Is the 'Competent Game' the new 'Perfect Game'?

[DarkRyter]

They enjoy the game.

They enjoy the game alot.

They give it a really high score.

There's really nothing more to it. Doesn't matter if the game is a rehash. Doesn't matter if it's competent or not. Doesn't matter whether it's original.

When a person reviews a game and gives it a score, whatever score they give isn't some measure on the game itself. It's a measurement of how much the reviewer, as a human being with feelings and emotions, enjoyed the game.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

(dragons in skyrim are freaking gimmicks)

Lemme just take that and urgh yep here I go

(Boss fights are gimmicks)
(Guns are gimmicks)
(Jumping is a gimmick)
(Free control is a gimmick)
(Text is a gimmick)

...yeah, no. Dragons aren't gimmicks

They are gimmicks. That's what the plot device catalyst in TES games has always been. In Oblivion it was the "Oblivion" gates (iconic looking structures that could be broadcast in adverts), in Skyrim it's the dragons.

They make no difference to the game beyond the quests that they are involved in and occasional encounters that give you a bit of gold and the ability to use their secondary gimmick, dragon shouts.

If you think hundred clones (I know, some are stronger than others, big whoop they're all easy) flying around attacking you at random in the same way for the same reward is not a gimmick, then you've got a hideously low valuation of core gameplay features. Which wouldn't surprise me, games and potentially gamers these days are eternally losing their values.

Boss fights are a gimmick? No, they were a primal solution to how to end levels - when designers in the earliest days of gaming wanted to end a level they had a boss fight.

Guns are gimmicks? Are you kidding? If it's a first person shooter then how could guns be gimmicks? Are you trying to tell me you could not advance the TES quest chains in any way without dragon encounters?

Jumping, Free Control, Text? You're obviously trying to make some snide point but the fact is essential parts of a game's construction or plot progression are not equal to the dragons in Skyrim.

If you want to know a new thing in Skyrim that isn't a gimmick, then I'll begrudgingly list the new way of casting Magic - it adds new levels to the gameplay, when you combine spells etc.

Other things in Skyrim that are gimmicks:

- Quest Generation etc (I forget the term they used to describe it "ambient awesome" or something, it's crap and has been done better since True Crime: Streets of LA)
- Streamlined skills (The skills were fine as they were, if you ask me streamlining the skills was just another "appealing to the casual audience" piece of poop.)
- Dragon Shouts - They are barely ever game changing'ly useful. It's not like there's a series of puzzles in some caves that can only be accessed by a certain shout, Zelda style, EDIT: I know there are a few, but it's not the rule and that's what I'm referring to. and it's not like it helps out much in battles. I mean sure, it's always helpful to freeze enemies into ice cubes for a while but it's not like the combat system would be broken without shouts. Really, really good on tv adverts.
Dragon Encounters - Mobile mini-boss fights with barely any reward (a bit of gold and some - heavy-as-f*ck bones, and a soul *yay*) and no variation. Really, really good on tv adverts.

Things Skyrim did well:

- Nord mania. It may seems tiresome after you hear the same nordic accent being spoken by each and every large pale man in the game, and the music may be boring and bland on a level that shames the previous TES games, but as with all TES games the developers have done a great job of simulating a new and unique province of Cyrodil. Morrowind and Imperial province both dripped specific charm and lore, and Skyrim does too.
- The dragon language. Cheesiness aside, doing their best to have a good sounding few words for the dragons was a great touch which added some flavor and quality to proceedings. Krrrooosiiisss.

Things Skyrim didn't do so well:

- The rebellion. Conflict is no where near common enough, there's no sense of obstruction caused by the rebellion, and the whole thing gets resolved by a few middling battles over forts (seriously, about three or four of them) in the middle of no where and a final, sterile, restricted run around in Windhelm.
- The Guild chains. Not only are there no more mage/fighters guilds, the chains that have replaced them are all only about five hours long.
- End-game. This has always been a problem with The Elder Scrolls, as soon as you start completing quest chains - becoming Arch Mage and such - the game disintegrates. No one gives a crap that you're the head of three guilds AND trying to kill the emperor for the Dark Brotherhood. No one gives a crap that you're the Arch Mage, either, when you talk to half the NPCs in the Mages College and they not only talk to you like you're still an entry level student, they also deliver quests unto you that involve sneaking around dormitories and similar. When you walk around town no one says "Oh my god, it's such an honour to finally meet you" like they did in Morrowind.

There's more in each category (including the 'skyrim did well' category) but that's enough, I think.

You're right I was just making a snide point but my point was, dragons, in my eyes, are just like having random boss battles. Your character's goal as dragonborn is to "slay dragons and steal their souls" just as dragonborn of the past have done. It's a main part of the game. Like I said, I see them as boss battles and if they are just gimmicks then so are boss battles, something we've loved for a very long time and if boss battles are then what isn't? I'm sure there was a time when the first jump button was added to a game and people weren't going "oh, what a gimmick" even though it techincally is, you don't NEED the ability to jump.

I'm not saying Skyrim was perfect or that it didn't have problems because it does but saying a key feature of the game is just a gimmick kinda lessens how much work was put into it and how much it really adds to the game

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

One of the very few original games I played was the original Hitman. Just think about it. Think about the concept of that game and it's approach to stealth genre. Every Hitman sequel improved upon that model. Sure sequels weren't groundbreaking. But they added good things to an already excellent game. That's not a bad thing. That's how this industry works, or how it should work. There are no original ideas. Every idea is a derivative of something that already exists in some other form. Best we can do is improve upon the original. The problem is, gaming industry isn't doing that anymore (there are exceptions like Arkham City in my opinion). In video game industry, it seems we're seeing a lot of dumbing down to appease the non-gamer masses (kids and idiots). Just look at the gameplay trailer for Hitman: Absolution. It's pathetic.

 

[JohnDoey]

Does Subjective opinion not exist anymore, some people are going to like certain things more than you get over it.

 

[Palademon]

Yep, Xenoblade Chronicles changed nothing.
God knows in recent years we've been bombarded by JRPGs with massive open areas with no invisible walls, british acting, lots of side quests, no random battles, male slut armour, and exciting cutscenes that even adjust your armour to the set you currently wearing.
So cliche.

 

[Legion IV]

You DARE insult Xenoblade Chronicles!? The game that quite possibly qualifies for my most favourite game of all time!?

I hate to say this but this always frustrates me. How can a game thats not even a year old be your favorite game? how many times have you beat it? It seems highley improbible it can be your favorite game of all time.

If you can playthough it like over 10+ times and be able to play it and still enjoy it years and years later then sure, but juts throwing that title out there?


OP: Blazing Souls (original) so i have to use my Japenses ps2 but the original just feels so much better then the English release. 5 years since the release and over 15+ playthroughs, i still love this game to death, its RPG Perfected, made my the greatest developer Idea Factory. Lol before the english locilizatio came out (in 2010, Jp release 2006) I've been forced to learn a bit of japenses by playing the game and Aam proud to say i can speak some very broken Japenses words and phrases now lol.

 

[Something Amyss]

People often make claims like yours and I am quite inclined to agree with the observation. But then I'm forced to remember that there are myriad factors that serve to cloud my perception.

There have been a couple posts that have broken this down with critical reviews, be it aggregates or what have you, and you get more 5 star games in a year than Hollywood has movies in a decade.

I tend to believe that this alone is enough to demonstrate it's more than just perception.

I mean, it's not a study, but it's enough to indicate a trend.

I also don't think your statement holds any different from films, because what gets reviewed most are big blockbusters with veteran crews or indie darlings, just like video games.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

People often make claims like yours and I am quite inclined to agree with the observation. But then I'm forced to remember that there are myriad factors that serve to cloud my perception.

There have been a couple posts that have broken this down with critical reviews, be it aggregates or what have you, and you get more 5 star games in a year than Hollywood has movies in a decade.

I tend to believe that this alone is enough to demonstrate it's more than just perception.

I mean, it's not a study, but it's enough to indicate a trend.

I also don't think your statement holds any different from films, because what gets reviewed most are big blockbusters with veteran crews or indie darlings, just like video games.

You do miss my point it would seem. While I tend to agree with the perception that game ratings are skewed, that comes with the caveat that my perception is filtered such that I am only likely to pay attention to games that were at least competently made. The posts on the subject provide only anecdotal evidence. If you goal is to demonstrate a flaw in the scoring system, you'll need stronger evidence than that.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Its probably because its so easy to make poor games and make money. Also because there are so many games and sequals of games out there that unique and innovative games are much harder to come by then they were last generation or the generation before that.

SOOOOO

Because there is

A. such a large quantity of games
and
B. because many new games fear to step out of set patterns and they may not make the money the put in (and profit) back

there is a lack of innovative games recently and thus reviewer's scores are off.

Or something

 

[skywolfblue]

Is a game that's merely competent but given a little more polish what we consider an outstanding, perfect game?

Who's saying it's only "merely competent"? To some it may be the best game ever, but it just doesn't appeal to ~your~ particular tastes.

Whoa, hold your horses! As explained previously I in no way said I dislike the games named above, or that I look down upon those who do. But just because you enjoy a game immensely doesn't automatically make it a near perfect game.

Why not? Gaming is entirely subjective. Therefore, anything I find I enjoy immensely is "Perfect" for me. There is no objective "perfect".

Personally, I say we need game critics instead of game reviewers. Game reviewers state their opinion on the game, and often their scores and opinions are biased by how much they enjoyed said game. It is what they're paid to do.
Game critics, on the other hand, should analyse the game and point out what it does wrong and right, and in the end score it based off that. Something like CoD (Random, easy example. Don't hate me) would get a 9/10 from reviewers, who loved playing it and thus scored it well, whilst from a critic it would likely get a 5 or a 6 due to the problems it has, and its shortfallings too.
Really, we need more people like a serious version of Yahtzee. People who find out what is wrong with the game and laud it for everyone to see and know. Whilst CoD is fun and entertaining to many, it is by no means a remarkable game in either its playstyle nor its technological side, and very little has changed from previous titles. Looking at that stuff, CoD deserves a near perfect score from a reviewer who likes the game, but a mediocre score from a critic who does not let whether or not they enjoyed the game and like the series affect their scores near as much as a reviewer.
Reviewer looks past the mediocre graphics, the terrible lag some people (But maybe not them) experienced, the fact that nothing new has been done and much is the same, the fact that the story is merely mediocre; not brilliant, and the various other problems that CoD as a series has.
Critic plays the game, looks past themselves enjoying it and notices that the graphics are only mediocre, pays attention to the fact that many experience bad lag issues, notices that the game is nearly the same as its predecessor - and its predecessor before that, looks past the action packed campaign gameplay to notice the story is really meh, and tries to pay attention to as many details in the game as they can.
When each gives their score, the critics will end up lower than the reviewers, as the looked past how much they enjoyed it, and saw all of its faults, pointing them out. The reviewer didn't care about these faults and thought others wouldn't either.
This is why I prefer critics to reviewers - I can't trust a single word the reviewer has to say, and honestly don't care if they enjoyed the game or not, only what problems it has, and how it works, leaving me to make my own opinion with as much info as possible.

? Critics aren't flawless like you make them out to be. They're influenced by their likes and dislikes just like normal reviewers. If they don't like romance they'll bash a game for having romantic elements, if they like cliché magic and wizards then they're less likely to bash a game for having cliché magic and wizards. Yahtzee's videos are at least 90% completely his own biased opinion. (An opinion that I find funny to watch from time to time)

 

[Fleetfiend]

Is a game that's merely competent but given a little more polish what we consider an outstanding, perfect game?

Who's saying it's only "merely competent"? To some it may be the best game ever, but it just doesn't appeal to ~your~ particular tastes.

Sequels with improved graphics and slight tweaks to previous instalments. Or if not direct sequels, cliches or blatant copies of other titles.

Why does being a sequel mean the game cannot be "perfect"? They take an idea some people loved, and improved on it, so in many cases the sequel ends up fixing a lot of the flaws and making a much better game.

I think you're blowing that a little bit out of proportion. The OP wasn't using "merely competent" as an insult to games that are getting widely recognized acclaim, and they never said something about sequels not being any good. They were just saying that games are being recognized less by their originality, and more more their simple improvements over previous, similar titles.

And there are always exceptions, but I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Joccaren]

? Critics aren't flawless like you make them out to be. They're influenced by their likes and dislikes just like normal reviewers. If they don't like romance they'll bash a game for having romantic elements, if they like cliché magic and wizards then they're less likely to bash a game for having cliché magic and wizards. Yahtzee's videos are at least 90% completely his own biased opinion. (An opinion that I find funny to watch from time to time)

It is why I said a more serious Yahtzee. With his bias going in, he will say that he doesn't like X and that sort of thing. A proper critics job is to see, yes this is a romantic element, but that is not my concern. My concern is how the camera angle in this cutscene is poor, or the voice acting is fake. If properly critiquing a game, instead of reviewing it in a negative light, none of their opinion should come through. It is a factual piece not an opinion one. They can say that it had romantic elements, but they should not say anything that makes that seem bad. They can say it has cliché magic and wizards, but should not say anything that makes that sound good. Include the facts, and not an opinion, and you get a proper game critique, at least what should be a proper game critique. Add in the opinion, and you get a review.

 

[Terramax]

Now, before people convict me of ranting about specific favourite franchises, genres, etc, that's not my intent. I have no quarrel with people enjoying games such as the ones listed. I just want to know if people think our perception of a great game has changed over the years?

I swear on my life that I didn't see this on my first reading of the thread. I'm sorry if I offended you or anybody during my rant, I just noticed you bashing the game and I just... snapped. Please disregard my rabid fanboyism and my initial inability to understand what this thread was about.

Now then; onto the rational discussion!

Are our standards of a good game being decreased, if review ratings are anything to go by?

My answer is thus:

Spoiler

Haha, no worries man. I'm not angered at all. I've done the same thing. At least you were honest.

Let me first say that I am very guilty of enjoying average games. For instance, one of my favourite games of the last year has been Venetica, a game that can be best described as average, with some going as far as to say it's terrible (especially if they're one of the people that have had the miss-fortune of coming across its many bugs). And whilst I really like it, I will agree it's nothing more than average.

What I'm trying to put across is, even if I enjoy a game greatly, I still have the ability to point out how good the game is from a technical stand point, and I put into question whether professional journalists and amateur reviewers on sites like Amazon.co.uk, or one forums like these, do the same.

I think that when people love a game, they tend not to take a stand back and look at the whole picture. They get sucked into the aspects of the game they really enjoy and fail to realise, or point out to others, the flaws that said game.

 

[Terramax]

When a person reviews a game and gives it a score, whatever score they give isn't some measure on the game itself. It's a measurement of how much the reviewer, as a human being with feelings and emotions, enjoyed the game.

I guess this is a matter of opinion but I always thought that professional reviews were supposed to explain whether the reader will enjoy a game, taking into account that each reader enjoys different games.

For instance, if a reviewer writes "I personally really liked this incredibly complex strategy game, so it's 9/10" I don't believe it's very informative.

However, if the reviewer writes "I personally really liked this game, however that's because I love complex strategy games, however if you're new to the genre, you may wish to try something more user friendly such as...", then the review is doing its job.

In the period you listed, reviewers were giving perfect scores to Final Fantasy 8, which has every single problem Xenoblade Chronicles has and more. I doubt we need Spoony to elaborate again.

2 things worth thinking about:

Firstly, at the time, Final Fantasy 8 was unique and pushed boundaries. The way the story was told was not yet cliched. The battle system was also still relatively fresh, at least in the West when there still weren't that many JRPGs about.

Second, you need to consider the limitations in technology. Could FF8 be improved now if it had the amazing graphics of FF13? Of course, but back then it didn't exist.

FF8 could have improved in some was, such as the balance in difficulty (using the same magic spells over and over to kill easily), but not much could've been improved upon, hence this game was near perfect back around 1998.

Now, with previous RPGs released and with today's technology, Xenoblades could have been improved in a great many was as explained before. RPGs have had more original stories, better voice acting, less filler, a more intuitive battle system, therefore it is nowhere near a perfect game. So I question why this game has received near perfect scores today.

 

[Terramax]

Wait what did you even read your own post , you call new games nothing but dull rehashes and then point to metal gear solid , soul caliber and Gran Turismo as your aces in the hole are you high

Metal gear solid was nothing more than an updated metal gear soul caliber was nothing more than a well done arcade fighter and gran turismo was just a slightly more realistic version of racing games that all ready excited

I am fully aware most titles in my OP are sequels however, as pointed out already, the games I've listed made significant improvements.

Look at MGS - sure, it was a sequel to a game, but with the added 3D, voice acting, sophisticated cutscenes, music responsive to the changes in events, improvements in A.I., etc, it made the experience more immersive and emotional to the audience. It also had the correct balance in gameplay and story.

Now look at MGS4 - it was criticised because ultimately the game didn't improve on the formula, but instead was reportely too self indulgent with the cutscenes, with many supposedly not happy with real improvement over gameplay.

Now, I would like to reiterate, I am not saying that MGS4 is a bad game, or that I think MGS1 is a perfect game now.

so in reality they where about as innovative as my left thumb so take your head from up your own arse take off the rose tinted specs and come up with a better argument

I think you need to take a step back and think that if an OP has gone out of their way to explain they are not looking down upon people who enjoy games of today, there is no need to be offensive.

Secondly, if I were really that pessimistic of the games of today, then why would I be on the Escapist forums? Surely I'd be spending more time on retro game forums?

I have not stated anywhere that the games of today are terrible, unplayable, or any worse than previous games in a franchise. I'm asking the question that as the industry has changed, has our perception of a good/ bad game changed?

This is not an arguement. This is a discussion.