Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[Lunar Templar]

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.

amen brother, you said it better then i would have

 

[Vault101]

I wasnt aware anyone was saying AAA games were bad in general

I will say the scoring systm is waaaaaayy out of whack

 

[Joccaren]

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.
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?

Popularity makes things successful, not necessarily good.
In the case of "99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name", the rest are still called bad, even though they are apparently good. Likewise, CoD is called good, even though it may or may not be (I'll be open to discussion as to whether it is a well made and designed game or not, but the general consensus I've picked up is that the older ones were good, newer ones more lazy and buggy. Not liking CoD too much, I haven't had a ton of experience with it myself).
Failure and Success and popularity are not necessarily measures of good and bad. Justin Beiber was loved by millions, yet that did not make him a great musician.
I will not argue CoD is a success, in fact I have argued there is little wrong with the Competitive Online Shooter market ATM as it is accomplishing its goals and is probably the most popular form of entertainment out there at the moment, but that does not necessarily mean that the games are good, merely successful. From a design point of view, the legendary lag that there has been videos about and a comic on the Escapist about is a bad thing, as is imbalance in the multiplayer and other issues you will hear people saying about CoD (Other than its popular [Like that's an issue] and they don't like the way it plays).

 

[Uriain]

Here is the real problem with the entire issue of this thread.

If YOU think a game is shit, its highly unlikely that anyone will change your mind that YOU think its shit.

Example, I like Dragon Age II a lot. I find it to be very enjoyable to play, the story keeps me engaged, and I enjoy the faster paced combat. If you look at any thread that has DAII in it though, you will see a torrent of "The game is shit" etc. etc. etc.

Does that make my opinion wrong, no. It just means I am a minority in liking that game.

This wave of "X game is shit" is just the most vocal of people putting their opinion out there. There are games which are universally shit (Lets take Amy for example) which have been universally been hammered upon, but there are also games which the vocal aspect of the communities cry out against (DAII for example) which just doesnt sit with them.

Triple A titles can be shit, they can be lack luster, they can be copies of previous iterations of the series, they can be subject to the hype monster. They can also be good, well constructed, fun, and unique... So really.. you gotta take each game on the games merits, and (imo) focus less on what came before it, and more on what the game specifically does for you

 

[Jandau]

Main problem here is that people don't distinguish between "I don't like it" and "It's shit". To most people, those two are the same. I don't like FPS games. Does that mean I should go screaming on every forum that FPS games are all piles of crap? No, it just means I don't like FPS games, be they good or bad. I also dislike Minecraft, but I acknowledge it as a good game.

Then there's the fact that if people are going to complain about something, they'll complain all the way. A game isn't allowed to be decent or OK. Everything has to be either shit or THE SHIT.

Finally, there's the complaining and bashing just to be "different" and hate "popular" stuff. That's been around since the dawn of man and will likely stay until we fade from the face of the universe...

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

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.

It's not so much that people have different opinions as much as it is that they act like assholes about it. You can criticism a game, yes, but insulting it is something else entirely. By insulting a game, you're going out of your way to personally insult the people who like it. Is it any wonder that I want these people to shut up?

(Seriously, why is Zero Punctuation so popular? Is everyone at the Escapist a masochist?)

 

[Soviet Steve]

It's not so much that people have different opinions

Really? I thought it all hinged on the consensus amongst you and your friends.

as much as it is that they act like assholes about it.

And you don't?

You can criticism a game, yes, but insulting it is something else entirely.

There is non-constructive criticism but if the point of this thread was a call for civility then you shouldn't have started your thread asking for everyone with an opinion differing from yours to shut up and then labelling them all hipsters who worship Yahtzee.

By insulting a game, you're going out of your way to personally insult the people who like it. Is it any wonder that I want these people to shut up?

No but if you are incapable of dealing with differing opinions I would suggest emigrating to North Korea and settling in after some indoctrination because this is the internet, people come here to express themselves regardless of what happens, all you can do is point out their mistakes to them.

(Seriously, why is Zero Punctuation so popular? Is everyone at the Escapist a masochist?)

As noted previously they have different opinions to you and your friends.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

Having different opinions is one thing, but being a dick about it is another thing altogether.

If everyone else is going to spew hatred and bile, what obligation do I have to be civil? I've tried being polite, and it's never worked.

There are also opinions that are so batshit insane that I honestly can't imagine how anyone could possibly have them.

 

[TheRocketeer]

The frustration doesn't come from AAA titles being shit. It comes from AAA titles often being safe, derivative, predictable, and homogenous. Buying an obscure game you were told is strictly average and finding out it's strictly average is fine for most people, even if it does nothing new or particularly interesting. Buying a game that took hundreds of people several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to make and received a massive advertising campaign, unstoppable word of mouth, and promises to shift the entire medium forever... and finding out it's strictly average and does nothing new or particularly interesting? That makes people cross.

The disconnect between expectation and result will always color our judgment, and that's not a bad thing, because when we get surprised by good work from unlikely places, they deserve that extra praise for doing more with less, and without the odds stacked in their favor. AAA titles, by contrast, have every conceivable advantage and time and time again they waste this churning out the gaming equivalent of plain white rice because they can totally get away with it. The urge to see these games' developers punished for this irresponsible, arrogant, and short-sighted behavior is completely justified; if they are going to go through the trouble of raising the bar for themselves, they should be expected to clear that bar, not to be congratulated for blowing ten times the effort and still doing no better than anyone else.

 

[Hap2]

I agree, most 'AAA' games aren't as terrible as people make them out to be. But a lot of them aren't really anything special either. Often, many of them are just the "same old shit" filled with the 'industry standards' and additional features to make them marketable, and to prevent them from falling into a niche where sales may be low. They're specifically designed to appeal to the masses, and for some, they end up being great regardless, and others, not so much. Some have less problems, some have more.

As for myself, I would rather spend my money on the more obscure titles out there that aren't quite as marketable as the 'AAA' titles, ones that are trying to do something different in their own right. You get a more or less fresher experience with those, even if they don't always succeed game-wise or sales-wise, and it's better than worrying over the more generic big market titles out there, as some do.

 

[G-Force]

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.

You want factual checkboxes here's some to explain why people love MW3

- Contuination of the MW2 storyline (people actually care about it)
- Fast responsive gameplay
- Tight controls
- TONS of weapons
- Various weapon types (submachine guns, assult rifels, revolvers, pistols, explosives etc.)
- Authentic weapon animations
- Tons of action on screen
- Enjoyable survival mode with a friend
- Features the popular level up system in previous games
- Top knotch production values and voice acting
- Create a class feature allows you to play how you want to play and not be pegion hold into premade classes
- Lots of customization
- Popular game meaning you can count on your friends being online

 

[ffs-dontcare]

I prefer to look at games on an individual basis rather than whether or not they're well-known "blockbuster" (ugh, I hate that term) titles.

Some games are good, some aren't. Some are the best games to ever hit the industry, some need to be ... disposed of or retained as examples of how not to make a game.

I just have to say that the term "AAA game" is terribly misused on a regular basis.

AAA refers to high quality. Excellence. It is by definition something very, very good.

People seem to think it simply means "expensive".

I always thought it meant a ridiculously hyped game made by an extremely well-known developer, regardless of its actual quality.

If everyone else is going to spew hatred and bile, what obligation do I have to be civil? I've tried being polite, and it's never worked.

Who do you think looks better in any given situation: the one who stays calm and polite in everything he says or the arrogant one screaming, constantly vomiting words of hostility and foaming at the mouth?

There is only one right answer, and it is why I always try to keep calm and polite here. It's fine if people disagree with me as it only adds to the discussion at hand, but if they do it the latter way, they're only making themselves look retarded in the end.

 

[oZode]

The halo franchise. All 6 titles are pretty good, although I dunno about the halo wars spin off.

 

[Talshere]

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. Look, I can understand if you think it's overrated sure, but calling these games bad is just stupid.

You want to know what a bad game is? Go play a licensed game based on a recently released movie. Go play some of the half-assed shovelware made to cash in on the popularity of Wii Sports.

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.

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

While generally true, your statment fails to take into account the objects people compare games against. For example, Matrix 2 wasnt a "bad" film, but compared to Matrix 1 it was terrible.

If we compare Army of Two to CoD4, the bracket which its in, it come out horrifically. Ok if we compare it to, IDK, Super Meat Boy or some other indie 2d game then yeah its visuals are amazing, but in truth, at best you could compare it to something like Hard Reset, which is far more original and made with 2 orders of magnitude less money. Its natural comparison is the CoD series and the Halo saga, ergo, its shit.

Now for big FRANCHISE series the natural comparisons are its predecessors, so Uncharted 3 is meh because compared to Uncharted 1, its natural comparison, its visuals arnt that much better and other than that its completely unoriginal because its a copy paste of the first game because that sells, ergo, its shit.

Thats just the way it goes. Everything is relative.