Thank you Bara . You just gave me a new term that I can use frequently.

Internet hyperbole...it's got a nice ring to it.

 

[Xanadu84]

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design.

What? No.

Discussion of design is an attempt to dissect WHY we thought something worked or it didn't. Most people hated Duke Nukem Forever, and articulated their problems with it. Some didn't, and those people articulated why they liked it. The liking or not liking of the design is SUBJECTIVE. The mechanics of the design are OBJECTIVE, but quality judgements about them are always, always, always down to the observer.

So to say that "Duke Nukem Forever used linear level design and is therefore shit" (substitute "linear level design" for any objective element you like) is to make a subjective statement.

If games lacked any objective element, there would be no mechanism to distinguish one from another. When millions of people agree on something, and a fraction of that disagree, something is happening outside of the subjective. Sure, it a hell of a lot more complex then any single mechanic, but that doesn't make it any less objective. Chalking it all up to subjectivity amounts to nothing more then laziness.

...yeah, between this...

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design. The experience may be subjective, but what goes into crafting that experience is not. It may be complicated beyond much of our understanding, but it is no pres objective.

Also, you admit that subjectivity is important in this discussion.

So why, then, does someone out there considers Duke Nukem Forever their favourite game of all time, despite having played Portal?

The illusion of objectivity comes from the subjective opinions of the majority. Our culture and conditioning has dictated these as 'the good things', so many people will think they're good. However, one glitch in the system, like the above example, the thousands of Morrowind haters, or me not liking BioShock eliminates any chance that game quality - or that of any other art - is anything but subjective.



I mean, even outside art this pops up. Ice cream is generally eaten at a cold temperature, say 0-10[sup]o[/sup]C. But if there's even the chance of someone liking to eat it at 100, it can never be an objective truth. Unless you want to tell them they're wrong for liking it, in which case you're a moron.

But on topic: AAA games are just the same as any other. Some of my favourite games have multi-million dollar budgets, but there are plenty of great indie games, and plenty of AAAs I hated.

I never said that games weren't subjective. They are both. Objective things are the only things that account for concensus, subjectivity the only thing that accounts for differences. Unless you disagree with me when I say that some games are generally liked, but people always disagree a little, you have to acknowledge both subjective and objective elements. And there ARE trends, and there ARE dissenting opinions.

...and this, I'm fairly certain you aren't even reading our posts.

Then I'm fairly certain you don't understand the topic. I'm fine with disagreement, but accusations like that are uncalled for.