Poll: Can you play a game wrong? [Please read before voting]

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I've been watching the Jimquisitions that are now on The Escapist and I've found myself surprised that I've actually agreed with Jim most of the time even though I don't like his reviews. I like that he scores stuff using the whole scale (I give average games a 5, not a 7) but I just don't agree with most of the reasons he gives for the score.

Anyways, I stumbled upon the following Jimquisition on Youtube about developers saying certain reviewers played the game wrong.

Spoiler: Jimquisition: YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME WRONG!

For the most part, I agree with what Jim is saying. I never played Hydrophobia, the game in question in the video, but I agree a game should show you through well designed tutorials how to play it properly. However, I think there is a fine line between showing you enough and showing you too much; part of what really makes a game special is discovering a new advanced technique that comes from experimenting and combining 2 or more game elements. If the game told you about everything, part of the experience would be lost. Some games are even so open ended that you can find ways to complete objectives that the developers didn't even think of.

I'll use Vanquish as an example of a game you can play wrong while using exerts from Jim's review of Vanquish to show you how he played it wrong.

Vanquish is a game that really evolved the cover shooter genre as it gave you the tools to stay out in the action, you didn't need to hide behind cover and play a glorified version of whack-a-mole. However, this is what Jim had to say about Vanquish:

Vanquish is actually a rather run-of-the-mill shooter that manages to devolve its genre, rather than evolve it... when you get down to it, Vanquish is just another cover shooter with shallow gimmicks that have no applicable use. Sam's glide ability is only useful for escaping (or trying to), since there's no point getting up close and killed because you have no power left. Any thoughts you had of sliding toward an enemy, murdering him in a flurry of punches, and deftly sliding away like an awesome space ninja better be abolished from your head -- everything you do in this game makes you vulnerable, weak, and ultimately dead.

It's obvious from that exert that Jim played Vanquish as a cover shooter. The game even gives you a hint, via the scoring system, that you shouldn't be using a lot of cover as the game takes off points based on how much you used cover. Here's a video showing you the type POWER the game gives you:

Spoiler: Vanquish - Challenge 6 Ownage

Jim also failed to even experiment with Vanquish's weapons as well. The assault rifle is basically the most useless gun in the game (outside of the sniper rifle) yet Jim says:

There are a few extra weapons, but they're all discovered within the first 10% of the game and you'll soon learn that the assault rifle's the only useful gun anyway.

The heavy machine gun is so much better than the assault rifle, it serves the same purpose as the assault rifle, and it's one of the starting guns so why would you even use the assault rifle for most of the game? Did he even try the Disc Launcher? It shoots out big ass spinning saws and it does you you would think it would do, cut off limbs and heads; the disc launcher is the most useful gun to use against one of the game's tougher enemies (the Romanovs). Plus, the disc launcher allows you to melee WITHOUT using your suits energy, which the game probably should've told you. The Low-Frequency Energy (LFE) gun is basically a super charged shotgun that goes THROUGH cover, how is that not super useful? Jim said there's no reason to get up close to enemies but there's 4 guns that own when used up close (shotgun, LFE gun, disc launcher, and rocket launcher). Thus, sliding up and shotgunning enemies is a legit and awesome way to play the game.

Jim does have several legit complaints about the game but I feel the main reason why he gave it a 5/10 was because according to him, "Vanquish is just another cover shooter with shallow gimmicks."

To me, Jim played Vanquish wrong. Therefore, I think games can be played wrong, sometimes it's the game's fault and sometimes it's the user's fault. I even think you can watch a movie wrong; if you go into a comedy expecting top-notch drama and then say it's a bad movie because the drama wasn't good, then you missed the point.

---

EDIT:

That's a tough question. I'm not sure there's really a way to play a game wrong if you're just playing it for enjoyment purposes. If you're playing it as a job (to, for example, give an honest as unbiased as possible appraisal of the game like a reviewer should) then I think you at least owe it to your readers/viewers to think a little outside the box. This is particularly the case when what you're doing seems to actually be making the game less fun than it could be.

In the case the OP stated, there really were significant errors on the part of the reviewer that led to an unfair assessment of the game. If you're not going to really try to review a title for what it offers and instead are just going to recount your personal gripes with it then maybe you should just be writing a blog or doing something less score based and more strictly entertainment oriented (like what Yahtzee does).

You can definitely play in a way that would make the developer slap you in the face, but I don't think there's any way of playing a game "wrong." Unless you're not having any fun, then you should go about and find a different way of doing things.

I obviously voted Yes for the poll but now I kinda think that maybe there isn't a way to play it "wrong" per se. There are just some types of games I don't enjoy like racing sims, and if I were to play a racing sim (especially a NASCAR game) and actually have fun playing, I wouldn't be playing the way it was meant to be played. However, if I was reviewing the game, I would play it the way it was meant to be played and then compared how well it plays to other games of the genre. I can play a game I actually don't like and give it a good review score; I wouldn't call games like Forza or Gran Tursimo bad games just because I don't enjoy them. I definitely think that Jim reviewed Vanquish wrong as Vanquish is a straight up hardcore action game that just so happened to be a shooter (it's not a cover shooter even though it has cover) and that's the audience the game is targeted at. The gamers that bought Vanquish, bought it to play as an action game with guns not to play a cover shooter, and Vanquish should be graded on how good of an action game it is. In my opinion, you should review a game for what it's trying to accomplish, Vanquish was not trying to be a Gears or an Uncharted. You shouldn't knock Vanquish for being a not-so-great cover shooter, you should knock it for being a bad action game if that's what you think. It's just like you can't knock a racing sim for being too in-depth and/or being too tough for casual racing fans; I've heard Gran Turismo is a car nuts wet dream, I'm not a car nut so obviously it's not a game for me.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

cant be arsed to read all that.

Yes, a game can be played wrong. Particularly multi-player games. I'm thinking of people who join objective based team games and then fart around doing stupid things for the sake of their planned "sick youtube montage" and impinge upon the enjoyment of other players who are there to actually play the game.

That's playing wrong.

I didn't even think about multiplayer games when I posted. Anyone just camping for kills (not camping/defending objective points) in an objective-based game are playing the game wrong and not helping the team win. I hate campers in online games, not enemy campers but campers on my team.

I remember in the MAG beta a bunch of people that would snipe and take out people at the objective point; however, since in MAG, you can revive other players, those enemies the snipers "took out" get revived seconds later so the snipers weren't helping the team win.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Sure, games can be played wrong.

Most reviewers don't have enough time to learn a game properly, and consequently develop a reliance on methods that require low skill and get immediate results.
Whereas, high skill execution based gameplay requires time invested developing skills instead of actually playing.

The travesty is, nowadays some people think practicing is playing the game wrong, 'cos in games nowadays they win no matter how much they suck (in single player, anyway) .. so why bother?

My favourite is Dark Messiah of Might and Magic.
Someone actually told me "it took me 5 minutes to kill one guy!" ...
My response was "did you even play the tutorial?"
The only fights in the game that should last more than a few seconds are boss fights. Even so, there are usually hazards you can exploit to deal massive damage.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

Not picking up an item that weighs nothing and is worth mucho moneys to sell simply because you're lazy?

You're doing it wrong dad!

 

[triggrhappy94]

I'd say its possible, and most gamers (especially those with young enough siblings) have been in that situation. Like trying to play hide-and-seek in Black Ops multiplayer. Or, driving the wrong way on Forza so they can flip the cars.
EDIT: There's also always some way to break a game.

But if you're playing it and having fun, then no one can really get mad at you for playing it how you want.

 

[SonicKaos]

According to my friends, I played Mass Effect 2 wrong because I didn't develop any real connection to the characters in it. Apparently playing as a Renegade is the wrong way to play, and I STILL managed to get the nice ending to it.

I don't think there is a WRONG way to play a game, but it may not be the BEST way to play it... or at least, the way the developers intended it to be played for maximum enjoyment. If they do want you to play it a certain way though, they shouldn't allow other ways for the game to be played. Then they wouldn't have this issue of "you played it wrong."

 

[Norks]

encumbering yourself in oblivion with clay pots or stolen cutlery *facepalm* (have to look away when little sister is playing)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'd say its possible, and most gamers (especially those with young enough siblings) have been in that situation. Like trying to play hide-and-seek in Black Ops multiplayer. Or, driving the wrong way on Forza so they can flip the cars.
EDIT: There's also always some way to break a game.

But if you're playing it and having fun, then no one can really get mad at you for playing it how you want.

I was mainly asking if you could play a game wrong when you are genuinely trying to play the game properly, not driving the wrong way in a racing game for shits and giggles or trying to break that game (that's how video game testers play, to find ways to break the game).

 

[nukethetuna]

Heh, when the first guilds were working on Sinestra in WoW, the fight was getting hotfixed and changed as they fought it so that they'd be beating it how Blizzard wanted them to.

Obviously games that have no means of patching can't really change whether you're doing it right or not.

So I'd say... you're only playing it wrong if they can force you to play it right! ;D

 

[Radeonx]

I didn't even think about multiplayer games when I posted. Anyone just camping for kills (not camping/defending objective points) in an objective-based game are playing the game wrong and not helping the team win. I hate campers in online games, not enemy campers but campers on my team.

Yeah, because camping for kills in a Team Deathmatch and dying as little as possible is clearly the wrong way to win.

OT: Sometimes, but something that some doesn't like about a game doesn't mean they are playing it wrong. OP, I agree with your first post, but not your multiplayer post.

 

[Mr. Omega]

What people have listed so far are not "wrong" ways to play a game. Sure, they're DIFFERENT, and in some cases STUPID ways to play a game, but not "wrong". If you don't enjoy a game no matter what you do, it's not that you're playing it "wrong", it's that the dev made it "wrong"

And for the "They just like games that hold your hand! Gamers are so lazy nowadays!" argument, here's my response:
Having to practice to BEAT a game is different than having to practice to ENJOY a game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I didn't even think about multiplayer games when I posted. Anyone just camping for kills (not camping/defending objective points) in an objective-based game are playing the game wrong and not helping the team win. I hate campers in online games, not enemy campers but campers on my team.

Yeah, because camping for kills in a Team Deathmatch and dying as little as possible is clearly the wrong way to win.

Team Deathmatch isn't an objective-based mode and don't respond with "killing is an objective." You know the kind of objective-based modes I'm talking about. Yeah, in team deathmatch you do whatever it takes to get kills while not getting yourself killed. In the MAG beta (the example I used), there was no team deathmatch mode to even play, I'm not sure if they added TDM to the main game though.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And for the "They just like games that hold your hand! Gamers are so lazy nowadays!" argument, here's my response:
Having to practice to BEAT a game is different than having to practice to ENJOY a game.

True, there's definitely some fine lines here. Some gamers have more patience in practicing to "get good" to beat a game than others; some people enjoy refining their skills more than others. I think there's times when players just quit far too quickly because they've hit a bit of a roadblock and then say the game is broken and sucks just because they didn't even try to find a way to progress past the roadblock.

 

[NickCaligo42]

The game I played wrong was inFamous. I was trying to go commando with it like some kind of Force Unleashed-meets-third-person-shooter type of game, what with all the mind-blowingly flashy powers. In reality it's a game about using your environment cleverly, sometimes to the point of avoiding a fight rather than picking one. I understood this better after having played Sucker Punch's Sly Cooper games (hadn't laid my hands on any of them until AFTER I tried and failed at inFamous), but the way it originally presented itself to me was more the "guns blazing" type of game, and it certainly makes no effort to correct this style of play.

The thing that stuck out as a misleading element in the gameplay itself as opposed to the presentation element... well, you gain EXP for killing enemies. That means I am rewarded for slaying as many of them as humanly possible and literally need to cleanse the streets of them to get the most benefit. Slightly contradictory game design there.

 

[Joshica Huracane]

I dunno, if you're honestly TRYING to play wrong, then yes. If you're genuinely trying to play the game as you would any other game, then I don't think there is. That is, to say, that in multiplayer games, you can play incredibly stupidly... but it still isn't "wrong".

 

[Zantos]

Well in Bulletstorm multiplayer, people were trying to rack up as many kills as they could, no bothering to think about the whole teamwork aspect. That was pretty wrong, and damn annoying.

Most of the time though the only way to play the game wrong is to just not have fun with it. You should always be able to derive some fun from each part of a videogame, or at least there should be the option to. For instance, people say the combat in the mass effect games is really dull and repetitive and that's why they don't like it. Bioware gave you enough guns, biotic and tech powers and squadmates to never have to do the same thing twice. If you're choosing to do it in a single rigid way the same way every time then complaining about it being boring then I'd say that's playing it wrong. Change a few things and that also works for Assassin's Creed.

 

[MAUSZX]

You make a perfect example how you can waste ur time with the same technique in all games, Vanquish is a game with so much potential.