Really what your saying there is I don't like it because its not what I look for in a game not this game is bad in every possible way imaginable therefore it isn't really a shit game its just not your cup of tea.Zhukov said:
Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.
- Thread starter itsmeyouidiot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is kind of like asking what Pi is, but your sick of all this math stuff. Sorry but subjectivity and objectivity are the lifeblood of this discussion, and if you don't want to discuss that, you don't want to be discussing this whole idea.ResonanceGames said:
I think that was in Extra Credits.sean16 said:
I can only agree that aaa titles aren't shit in general. But aaa titles are hyped and this raises the standard that is used to judge them.
SWTOR is probably a good example for it, it was promised to be different from other MMORPGs but what I have seen in videos and pictures looks a lot like WoW. I have not played SWTOR, so I don't want to say it's a bad game.
Another thing that many people probably hate about aaa titles, is that they are often just copied games with some new maps and a higher number in it's title.
I tried cod:modern warfare 2, but i lost interest in it because it's exactly like modern warfare 1.
No, that's really not a good analogy. The quality of a game is subjective, period, and any serious discussion about what games are good and what games are bad must be based on that premise, otherwise the discussion turns into this:Xanadu84 said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.336109-Is-Game-Quality-strictly-Subjective#13571642
Enjoy.
No. It's not. Or rather, it's only subjective on the positive end of the scale. But if a game is full of crippling bugs and can't run for 30 minutes without crashing, there's nothing subjective about it being, in essence, a shit game.ResonanceGames said:
I honestly think people have a problem telling the difference between "I don't like this" and "this game is low quality." Few people can say "I hate this game, but it's a good game." They conflate their opinion and the actual judgement of quality in the game design. Interesting enough they seem to be able to say "this is a bad game, but I like it" because they understand guilty pleasures but less opinions are the exact opposite.
Ahem. Let me slightly reword this statement:Xanadu84 said:
"There's a HUGE gap between being good and being to your tastes". It goes both ways. Ever head the saying a million drunks can't be wrong?Xanadu84 said:
What objectively makes the game good, leaving out personal opinions (Kinda a double standard when you say someone else's opinion is invalid as there is a difference between an opinion and fact, but then say YOUR opinion proves a point as if it is fact).
OT: Not all Triple A games are shit, hell, few are. Mediocre would be a better way of putting it. AAA games aren't great a lot of the time, but they certainly aren't terrible.
There are, of course, exceptions;
Duke Nukem
To a lesser extent DA2
But generally AAA titles shouldn't get classed as terrible or bad, as they aren't.
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.ResonanceGames said:
Also, you admit that subjectivity is important in this discussion.
It depends what aspects of a game you value.
For example, imagine if someone put voice acting as their most important aspect of the game.
Do you expect them to enjoy Just Cause 2?
"My name is BO-LO San-to-ZEEE, and I am the LEE-duh of the revolootionaree ah-mee KNOWN as thuh REEE-puhhs."
That's a dumb example, but its idea holds. Similarly, if someone cares mostly about the combat, they're going to hate The Path, or Mirror's Edge, games that I hold in very high regard.
For example, imagine if someone put voice acting as their most important aspect of the game.
Do you expect them to enjoy Just Cause 2?
"My name is BO-LO San-to-ZEEE, and I am the LEE-duh of the revolootionaree ah-mee KNOWN as thuh REEE-puhhs."
That's a dumb example, but its idea holds. Similarly, if someone cares mostly about the combat, they're going to hate The Path, or Mirror's Edge, games that I hold in very high regard.
What? No.Xanadu84 said:
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.
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?
Personally I judge games I haven't played on their ideas.
Personally I judge games I haven't played on their ideas.
Even then, they are not *that* bad.ResonanceSD said:
Okay, consider this hyopthesis:
Dragon Age 2 was not a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins.
It was not made by Bioware.
It was not advertised as being choice-heavy.
Remove that perspective and apart from the re-usage of levels and occasional bugs, it's a pretty solid game.
Most of the hatred behind sequels stems from fans expecting something due to either the previous title or from their experience with games from the developer, not the actual game itself.
That doesn't explain why people adore Fallout: New Vegas, or day-of-release Skyrim.Vegosiux said:
What makes a game good? Many things, but clearly, one thing that is a valid thing for games to do is be fun for lots of people. CoD was fun for lots of people. By any non pretentious definition, that's a success. Yeah, I put plenty of less popular games on a much higher pedestal for there innovation and design sense, but CoD set a worthwhile goal and wildly exceeded those goals.Joccaren said:
Ever hear the saying,"99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name?" The opinions of the masses is important when your raison de'etair is to have a good opinion from the masses. That 99% ARE important. When millions have fun with a thing that's is trying to be fun, by what possible metric has it failed?
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.ResonanceGames said: