Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[drednoahl]

For me, this generation changed the meaning of what is a AAA title. Go back a few years and AAA title were usually exclusive to one format. Most AAA games these days are multi-platform, when those games may only really be suited for a particular console or PC gamer. I think this is why Nintendo has such a following; generally AAA Nintendo games are developed with Nintendo machines and gamers in mind exclusively (I don't own a Wii btw.)

For most of this generation I played most of my games on a 360. I thought the likes of Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion and Call of Duty Modern Warfare were amazing experiences on 360, but on PC they were a bit meh. I can't really put my finger on why I thought this, but I think that all those games were designed for console and therefore feel a bit odd or clunky on PC.

Anyway, I was really looking forward to the sequels of the likes of Bioshock, Mass Effect on my 360. Yet I didn't enjoy Bioshock 2 (going into menus every two minutes broke the game for me - just doing that broke what immersed me into the original,) Mass Effect 2 (I couldn't bare to finish the game,) Skyrim (I still can't get used to the interface, and it's really easy) or Modern Warfare 2 (traded in on the day I bought it it was that short and I found the story infantile,) to even consider buying the next installments. Even on 360 I didn't like any of these games; in fact my experiences were so bad I started to look elsewhere for my entertainment.

I've moved on now from being a console gamer exclusively; PC is my format of choice now. Most of the AAA games I can think of off the top of my head are being developed and designed for consoles with PC ports as an afterthought (and usually lumped with some form of intrusive DRM and other countermeasures to my PC gaming pleasure I want to play games designed for the machine I'm using like they were when the original Bioshock came out. As far as I'm concerned the AAA part of the gaming industry is stagnant and as a result I've moved onto other things that I guess some would call "hipster." I didn't want to become a PC gamer though, the industry didn't give me a choice.

I actually find it depressing not liking AAA games these days, and I suspect that is one of the reasons some gamers "hate." While the games industry keeps preaching the next chapter from their AAA book, I just hope one day they realise that many gamers have evolved (or devolved depending on your point of view) to thinking that while most AAA games are indeed good, they are just not good enough.

 

[Naeras]

They're not crap because they're AAA, no. Skyrim sure as hell wasn't crap.

But arguing that the single player modes in Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 still weren't shit, just because they're AAA games? Sorry, but no. Those still sucked.

 

[Strain42]

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.

I happen to like the God of War games (though I understand those that don't) and really...I don't need to say anything.

This guy really summed it up nicely.

Without negative criticism, we'd never move forward. As long as someone can explain their opinion beyond "It's good" or "It sucks" then both forms of criticism should be accepted.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Yeah, but DAII wasnt a terrible game, it was terrible compared to DA:O/what people were expecting. Just looking at it from a neutral perspective, its simply mediocre, nothing more and nothing less.

This reminds me of what happened with Portal 2: It was a fantastic game, but it will always be in the uncomfortable position of being compared to Portal 1.[sup]1[/sup] I feel that most AAA games are in the same general position, in that they need to live up to expectations that are often unreasonable.
[sup]1[/sup]:I didn't realize until halfway through writing that statement that I was basically quoting Yahtzee. *shrug*, I thought the same thing.

It was unreasonable to expect Dragon Age II to not be a worthless pile of garbage?

Dragon Age: Origins is one of the frighteningly small number of good RPGs made in recent years, it sold quite well over a fairly large period of time.

Bioware's response to this was to rush out one of the laziest, worst written RPGs in the 21st century.

I would have been content if it was just average or mediocre, maybe a bit disappointed, but content none the less.

What I got was not good and it was not average, it was a fucking disgrace.

Calm thyself, I did not comment on the quality of Dragon Age II. Also I cannot, considering I haven't gotten to that game yet. [user]SmashLovesTitanQuest[/user]'s comment merely reminded me of the concept that it is difficult for a sequel to live up the the expectations generated by a fantastic predecessor.

 

[Apollo45]

Terrible? Maybe not (though some definitely are). However, the vast majority range from mediocre-at-best to not-nearly-as-good-as-they-should-be in quality. Every once in a while you'll get something that's actually good, but those are far less common than they should be, considering the amount of effort and money put into your average "AAA" game. That's the reason people call them terrible. If an Indy developer with less than a hundred thousand dollars can make a game that's significantly better in nearly every way than your multi-million dollar release you're doing something wrong.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That depends entirely on what standard you are judging them by.

This. The opinion of what makes a game good or bad is very much a subjective matter, though I tend to side with those who demand more depth in their games and think many of the AAA titles are just dying cash cows getting their last few milkings.

Not entirely, for instance many AAA titles simply work on a technical level. That's more than a lot of truly shit shovelware games can say.

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.

Because as far as I know, it works. Whether it's of your taste or not is of course a different matter, but MW3 does what it promised to do very well.

 

[wurrble182]

what people really need to grasp is that a game they personally don't like isn't automatically terrible, more than likely it's a very good game that many many people will enjoy - that just doesn't push their buttons the right way. or it might just be shit.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Basically, you're asking the gaming community "stop having different opinions!"

 

[The_Lost_King]

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

It's quite disappointing that people hate the Wii so much.. It has good games, only reason people think it's a bad console is because they all go 'HURRDURR GREPHECS R NUT GUD'

or maybe it is because of motion controls, most are childish, and/or bad gameplay. not saying wii is bad just that I prefer my ps3, pc, and xbox.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Yeah, but DAII wasnt a terrible game, it was terrible compared to DA:O/what people were expecting. Just looking at it from a neutral perspective, its simply mediocre, nothing more and nothing less.

This reminds me of what happened with Portal 2: It was a fantastic game, but it will always be in the uncomfortable position of being compared to Portal 1.[footnote]I didn't realize until halfway through writing that statement that I was basically quoting Yahtzee. *shrug*, I thought the same thing.[/footnote] I feel that most AAA games are in the same general position, in that they need to live up to expectations that are often unreasonable.

It was unreasonable to expect Dragon Age II to not be a worthless pile of garbage?

Dragon Age: Origins is one of the frighteningly small number of good RPGs made in recent years, it sold quite well over a fairly large period of time.

Bioware's response to this was to rush out one of the laziest, worst written RPGs in the 21st century.

I would have been content if it was just average or mediocre, maybe a bit disappointed, but content none the less.

What I got was not good and it was not average, it was a fucking disgrace.

If you think THAT was one of the laziest, worst written RPGs in the 21st century, you don't play enough games.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

I'm kind of tired of hearing everyone. Go play some of the half-assed shovelware made to cash in on the popularity of Wii Sports.

The quality of games is generally a subjective matter (technical issues is not a matter of opinion however)

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.

Unless you disagree with that, in which case they are awful. This is because the quality of games is a subjective thing, it varies from person to person. What you are saying is that I'm not to voice my opinion on a game I dislike if EA pays people to say it's good. Horseshit.

Spoiler: A historical example, jump to 17:15

Nope, you're saying you want opinions silenced because you disagree with them.

My point is that, if a game gets an 8-10 score from most reviewers, is very popular, and is generally enjoyed by most of the people I talk to online and in real life, then the general consensus is that it does not suck. If you go against that, you may think that you're being a champion of independent thought in a world of sheep, but you're not. You're really, really, not.

If you go against popular opinion like this, you need to take extra caution not to come off as a self-important douche, and this is generally very hard to do because going against popular opinion makes you look smug automatically.

Case in point: Nintendo makes games that are, generally speaking, some of the best in the industry. But every time a new game from them comes out, Yahtzee and his band of hipsters at the Escapist go around saying how much the game sucks and stroking their already massive egos because it's not some postmodern work like No More Heroes, Psychonauts, or Rayman Origins. Don't get me wrong, those are all fantastic games, but they're not fantastic because of their unique aesthetics, they're great because they have core mechanics that are fun. Hating games which are just as fun because they have the gall to do something the same as another game before it is just fucking stupid.

 

[Soviet Steve]

My point is that, if a game gets an 8-10 score from most reviewers,

The only criteria for this being advertisement money flowing to the reviewers from the publisher. Reviewers too have their own opinions, those are also no more valid than anyone else's because they are expressed regarding a subjective matter.

is very popular,

As I've stated before, the quality of a game is subjective and is down to individual taste.

and is generally enjoyed by most of the people I talk to online and in real life, then the general consensus is that it does not suck.

The general consensus amongst you and your friends. Welp, I'm glad we've settled it then. There is no individual thought, there is only the opinion of you and your friends.

If you go against that, you may think that you're being a champion of independent thought in a world of sheep, but you're not. You're really, really, not.

The important factors in deciding individual opinion are irrelevant, one cannot value one subjective opinion over others without saying that one opinion is worth more than others. You are now saying that the opinion formed by you and your friends is the correct one and that it is not to be opposed.

If you go against popular opinion like this, you need to take extra caution not to come off as a self-important douche, and this is generally very hard to do because going against popular opinion makes you look smug automatically.

It doesn't matter how ones opinion is looked upon because it is just an opinion. Your opinion isn't correct just because it is shared by your friends. Your opinion is not worth anything more than that of the person that holds opposing views because the matter which you are debating is a subjective one.

Case in point: Nintendo makes games that are, generally speaking, some of the best in the industry.

Now you're stating your own opinion as fact because it is shared by your friends.

But every time a new game from them comes out, Yahtzee and his band of hipsters at the Escapist

Now you're starting generalizations and personal attacks.

go around saying how much the game sucks and stroking their already massive egos

You are so self-centered that you view your own opinion as fact and anyone who disgrees as being wrong. You have made a thread requesting that anyone with an opposing opinion not express it because it offends you. Now you're also telling other people off for massive egos.

because it's not some postmodern work like No More Heroes, Psychonauts, or Rayman Origins. Don't get me wrong, those are all fantastic games, but they're not fantastic because of their unique aesthetics,

You're again citing your own opinion as fact on a subjective matter. People enjoy different games for different reasons.

they're great because they have core mechanics that are fun. Hating games which are just as fun because they have the gall to do something the same as another game before it is just fucking stupid.

Fun is also a subjective concept, and the degree to which people can tolerate repetition also varies greatly.

I get that it isn't nice hearing opinions that differ to your own but the world isn't built around the opinions of you and your friends.

 

[sanquin]

God of war was not a bad game. Dragon age 2 wasn't either. You want a bad game? Go play Transformers: dark side of the moon. All you can do in that game is 'transform' from vehicle into a vehicle with guns. All missions are basically the same, combat is repetitive, graphics are crap for a modern game, and controls are clunky at best.

It was mostly just different. Fights became more fast-paced, action packed and easier. Story wasn't as good as the first game. And the map was pretty damn small since you did it all in 1 city mostly. But to say it was a BAD game is like ordering 2 cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, but calling one bad because it has a bit less toppings, and a different sauce. (this of course, not taking into account that all food at mcdonalds is technically bad.)

 

[LITE992]

Makes me think back to Yahtzee's quote on (I think) Gears of War 2. "Popular things are popular for a reason. It's because they're good. Or because Will Smith is in it." Replace Will Smith with marketing and hype.

I think what makes people hate AAA games is that the sequels simply add a few new things to the original. But it doesn't make the sequel worse than the original, rather it makes it better. But it most likely doesn't make it more fun. I had more fun playing Call of Duty 4 - which was my first CoD game - rather than Modern Warfare 3, which has added a few new game modes and perks and calls it a day. When you put MW3 on its own, it looks better than it does now considering what it took from the past CoD games and worked on them.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Have you seen the Metacritic Critic scores for Skyrim? Only three of them are below 90. Skyrim isn't a bad game, but the measuring stick reviewers use nowadays needs to be exchanged.

I wouldn't have given Skyrim an average score of over 75%, to be honest.

That's my issue with AAA games. If the critics don't give a AAA game over 80%, it's considered rubbish. When was the last time you saw an average to good AAA game receive an average to good score? The standard score for an 'average' game nowadays is about 80%.

This is why out of a hundred scores need to go away. On a score out of a hundred, most people correlate that with a school grade. In school, below 80% isn't a very good grade, so most people equate that with not a very good game. Out of ten is a similar problem, because it's the same basic premise.

So if a score is needed, a star based system works better (kinda like movies). A two and a half star game is decent, playable, and fun, but not particularly remarkable. And so on.

 

[The_Lost_King]

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

It's quite disappointing that people hate the Wii so much.. It has good games, only reason people think it's a bad console is because they all go 'HURRDURR GREPHECS R NUT GUD'

or maybe it is because of motion controls, most are childish, and/or bad gameplay. not saying wii is bad just that I prefer my ps3, pc, and xbox.

Smash bros, Other M (ignore samus' narration), Paper mario and Twilight princess are all examples of good games on the wii, and 3 of those use the motion control.

I liked Twilight Princess and smashbros but I prefer them with a GameCube controller. Some people just don't like motion controlls and there aint nuthin you can do about it.