I'm tired of the "it's just a game" line

[dudeman0001]

Yes, yes they are.

I hope you're just joking.

Why would I be?

Because then you wouldnt be completely missing the point of the entire thread.

 

[Kalahee]

Definition of GAME : An activity providing entertainment or amusemet.

That certainly doesn't exempt it of comments and critics when it's not meeting that requirement to actually be a game. But I personnaly use that line more on someone that is getting too frustrated for anyone's health in his surrounding. I too used to be a bad player, cursing at the game, the machine, the dev, the pub and my girlfriend when she was asking if I was okay. And I did throw the controller, mouse, and/or keyboard a few times. It is just a game, suckish, but don't suicide/mass murder for it.

Actually the line that is more annoying about criticism toward games is : SHUT UP, IT'S FREE. Last time I checked the definition which is just now that's more like a censorship:

Definition of FREE : Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.

Oops not that one. Althought do have a knack for freedom of speech.

Definition of FREE : Costing nothing; gratuitous.

I don't seen where it says "Exempt from comments and criticism". Many free games are meant to test the terrain for different genre, style, gameplay... as far as I can tell, they want feedback. Some are gifts, but doesn't means you have to accept a diseased horse with two legs who vomit all over your couch and say thank you, I'd see this more like a slap.

The thing is to be constructive with critics which can explain the... politeness... of those lines. "It sucks!" hardly worth a post, such critic should just turn off his computer and see how life outside is "Finally that game wasn't that bad." Now that's better. We are not asking peoples to be full-fledged specialists, but simple comments as "The environment felt empty." or "The head wobbling makes me dizzy" is a good start and if you can do better "Maybe if you had some animal corpse" and "Just don't do it" can help. Also to be fair, you have to look at the other side of the medal, developpers have dealines, limited fund, and employees that are humans who has various tastes and life issues.

As for realism, rule of gaming is it must not come before entertainment, problem is some find simulations entertaining and yet simulators aren't all realistic. Doubt someone would really drive the train in real time what it takes to do it and find it fun [Desert Bus for Hope]. Also on the other hand, I find arcade games pretty boring after the few first levels. Realism stands more for 'not random'.

Also be careful, some critics are more entertainment, aren't you AGVN and Yathzee?

 

[Juggern4ut20]

This thread has gotten me a little heated. With all due respect, each person who has said, "it IS just a game" is completely and utterly wrong in my eyes. In fact, if you say it is just a _____ about any form of media (book, movie, etc), you are wrong. While a game is a game, it hardly is JUST a game. I might not have the correct verbiage but allow me to explain. By looking at something as just the sum of its parts than there is no added value to it. For instance, I remember playing Resident Evil on the Play station with my friend when i was younger. We weren't very good at the game, but we would go out to his backyard then imagine we were in a zombie holocaust and had to fight off imaginary undead. So, resident evil is no longer JUST a game to me, its part of my childhood memories with a friend that i grew apart with. I have added value beyond the intrinsic properties of the game. So, belittling it by saying it is JUST a game, is dismissing all the value i have put on it.

By extending this logic to other things you can see how it fails. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech is not JUST a speech. Yes, his speech is a speech, but it has so much more meaning than that so saying something is JUST anything is wrong. Stonehenge is not just a pile of rocks, Plato was not JUST a person, and the escapist is not JUST a website. By looking at things simply by what they are is some existential BS and is JUST plain wrong.

 

[timeadept]

So by the logic you're presenting, everyone should critically analyze every game they come across and anyone who defends it should have to conform to realistic standards to defend said game, even if in the games reality things do not work the same?

How would you answer this then

Q-In Bad Company 2, how do you revive someone who just got hit by a 100 bullets to the mouth with a defibrillator?

The only POSSIBLE answer is "it's a game, and that's how the game mechanics work". Because seriously there's no realistic explanation, the man wouldn't have a face never the less a heartbeat after any amount of voltage through him.

No the point is that when a game lays down some rules, like "we're going to be a realistic shooter" they had better PLAY by those rules. And btw, in BC2 i think it's completely RIDICULOUS that defibrillators work that way. I understand that it's used as a game mechanic to make the game more fun, but i don't even think it does that right. I remember being a sniper once and i shot this guy in the head 5 TIMES having him be revived each time, only to have him escape when i had to reloaded. I think the mechanic is broken and ON TOP OF THAT unrealistic. I would be more accepting of the defibrillator if the game wasn't TRYING to be realistic but was maybe stylized to look more like TF2.

Okay let's change it to a medic kit where you have to sit there for 2 minutes and revive your friend nice and slowly, this way it's both realistic and you have the real chance of being shot and killed while preforming this kind act to help your team keep going. No one will ever bother playing medic in this case or using his function to it being effective.

BC2 is realistic in the way of gunplay, the rest is game mechanics. Regardless of what you think it should be, realism has to be dropped for game mechanics because otherwise it wouldn't be a fun game. Because by your logic, the game should immediately kick you from the game when you get killed and ban you from the server because effectively you've died in that gameworld, because there's no second chances in reality and we want real right!

It's not a realistic life simulator, it's a tactical shooter with somewhat realistic gun mechanics. There is not ONE word on the box or website that says "realistic" anything annnd there's no sniper class in bad company 2 so I'm not sure what you're basing your facts on, but that's not what Bad Company 2 is. Sure you can pick a sniper rifle as a recon but recon is about as much a sniper as the assault is a baker.

Okay let's change it to a medic kit where you have to sit there for 2 minutes and revive your friend nice and slowly, this way it's both realistic and you have the real chance of being shot and killed while preforming this kind act to help your team keep going. No one will ever bother playing medic in this case or using his function to it being effective.

That's funny, i don't remember suggesting replacing the defibrillator with a med kit that requires 2 min to use. But maybe if using the defibrillator required say 5 seconds then it would be better balanced. Or maybe this thing can't be properly balanced in the context of this game at all and should just be removed?

Because by your logic, the game should immediately kick you from the game when you get killed and ban you from the server because effectively you've died in that gameworld, because there's no second chances in reality and we want real right!

You don't seem to understand my logic at all. Didn't I admit that a line must be drawn at some point for the sake of making the game fun? My issue is where the line WAS drawn. The developers drew it too far on the fun mechanics side and not on the realistic mechanics side in the case of the defibrillator. And as for not respawning, America's Army did not allow it at all. If you died then you sat out the rest of the round until one team won. As for your idea of kicking and banning the player from the server, you have simply drawn the line in a very inappropriate place. It's completely arbitrary that you would be kicked and baned from the server when you die, why not have the actual player killed for death? THAT would certainly be realistic wouldn't it? Any place you draw the line it will always be completely ARBITRARY. the trick is to draw it in a place that is appropriate for the kind of game you're playing.

There is not ONE word on the box or website that says "realistic" anything annnd there's no sniper class in bad company 2 so I'm not sure what you're basing your facts on, but that's not what Bad Company 2 is. Sure you can pick a sniper rifle as a recon but recon is about as much a sniper as the assault is a baker.

uh... what? You're honestly arguing that i'm not a sniper because the class is called "recon"?
A baker is more like the assault class than recon is like a sniper...?
yeah...
well when you learn the difference between an egg beater and an assault rifle maybe you'll be able to accept that the recon class is obviously the closest thing to a real sniper that the game has, if you want to get REALLY nitpicky.

one last thing though, this is why, as a SNIPER, that i think the defibrillator is unbalanced.
Basically, the instant kill of a head shot is not an easy thing to pull off, and if you miss and only wound the target, it's even harder to get a kill when they panic and start looking for cover. Now when you add a medic into the mix with his defibrillator, he just essentially stole the kill that i worked so hard to get. Not only that but he dove in and INSTANTLY revived him and now they're both running and looking for cover. It makes being a SNIPER feel really pointless and unrewarding.

I'm being nitpicky because that's my main point, you're not a sniper. You're recon, you snipe those who are hanging around but the recons MAIN PURPOSE is to point out targets to your allies,. The hint being your motion balls and a scope that spots for you and if you want to get technical that's what they do in realistically which you were just saying the game lacked before. That's why it's called recon and not sniper, it's part of the whole tactical teamwork the game boasts vs the realistic shooter you said it was.

It's the same reason the medic isn't called "Rambo" with his LMG, his job is to provide support fire and revive and heal hurt teamates. Recons job as I said is to point out enemies, that's why when I play Recon I'm not behind my team 500 miles and trying to pick off defending players who have infinite respawns, I slap on a shotgun, toss motion mines and now I'm both helping my team and gunning down people and arming objectives.

Not to sound boastful here but this is the exact reason why teams lose in bad company 2 because they look at recon and see sniper and then you have a cliff with 8 'snipers' and no one arms the objective. Then you will snipe not helping the team out, the medic will do his job and revive to get the ticket back and then you'll feel unfulfilled.

If you want to snipe in that kind of role, put on a mid range sniper rifle that has no bolt action and shoot him, an the medic while tossing motion balls for your team.

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

 

[Snotnarok]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

 

[timeadept]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

Oh come on, what's the point in games spending SO MUCH money on the best graphics capabilities and physics engines, placing the game in modern times, and then using names of armies that actually exist if they weren't TRYING to be realistic? It doesn't matter if they advertise it as realistic or not. It was what they were OBVIOUSLY aiming for.

Anyway weather you say "it's just a game" or "it's just a game mechanic" you are saying the same thing. You are saying that the thing you are complaining about doesn't matter. "What? this mechanic doesn't matter? you mean i should let developers do stupid stuff like this in their games and buy them anyway?"

Btw, if you had actually read my last post i had actually conceded that point to you. You know, the one about how i'm playing the recon class wrong.

 

[Snotnarok]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

Oh come on, what's the point in games spending SO MUCH money on the best graphics capabilities and physics engines, placing the game in modern times, and then using names of armies that actually exist if they weren't TRYING to be realistic? It doesn't matter if they advertise it as realistic or not. It was what they were OBVIOUSLY aiming for.

Anyway weather you say "it's just a game" or "it's just a game mechanic" you are saying the same thing. You are saying that the thing you are complaining about doesn't matter. "What? this mechanic doesn't matter? you mean i should let developers do stupid stuff like this in their games and buy them anyway?"

Btw, if you had actually read my last post i had actually conceded that point to you. You know, the one about how i'm playing the recon class wrong.

I did read it, regardless you still shouldn't say your side then say "lets stop arguing"

The reason they spend all that time making the game look good so it looks good, it doesn't have to actually play real because as I stated if you wanted a realistic game then you should be banned on your first death because there IS no second chances.

The reason the way it is, is because the developer designed it in as a gameplay mechanic to make the game interesting instead of going for reality. They would rather have fun and mechanics in which the player is engaged and challenged, instead of realistic and cowering in the corner scared to earn his bann or 'single death' in the server.

This whole paragraph boils down to "because it's a game and that's how the designers made it" because it's simply logical. A strictly real game would hold no real gameplay mechanics that the user figures out it would just be based on realistic boring single death paranoia gameplay.

Some comics now a days look more realistic than before, they're still batshit with their logic though.

 

[timeadept]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

Oh come on, what's the point in games spending SO MUCH money on the best graphics capabilities and physics engines, placing the game in modern times, and then using names of armies that actually exist if they weren't TRYING to be realistic? It doesn't matter if they advertise it as realistic or not. It was what they were OBVIOUSLY aiming for.

Anyway weather you say "it's just a game" or "it's just a game mechanic" you are saying the same thing. You are saying that the thing you are complaining about doesn't matter. "What? this mechanic doesn't matter? you mean i should let developers do stupid stuff like this in their games and buy them anyway?"

Btw, if you had actually read my last post i had actually conceded that point to you. You know, the one about how i'm playing the recon class wrong.

I did read it, regardless you still shouldn't say your side then say "lets stop arguing"

The reason they spend all that time making the game look good so it looks good, it doesn't have to actually play real because as I stated if you wanted a realistic game then you should be banned on your first death because there IS no second chances.

The reason the way it is, is because the developer designed it in as a gameplay mechanic to make the game interesting instead of going for reality. They would rather have fun and mechanics in which the player is engaged and challenged, instead of realistic and cowering in the corner scared to earn his bann or 'single death' in the server.

This whole paragraph boils down to "because it's a game and that's how the designers made it" because it's simply logical. A strictly real game would hold no real gameplay mechanics that the user figures out it would just be based on realistic boring single death paranoia gameplay.

Some comics now a days look more realistic than before, they're still batshit with their logic though.

*sigh* Once again you've completely missed the point. All i have left to say is that if *I* don't think that the mechanic in question worked in the context of this game, then I will NOT give it a free pass because "that's how the developers made it". Theres nothing particularly special about them, it's not like any idea they have is inherently better than anyone elses. If i think that the game could have been better than i will not continue to buy their games. Because apparently unlike you, i actually care about the quality of the games i play.

 

[Snotnarok]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

Oh come on, what's the point in games spending SO MUCH money on the best graphics capabilities and physics engines, placing the game in modern times, and then using names of armies that actually exist if they weren't TRYING to be realistic? It doesn't matter if they advertise it as realistic or not. It was what they were OBVIOUSLY aiming for.

Anyway weather you say "it's just a game" or "it's just a game mechanic" you are saying the same thing. You are saying that the thing you are complaining about doesn't matter. "What? this mechanic doesn't matter? you mean i should let developers do stupid stuff like this in their games and buy them anyway?"

Btw, if you had actually read my last post i had actually conceded that point to you. You know, the one about how i'm playing the recon class wrong.

I did read it, regardless you still shouldn't say your side then say "lets stop arguing"

The reason they spend all that time making the game look good so it looks good, it doesn't have to actually play real because as I stated if you wanted a realistic game then you should be banned on your first death because there IS no second chances.

The reason the way it is, is because the developer designed it in as a gameplay mechanic to make the game interesting instead of going for reality. They would rather have fun and mechanics in which the player is engaged and challenged, instead of realistic and cowering in the corner scared to earn his bann or 'single death' in the server.

This whole paragraph boils down to "because it's a game and that's how the designers made it" because it's simply logical. A strictly real game would hold no real gameplay mechanics that the user figures out it would just be based on realistic boring single death paranoia gameplay.

Some comics now a days look more realistic than before, they're still batshit with their logic though.

*sigh* Once again you've completely missed the point. All i have left to say is that if *I* don't think that the mechanic in question worked in the context of this game, then I will NOT give it a free pass because "that's how the developers made it". Theres nothing particularly special about them, it's not like any idea they have is inherently better than anyone elses. If i think that the game could have been better than i will not continue to buy their games. Because apparently unlike you, i actually care about the quality of the games i play.

Really, so I give you reasons why a game would be designed the way it is, you know answering the topics discussion: because they're making a fun game and not a boring real life simulator you go have a fit and make it personal?

No you're right, I just scrape bottom of the barrel, I'll scoff at it and raise my nose because the developer chose to make a engaging mechanic vs an unblanced mess. What would happen if you couldn't raise anyone in that game after a sniper bullet the game would become unbalanced the sniper would have more of an advantage than it had already.

To put it simply, look what you want in a game but if you're going to say it's bad game design, then perhaps you should read the back of the box because it doesn't tout realism but actually "tactical team gameplay" and the keyword there is gameplay not life. Now ARMA is realistic and they tout that.

Protip: Making an argument personal isn't a good idea. I'm discussing my feelings and reading yours and I find when you say realistic and the game DOES NOT SAY THAT, I tend to graze over that as you're not informed on the game in question. When you say looks like and the game says it IS I listen to the game

 

[mrwoo6]

*sigh* Once again you've completely missed the point. All i have left to say is that if *I* don't think that the mechanic in question worked in the context of this game, then I will NOT give it a free pass because "that's how the developers made it". Theres nothing particularly special about them, it's not like any idea they have is inherently better than anyone elses. If i think that the game could have been better than i will not continue to buy their games. Because apparently unlike you, i actually care about the quality of the games i play.

So thus, your opinion is contextual to the person who is saying it. his/her tone and what its aimed at. Someone else may find a mechanic fun and you may find it out of place. who's right? both opinion's are valid and therefore the statement you hate still stands regardless of what you think.

The defib should not work 100% of the time in BFBC2. "Its just a game"
who is right? down to opinion

You should not be able to use your grappling hock to survive falls form any height in Just cause 2.

I find it fun, and fitting with the tone of the game, others find it out of place. It's down to opinion and thus "It's just a game" still stands and is completely valid.

shocking news just in: other people think differently than you, and that doesn't mean there wrong.

 

[timeadept]

Oh so now we're going to argue semantics? That's completely beside the point. I mean we used to be talking about how saying "it's just a game" to someone complaining about that games mechanics was something you shouldn't do. Now we're arguing about tactics in BC2? Look, if they GIVE you that bolt action rifle (it's even the one you have by default) how can you argue that they don't want you to USE it? I mean maybe you're right, maybe the class was never meant to sit back and pick guys off. So why IS the default weapon for the class a bolt action rifle?

ok so you're saying that the defibrillator is balanced because it encourages players to work as a team and discourages people trying to be the "lone badass" trying to take out entire squads on their own. This is a good point. But not exactly the one this thread is meant to discuss.

So getting back to that... I still feel like the game tries so damn hard to be perceived as realistic and then turns around and pulls stunts like the defibrillator that can shatter the immersion that it is trying to create. This is the sort of thing that I've been complaining about the entire time.

It's a bit silly to say your side of an argument then say let's stop talking about it

But this brings me back to the fact that it doesn't say realistic shooter anywhere on the box, or the website. They use Tactical and Teamwork, both of which is heavily present in the game.

You use team work to break the enemies defenses and win, your recon tosses motion balls and relays enemy positions while taking out lone enemies/snipers, your engineer silently takes out jerks and blows up their armor, the assault provides ammo for the team, the medic defibs the hole in your friends face back to life.

So I guess the quote "It's just a game" is less accurate, what should be said "It's a game mechanic to make the game work" and if that's not to the persons taste....uh...say the Sega 32x is better than the PS3 he'll be spitting blood all week.

Oh come on, what's the point in games spending SO MUCH money on the best graphics capabilities and physics engines, placing the game in modern times, and then using names of armies that actually exist if they weren't TRYING to be realistic? It doesn't matter if they advertise it as realistic or not. It was what they were OBVIOUSLY aiming for.

Anyway weather you say "it's just a game" or "it's just a game mechanic" you are saying the same thing. You are saying that the thing you are complaining about doesn't matter. "What? this mechanic doesn't matter? you mean i should let developers do stupid stuff like this in their games and buy them anyway?"

Btw, if you had actually read my last post i had actually conceded that point to you. You know, the one about how i'm playing the recon class wrong.

I did read it, regardless you still shouldn't say your side then say "lets stop arguing"

The reason they spend all that time making the game look good so it looks good, it doesn't have to actually play real because as I stated if you wanted a realistic game then you should be banned on your first death because there IS no second chances.

The reason the way it is, is because the developer designed it in as a gameplay mechanic to make the game interesting instead of going for reality. They would rather have fun and mechanics in which the player is engaged and challenged, instead of realistic and cowering in the corner scared to earn his bann or 'single death' in the server.

This whole paragraph boils down to "because it's a game and that's how the designers made it" because it's simply logical. A strictly real game would hold no real gameplay mechanics that the user figures out it would just be based on realistic boring single death paranoia gameplay.

Some comics now a days look more realistic than before, they're still batshit with their logic though.

*sigh* Once again you've completely missed the point. All i have left to say is that if *I* don't think that the mechanic in question worked in the context of this game, then I will NOT give it a free pass because "that's how the developers made it". Theres nothing particularly special about them, it's not like any idea they have is inherently better than anyone elses. If i think that the game could have been better than i will not continue to buy their games. Because apparently unlike you, i actually care about the quality of the games i play.

Really, so I give you reasons why a game would be designed the way it is, you know answering the topics discussion: because they're making a fun game and not a boring real life simulator you go have a fit and make it personal?

No you're right, I just scrape bottom of the barrel, I'll scoff at it and raise my nose because the developer chose to make a engaging mechanic vs an unblanced mess. What would happen if you couldn't raise anyone in that game after a sniper bullet the game would become unbalanced the sniper would have more of an advantage than it had already.

To put it simply, look what you want in a game but if you're going to say it's bad game design, then perhaps you should read the back of the box because it doesn't tout realism but actually "tactical team gameplay" and the keyword there is gameplay not life. Now ARMA is realistic and they tout that.

Protip: Making an argument personal isn't a good idea. I'm discussing my feelings and reading yours and I find when you say realistic and the game DOES NOT SAY THAT, I tend to graze over that as you're not informed on the game in question. When you say looks like and the game says it IS I listen to the game

when you finally decide to take the time to understand the ideas behind what i'm saying, instead of fixating on an example that i just pulled outa my ass, i will consider my post to have been read. Until then you might as well argue with yourself.

 

[Dogstile]

It is just a game. All of those massive essay's and critics who judge films and books? They get the same line with game replaced with either film or book.

 

[timeadept]

*sigh* Once again you've completely missed the point. All i have left to say is that if *I* don't think that the mechanic in question worked in the context of this game, then I will NOT give it a free pass because "that's how the developers made it". Theres nothing particularly special about them, it's not like any idea they have is inherently better than anyone elses. If i think that the game could have been better than i will not continue to buy their games. Because apparently unlike you, i actually care about the quality of the games i play.

So thus, your opinion is contextual to the person who is saying it. his/her tone and what its aimed at. Someone else may find a mechanic fun and you may find it out of place. who's right? both opinion's are valid and therefore the statement you hate still stands regardless of what you think.

The defib should not work 100% of the time in BFBC2. "Its just a game"
who is right? down to opinion

You should not be able to use your grappling hock to survive falls form any height in Just cause 2.

I find it fun, and fitting with the tone of the game, others find it out of place. It's down to opinion and thus "It's just a game" still stands and is completely valid.

shocking news just in: other people think differently than you, and that doesn't mean there wrong.

You missed the rest of what i said and are jumping in right at the end of an argument. I've explained this much better in earlier posts, if you want to go back and read them go right ahead.

 

[StevenSuffern]

Whether or not a game is "just a game", a book is just a book, a speech is just a speech, and every other example that has been thrown out in the thread is completely subjective. If games don't matter to a person, than they are just a silly waste of time, and raging over them is entirely stupid. But for true gamers, the people that want a deeper experience playing games than, say, a bunch of BROS playing Madden or CoD, games mean more. But like most things, the arguments just become an unstoppable force hitting an immovable object, and they just become pointless to think about

 

[Snotnarok]

when you finally decide to take the time to understand the ideas behind what i'm saying, instead of fixating on an example that i just pulled outa my ass, i will consider my post to have been read. Until then you might as well argue with yourself.

Okay think what you want, I didn't go and attack you for your opinions and I wasn't quoting a game to be something it isn't. So get your facts straight on what a game is trying to do vs what you want to see in it before you go try to call out on something . Because they're not making a game for you they're making games to be enjoyed by many and who're able to make compromises on to see what the game is about.

I even pointed out that one game isn't attempting to be realistic and the other is, but that doesn't matter because it's not how you wanted game A to be.

 

[no oneder]

Dude, settle down, it's just a game

Couldn't resist

Har har har. I share this guy's point of view.

 

[templargunman]

Well, I think the main problem is that people need to consider that there are different levels of movie, so there's different levels of games. Sure, you have your Amadeus and Clockwork Orange, but there's also Epic Movie and the Death at a Funeral remake. Video games are the same way. There's games like Bioshock or Portal that are these great games that have story and are clever, and then you have things like Kane and Lynch, there are games that are smart and there are games that are pure stupid entertainment, just like there are smart movies as well as Battlefield Earth flops. Both gamers and non gamers tend to think that all games should be artistic and creative or all games should be for children, but they don't, they can be everything, so when something's just for fun, it can be just a game.

 

[rokkolpo]

''It's just a movie'' is used far more often.

It's just a way of saying ''it's fiction, don't worry about it''
We can still take it serious as a medium but find the content lacking to immerse us.
Or we just get mad at the game and you need to remind yourself that ''it's just a game''.

I get annoyed as hell at movies too, especially if "it's just a movie" was thrown in there.
Like a lot of people have said already, the "it's just a _______)" only devalues the thing you just did. "It's just a movie? so why the hell did I just pay 10$ for this waste of time anyways???".

Well it is ''just'' entertainment media.
You can love it to hell, you can learn from it, it can help you shape into a better person.
But in the end it's ''just'' a game/movie that you've watched for entertainment or a timesink.

It's ''just'' fun.
Nothing more to it.

But that's ''just'' me.

 

[veloper]

Guys, it may be just a game, but for some players it may still be 59.99 aswell.
You may expect something for that money.
Bitching is good.