Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[Flailing Escapist]

Honestly I could give a shit if a game is a 'AAA' or 'Indie' or something in between. If it is good, it is good, if it is bad, it is bad. Of course the whole good bad thing is determined by the players themselves.

Just this, really. All I have to add is that more money does not make a better game/ gaming experience.

Thats what its all about: the exp.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

When a games purpose is to be popular, then argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy. Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case? Of course not. Being fun for many is a valid goal, and that goal has been achieved. To argue that CoD has failed implies a level ofpretentious hipsterdom I just cant accept.

 

[poodlenoodles]

No, I'm pretty sure I think the God of War games are awful. I don't care how respected the developer is, if they make a game that I don't find fun, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion just because a bunch of work went into it, or a bunch of critics and players liked it. They're asking 60 bucks for their product, all feedback that isn't rither mindlessly fellating or childishly bashing should be considered fair game, no matter how negative it is.

I'm not going to withhold honest feedback just to maintain the consensus.

Prepare to have your valid argument branded as hipster hating. I completely agree with you.

perhaps you should try saying,"i didn't like it, but, seeing as how popular this game is, you might."

 

[Xanadu84]

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"?

You just blew my mind.

Someone needs to explore this idea that admitting you like a bad movie is fine, but if it is disliked, it must be terrible. Ego defense maybe? Maybe what you dislike is more important to your sense of self then what you like? I don't know, but that is fascinating.

Well, that's a lot of typing on a tablet touchscreen. Time to leave the coffee shop..

 

[putowtin]

To quote the Grinch
"Well one man's toxic waste, is another mans pot-pourri..."

You don't like I a game, I do, you like something else, I think it's barely passable.
As is life

 

[SpaceBat]

snip

I didn't like it so it sucks isn't helpful feedback, because a game not catering to your personal tastes isn't necessarily a bad game. I do not enjoy Elder Scrolls games at all and I can easily come up with a huge list of reasons as to why I personally dislike the games, but I am capable of understanding that they are not actually bad games.

Most of the AAA Titles have their good and bad sides to them, it's just that people tend to ignore the side on that spectrum that doesn't suit them.

 

[Joepow]

Games do not come out in a vacuum. People have certain expectations from them.

You say that most AAA games are not terrible when compared to licensed games and shovelware. And generally you are correct. But by the same logic those shovelware titles aren't terrible when compared to shovelware from 20 years back. And no game is terrible when compared to a hypothetical game which has a bug that causes your computer to explode when you try to run it.

Gamers do not need perspective. You need to understand the context in which game criticism is made.

 

[Frostbite3789]

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

For one, Dragon Age 2 wasn't shit. That's exactly what he's talking about.

For two, I play the NHL games quite frequently. They are ridiculously well done.

 

[kasperbbs]

No, I'm pretty sure I think the God of War games are awful. I don't care how respected the developer is, if they make a game that I don't find fun, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion just because a bunch of work went into it, or a bunch of critics and players liked it. They're asking 60 bucks for their product, all feedback that isn't either mindlessly fellating or childishly bashing should be considered fair game, no matter how negative it is.

I'm not going to withhold honest feedback just to maintain the consensus.

If you don't like it it doesn't mean it's awful, if people like the game they have a right to be hyped about it and they are not wrong, neither are you. I personally can't stand any of the final fantasy games, but i'm not screaming at the fan boys that they are wrong and their favorite game is a pile of **** with a mickey mouse in it.

 

[ResonanceGames]

When a games purpose is to be popular, then argumentum ad populum is not a fallacy. Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case? Of course not. Being fun for many is a valid goal, and that goal has been achieved. To argue that CoD has failed implies a level ofpretentious hipsterdom I just cant accept.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Your argument just went completely off the rails. It is argumentum ad populum to say that something is popular, therefore it is objectively good.

It is not argumentum ad populum to say something sold many units, therefore it completed its goal of being popular -- which is the point you just unwittingly made. That still doesn't imply any objective value as to the quality of the game, because "popular" doesn't mean it must be individually liked.

Should games endevor to not be popular and avoid fun in every case?

Also, this is a total straw man. You are just tossing out the fallacies left and right today. No one said or implied anything like that.

Lastly, I never said anything about COD, especially that it "failed." That is a non sequitur. However, COD cannot be objectively good, and if someone's opinion is that it's bad, it's still valid, regardless of the game's popularity. I'm perfectly willing to accept that a lot of people enjoy COD. I personally find its single player campaigns tedious and poorly-designed.

 

[ResonanceGames]

You don't even see the contradiction in your post here. You conflate "I don't like game X" with "game X is awful", and then use the tired teenage cop-out by saying that it is your personal opinion and therefore unassailable.

Two different things, and I believe that at the root, attitudes such as yours are what has led to the OP's valid complaint. I, for example, do not care for, say, Modern Warfare 3 - but I know that while not being to my tastes, it is by no means a BAD or an AWFUL game. By the same token, I am fully aware that Wet isn't very good, but I am one of the few strange people who actually enjoys playing it. What one likes and what is objectively good (yes, there ARE objective criteria for judging entertainment, don't be silly) are ever two different things; people who get them mixed up are usually laughed at by the smart folks.

Humility. It's the one trait that the internet community desperately needs more of.

Nope. Read the whole thread. This is exactly the conversation I've been having with Xanadu84.

And again with the straw men. I never said my opinion is unassailable. In fact, feel free to disagree. But don't expect me to waste time putting caveats in every post I make about how "well, gee, I get that a lot of people like it, but...", as someone suggested to me earlier in the thread. That's as absurd as starting every discussion about a game you like with "well, I'm sure a lot of you will hate this game, but I like it."

 

[Zoop]

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".

Good games according to whom? Features considered bad by whom?

Subjectivity.

There is no universal checklist by which to compare a game and consider it 'bad'.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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

I understand what you mean but I think gamers who do complain are asking critics to have a bit of perspective.
I used to be a gamer who could only afford one or two new games a year so that $60 is very valuable to some.
Critics often get their games for free and that can sometimes dull that perspective of limited resources. So if someone goes out and gets something because the press says that it's revolutionary and amazing(terms they overuse), I can see them being disappointed if they finish it in a weekend or if it's so buggy that it becomes frustrating. You're right, by definition, AAA games should generally not be shit but the unfortunate thing is that they often get that AAA rep before anyone but critics have had a chance to play it.

The funny thing is that now that I'm wealthy enough to rent everything I'm curious about, I find that there are only one or two games that come out every year that are actually worth $60. And I'll pass on some highly rated games too. The Uncharted games are really entertaining smooth and fun to play...once. After that I'm done, so the rental is good enough. Bethesda games on the other hand are packed with tons of content that can take months to go through but trying to play them can be more frustrating than it's worth when the game just freezes constantly.

 

[ResonanceGames]

No, I'm pretty sure I think the God of War games are awful. I don't care how respected the developer is, if they make a game that I don't find fun, I'm not going to apologize for my opinion just because a bunch of work went into it, or a bunch of critics and players liked it. They're asking 60 bucks for their product, all feedback that isn't either mindlessly fellating or childishly bashing should be considered fair game, no matter how negative it is.

I'm not going to withhold honest feedback just to maintain the consensus.

If you don't like it it doesn't mean it's awful, if people like the game they have a right to be hyped about it and they are not wrong, neither are you. I personally can't stand any of the final fantasy games, but i'm not screaming at the fan boys that they are wrong and their favorite game is a pile of **** with a mickey mouse in it.

I don't know why you replied to me. I don't disagree with any of this.

What I do disagree with is the implied expectation that we start off our opinion with an apology, since the game we didn't like was critically acclaimed or popular. Well, that's bull. If I didn't like a game and can clearly express my opinion as to why, then it's just as valid as anyone else's, no matter how many more of them there are than me.

 

[veloper]

"Shit" can simply mean mediocre to people who have a library of much better games to play in their free time.
Good and bad can be relative not just to all games out there, but also to your own selection.

So most AAA titles can be shit. Besides, "shit" sounds more definitive and edgy.

The AAA label only indicates high production values, such as pretty graphics and nice sound effects and not the more important aspects of gameplay and originality. Such games are often mediocre.

 

[Zoop]

I don't know why you replied to me. I don't disagree with any of this.

What I do disagree with is the implied expectation that we start off our opinion with an apology, since the game we didn't like was critically acclaimed or popular. Well, that's bull. If I didn't like a game and can clearly express my opinion as to why, then it's just as valid as anyone else's, no matter how many more of them there are than me.

I agree with this. There's nothing wrong with expressing dislike for a game, but claiming that it is a bad game as if it is fact is a different matter entirely.

Just because a game might have a few broken/buggy features, it does not mean that the game is 'bad'. If the general consensus is that the game is still worth playing despite the issues, then I hardly think it's fair to call it a bad game.

It's not an issue of "it's good because a lot of people think so"... wait, actually it is. If people perceive a game to be good, then it is safe to assume that it accomplished what it set out to do; entertain people. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's still not a bad game because there is no universal list that dictates what constitutes a good or bad game. A few technical issues alone does not make a game bad.

 

[Zoop]

"Shit" can simply mean mediocre to people who have a library of much better games to play in their free time.
Good and bad can be relative not just to all games out there, but also to your own selection.

So most AAA titles can be shit. Besides, "shit" sounds more definitive and edgy.

It's also important to note that for some it's much easier to say a game is shit rather than post reasons why they dislike it.