Poll: Consistently good or half spectacular?

Recommended Videos

M0rp43vs

Most Refined Escapist
Jul 4, 2008
2,249
0
0
Basically the "100% hit 1-dmg sword vs 50% hit 2-dmg sword" discussion but applied to books, games and movies.

On one hand, we have a piece of media where everything is competently done from start to finish. The story has a goes at a uniform pace with a nice arc, Gameplay stays good throughout and levels have a consistent level of fun and difficulty, bugs are few and far in between and all characters are neat act how they are supposed to act. Your interest never wanes and at the very worst, some parts just dip to above-average but rarely for long. If there was a percentage review, it'd be a good 75%.
Examples that spring to mind would be Big blockbusters stuff like Avengers or Skyrim.

On the other hand, we have this media where quite a bit of it is Meh. Some of the characters are dull as dishwater, some levels are forgettable at best and annoyingly frustrating at worst, and there are moments where the story just shits itself. Just as you are about to write it off, you hit a setpiece or moment, meet a character or start a level that defies all expectations with how amazing they are, where you would immediately call your friend to talk about hem and you'd be so satunned that you would ignore all the past boredom and the next half hour of tedium. Its just sad that the next amazing part is an hour away. Reviews would award it 90% if the rest of it wasn't a 60%.
Examples to me would be stuff like Morrowind, Pacific Rim or the new Godzilla.

Now imagine you are at a store with enough money to buy one of these. And for the purpose of discussion, lets say you DON'T pirate or shoplift it because the point of this question is learning your preference. Smartass. Which would you buy? Can you name any piece of media which fit either criteria.

For choices, I chose to ignore those rare transcendent stories where everything is amazing. I also thought not to include both because I knew give the choice that's what most will pick.
That said, I did add the third choice of picking up an Uwe Boll movie in this hypothetical.
For those hipsters who know that stuff that is good is mainstream.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Avengers and Skyrim over Pacific Rim and Morrowind any day!

Considering I almost fell asleep during the not good bits of Godzilla, I'm not a person who's willing to sit through 1,5 hrs of shit to get to the parts that are supposed to be good.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Depends on whether or not I can fast forward to the good bits.

So for your Godzilla example I'm not going to watch it in a movie theatre.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
This is always a difficult question.

But, I tend to go for the half spectacular, because you forget about the ordinary, competent stuff.

And, people need to try and be spectacular, and risk being mediocre, rather than keep doing run of the mill stuff, otherwise there's no innovation, we just end up with constant blatherings we've all seen before.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Consistency any day.

I'd say it takes for more effort and skill to get something that's consistently good, that shows true understanding of the medium being used. Because true understanding isn't just about recognising what works but, in my opinion even more importantly, about knowing what doesn't work.

Half spectacular means the other half isn't good and thus the author, developer or whatever didn't really get what made that spectacular half spectacular as well as not understanding why the other half didn't work.

I also wouldn't call Morrowind an example of something half spectacular. That's only to those that can't see it in the context of when it was released. It's like saying a black-and-white movie is half spectacular because there's no colour. Morrowind, in it's time, was consistently good. It looked great, it played great and it ran great when viewed from the context of the technology available at its' release. The simple fact that even when viewed from the context of today's technology parts of it manage to be seen as spectacular attests to that.
 

Dr. Cakey

New member
Feb 1, 2011
517
0
0
Well, the only part of Godzilla I didn't like was when Godzilla and the MUTOs fought, so...

In the past I would have answered that consistently good is better than sometimes great, but I don't feel that way any more. "Consistently good" (but never more than that) means disposable, means I have no reason to ever watch or read or play this thing again. "Sometimes great" hopefully, hopefully means experimenting, pioneering, or pushing boundaries in pursuit of excellence.

EDIT: But a 100%-hit 1-dmg sword >>>>>> 50%-hit 2-dmg sword.
 

wuggles

New member
May 3, 2013
8
0
0
Consistency. That's the main problem I had with "Community". The show was great when it was great, but when it was bad, it was BAD (and usually weird). Also from a business-ish standpoint, consistently good/great means that it won't get canceled anytime soon. For example, I think "Community" failed to get better ratings because a lot of the 4th season was so bad and they couldn't recover no matter how good the 5th season was. Overall though, I would prefer 50% good and 50% great.