When do you "Forgive" a game for its negatives?

[Not Gabe Newell]

I forgive a game's flaws if the overall game was fun or enjoyable.


Take for instance, Dante's Inferno. Hammy voice acting, repetitive combat, and the overall bastardizing of a classical poem.


Then again, you get to beat the shit out of the Grim Reaper, take his scythe, then stab Satan in the heart with it. So, ya know...

 

[PBMcNair]

alpha protocol.

Damn, I keep hearing about this game and how good it is, despite the poor critic reception, it seems to have become a cult hit. Is it really that good?

For me, yes. There are so many ways to handle the various missions and character interactions, it gives you little perks for completing certain tasks(like taking down a certain number of enemies in melee gives you a melee damage boost) and there are plenty of hidden things to keep you coming back. Also Stephen Heck, he's fun.

It has its issues like the OP pistols, checkpoints that prevent backtracking and the boss fights can be pretty much impossible if you don't have at least some combat skills.
But its well worth it, if you can get into it.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I don't usually forgive a game's flaws. I just don't notice them.

Assuming there's one or more other aspects of the game that are fun enough to command all my attention.

 

[Gatx]

When it has giant fucking robots, though that wasn't enough to save Front Mission Evolved. I seriously do not like that game.

 

[WoW Killer]

Sometimes I think I see potential more than I do the real game. Take Skyrim, or TES games in general, in fact. Now I'm a big fan of those games, but there are obvious negatives particularly in regards to the core gameplay (i.e. the combat). And as it happens, I'm very much centered around gameplay as a player, I mean I criticise games often for getting the superficial things right without having good gameplay. So the TES series is a bit of an anomaly to me because I should hate it, and actually I don't. So I think maybe I'm just looking at it and saying "if this had good combat, how good would it be?" and then I'm thinking about that game in my head rather than the one in front of my as I'm actually playing it.

 

[Malevolentcafe]

When do I forgive a game for it's faults? When it's faults make the game significantly funnier, or when it's Zelda.

 

[OldKingClancy]

Not sure if this is what you mean but it's close enough

For the longest time I hated The Last Of Us, I found the whole thing to be an exercise in frustrated anger and rage. But I kept playing it because I loved the story and the characters and I wanted to find out more.

Because I had that motivation I was able to learn more about playing the game to the point where the frustration was gone and I was left with a game that turned out to be pretty damn good and one that I'll happily play again.

When the positive aspect of a game can trump the negatives to the point where you can forgive and forget, that's the sign of a good game.

 

[ThreeName]

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is the obvious choice. Bugged up the arse, but a fucking amazing game. Fallout: New Vegas shares similar reasoning, but it was amazing in a totally different way.

If I can say Deus Ex for it's shitty graphics and atrocious voice acting, I'll put it down as well.

THAT FUCKING AUSTRALIAN ONE ARGH

 

[Nexxis]

Sonic Adventure & Sonic Adventure 2: Battle
I love these two games. I played the 2nd one first and, despite the wonky camera and infuriating rail grinding sections (things that many people condemn the game for), I love the story, characters, music, and the chao portions of the game. The camera was still a bit of an issue for the first one as well, but the biggest annoyance for me were the animations. I understood that it was an older game, but the facial animations were beyond laughable. I liked the 2nd one better than the first, but the exploration and story hooked me on the first one.

In general, I'll forgive the negatives of a game if it has something that can compensate for it or, at the very least, distract me from them.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Ye gods, that opening post.

Anyway, the question at the end of the day is whether I'm enjoying myself at all, whether the game is fun. If it isn't, there's nothing that can save it in my eyes.

 

[LAGG]

When the gameplay is very good; or almost good and it's easily moddable into someting better; or almost good and the game has an awesome atmosphere and is not very linear; or not very good but tried to inovate and make something nice, specially if easily moddable.

 

[Fijiman]

I can forgive a games flaws(though I'll still harp on them for hours on end) if they are not game breaking and I can still enjoy the game despite those flaws.

 

[Legomaniac91_v1legacy]

I've found that I can forgive a game's flaws If i can say that I had fun playing it. That is probably the most important thing to remember when talking about a game

 

[StriderShinryu]

Quite simply, when I enjoy the experience anyway.

This is probably the most succinct way to put it, and it mirrors my own opinion.

It's never a case of totally overlooking or ignoring the flaws a game has, and it's never as simple as some sort of pseudo mathematical equation where as long as there are more quantifiable positives than negatives then game = good. It's really just when the experience as a whole is still an enjoyable one regardless of how many flaws exist or how large they are.

 

[floppylobster]

When it doesn't let a few bugs stand in the way of its ambition.

As long as the core idea is interesting I don't mind if it's rough around the edges. Games like Body Harvest.

Which now turns my first statement into a pun.

 

[Negatempest]

Depends on the flaws as others have said. I have personally given up on Bethesda games for that reason. It's only so many times you can forgive random freezes before you put the game down and say, "Enough is enough." I beat Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I did not and do not want to play Skyrim for that reason.

 

[itsausernamewhatofit]

Not sure what sort of question this is; I overlook faults when I enjoy the game despite them. There's not really a set condition for it. I just bought a copy of Resident Evil: Revelations fully aware that the story would be cheesy and the controls would be a bit dodgy. I'm still playing it because I enjoy the experience. Hell, I absolutely adore Operation Darkness (points for anyone who knows what that is, bonus if you played it) despite the fact that it was a failure in virtually every way and was immediately forgotten. But I mean, it's a fun tactical strategy game where you command British special forces werewolves killing vampire Nazis and shooting fire, it's way too bizarre and fun to not overlook its many glaring issues.

 

[nexus]

Usually when it's original. Or when it's obvious the developers worked very hard to give you a very specific, immersive experience. STALKER is a good example, it's a pretty terrible shooter in all honesty, feels really clunky but overall the experience is excellent.

When the writing is solid, and the story is paced well.

When I'm able to "live through my character", because of customization or interactive behaviors/traits. Roleplaying, in short.

When the game has overwhelming scale, or scope - ala Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto.

 

[Jack Nief]

Lair had a bunch of issues with me. The camera. The controls. The annoying missions. But in the end, I had a flying dragon game (yaaaaay) with a really nice soundtrack (yaaaaay).

Saints Row Third.... well this is kind of cheating, I actually very much regretted Saints Row 3's purchase, but I actually got lucky in that I got it on PC, which meant I had access to a whole load of mods before too long, including Johnny Gat as a Homie, Mission and Cutscene Replay, Reward vehicle coloring, and the Nyteblade outfit... which still hasn't gotten an official release yet.