Bad games that got GOOD reviews

i7omahawki

New member
Mar 22, 2010
298
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
If that's where the discussion lies then the thread should be 'Well-received games you didn't like' or something to that effect. By claiming a game is bad, the poster is implying that their opinion is more valid than someone else's, which is simply not the case.
Actually no, they aren't implying anything of the sort. What they are implying is that their judgement (which used to be synonymous with opinion) is that these games are bad. This means that they will be required to qualify this judgement before others, not just have everyone accept it as fact.

What kind of world do we live in where people can't make definitive statements and speak with purpose and clarity for fear of driving others out of their own opinions?

I think it shows far less respect for others to assume that they can't defend their own points of view from being usurped by an essentially anonymous online post, than to assume superiority in judgement and providing reasons why.

I also rather take issue with this sentence:

Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?
What are 'better, more enjoyable games'? Because, as you already stated, we can't tell people whether they liked a game or not. That sentence really sounds like you think people have the right to tell others why they're wrong to like the games they like and to tell them they should like 'better' games. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's how it sounds.
This is easy to qualify. While it is true that we cannot dictate to people what they like or dislike we can (in a way roughly analogous to diet and health) recommend what is good or better. I can't tell you that you don't like doughnuts, but I can tell you (even if I'm not a doctor) that too many doughnuts are bad for you, why not try, say, an apple?

It is also easy to distinguish what is better or worse from a position that has knowledge of both states. If someone has experienced two games, and another two people have only experienced one of those games each, who has a superior judgement on the relative quality of said games?

It is obvious and uncontroversial that someone with knowledge of both has a better judgement than somebody who has knowledge of only one. This is why we have game reviewers, people expected to be better qualified to judge games based on merits, not solely on likes/dislikes.

Finally, I'll point out that your position of letting everyone have their say conflicts to a critical extent with you calling anyone else out on their observations. By saying that we each have opinions which can be aired unqualified and held as equally valid you cannot, without contradicting yourself, correct or criticize anyone else's opinion on anything. Your position of relativism is self-referentially incoherent, meaning that a derived point of your argument is that someone who disagrees with you is as right as you are, and therefore you hold that you are wrong. Needless to say, this is a compromising position, and as I said before, it is rather insulting to assume that someone can be bested out of their own opinion simply because someone states something without prefacing it with 'This is just my opinion'.

How do people expect video games (or anything else for that matter) to improve if we don't establish some points of contention where one thing can be judged superior to another? The method of counting numbers or money leaves us with dull and drab 'by-the-numbers' gaming, something I think all of us can do without. We can disagree, sure, but lets make it interesting shall we?
 

kayisking

New member
Sep 14, 2010
676
0
0
Mr Shrike said:
Call of Duty 4 through 7.

OT: I would say the Pokemon games. There's just something I don't "get" with them. It was never a large part of my childhood, and I don't understand how people can give essentially the same game outstanding reviews.

Also, Dead Rising. Between awful camera, counter-intuitive controls, vague mission objectives and dull writing, I could not stand it and gave up after an hour.
Mate, you're not going to get flamed here because you're negative about COD, trust me on this one.

OT: GTA4, I hated that game.
 

b3nn3tt

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
i7omahawki said:
b3nn3tt said:
If that's where the discussion lies then the thread should be 'Well-received games you didn't like' or something to that effect. By claiming a game is bad, the poster is implying that their opinion is more valid than someone else's, which is simply not the case.
Actually no, they aren't implying anything of the sort. What they are implying is that their judgement (which used to be synonymous with opinion) is that these games are bad. This means that they will be required to qualify this judgement before others, not just have everyone accept it as fact.

What kind of world do we live in where people can't make definitive statements and speak with purpose and clarity for fear of driving others out of their own opinions?

I think it shows far less respect for others to assume that they can't defend their own points of view from being usurped by an essentially anonymous online post, than to assume superiority in judgement and providing reasons why.
But by calling a game bad, the implication is that there is some kind of objective measure, but enjoyment is an entirely subjective matter. You might think that a game's story is abysmal, the graphics are unbearably pixelated, the voice acting, and any number of other criticisms about a game, but I might think it a work of genius, and my favourite game ever. Who is right in this situation? The answer is neither of us, because there is no right answer.

I also rather take issue with this sentence:

Would you really rather just say 'Well that's just your opinion,' to everyone and thereby negate any criticism they might level which could improve your taste and therefore draw you to better, more enjoyable games?
What are 'better, more enjoyable games'? Because, as you already stated, we can't tell people whether they liked a game or not. That sentence really sounds like you think people have the right to tell others why they're wrong to like the games they like and to tell them they should like 'better' games. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it's how it sounds.
This is easy to qualify. While it is true that we cannot dictate to people what they like or dislike we can (in a way roughly analogous to diet and health) recommend what is good or better. I can't tell you that you don't like doughnuts, but I can tell you (even if I'm not a doctor) that too many doughnuts are bad for you, why not try, say, an apple?

It is also easy to distinguish what is better or worse from a position that has knowledge of both states. If someone has experienced two games, and another two people have only experienced one of those games each, who has a superior judgement on the relative quality of said games?

It is obvious and uncontroversial that someone with knowledge of both has a better judgement than somebody who has knowledge of only one. This is why we have game reviewers, people expected to be better qualified to judge games based on merits, not solely on likes/dislikes.
The person who has experienced both is certainly more qualified to discuss the two games, and perhaps make a recommendation, but they can't say which is 'better' because better is a subjective term. They can discuss the pros and cons of a given game as they see them, but that is not to say that everyone will see it that way. For example, there might be one feature that makes Person A absolutely loathe a game, but Person B may love it.

Finally, I'll point out that your position of letting everyone have their say conflicts to a critical extent with you calling anyone else out on their observations. By saying that we each have opinions which can be aired unqualified and held as equally valid you cannot, without contradicting yourself, correct or criticize anyone else's opinion on anything. Your position of relativism is self-referentially incoherent, meaning that a derived point of your argument is that someone who disagrees with you is as right as you are, and therefore you hold that you are wrong. Needless to say, this is a compromising position, and as I said before, it is rather insulting to assume that someone can be bested out of their own opinion simply because someone states something without prefacing it with 'This is just my opinion'.

How do people expect video games (or anything else for that matter) to improve if we don't establish some points of contention where one thing can be judged superior to another? The method of counting numbers or money leaves us with dull and drab 'by-the-numbers' gaming, something I think all of us can do without. We can disagree, sure, but lets make it interesting shall we?
I wouldn't try to correct anyone's judgement. I absolutely would not say that somebody is wrong in their opinion of a subjective matter, because by the very nature of subjectivity there is no wrong answer. In the case of a game, two people can have completely opposing viewpoints on whether the game is good or bad and both arguments are equally right. This does not, however, mean that they are both also wrong.

So in the context of this thread, and to use the example you gave, you are claiming that GTA IV is a bad game. Obviously, that is your opinion, but to me, because neither the thread title nor you have acknowledged that fact, it comes across that you think there is an objective way of measuring whether a game is good or bad. Anyone who considered the game good is by extension wrong. That's what I'm getting at, is that by insinuating that there are objective measures for how 'good' or 'bad' a game is you are telling other people that their opinion is wrong, when it is actually just as valid as your's.
 

i7omahawki

New member
Mar 22, 2010
298
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
No, using the terms 'good' and 'bad' doesn't suggest an objective value-system. You assume that, and that assumption is wrong.

Also, everyone's beliefs aren't equal and not everybody's beliefs are valid. Otherwise a murderer cannot be punished if he does not see it as a crime and a scientist cannot be a voice of authority despite having a clearer idea of what he is studying.

Someone may suggest that GTA IV is a bad game 'because it sucks', which is not a valid answer, but is heard often enough.

I deliberately distinguished between 'opinion' and 'judgement', despite the fact that the terms used to be synonymous. I did this for a reason, which is that my personal, subjective experience (whether I like X, Y or Z) cannot be questioned, but my inter-subjective judgement (whether I think X is good or bad) can be questioned, and should be.

The point is that I cannot tell you what you enjoy, but we can talk about what is good and bad. We may not agree, and have different systems of judging good and bad, but the important fact is that we can discuss it and come to some conclusions.

It is utterly useless, vain and weak to suggest that we should hold anybody's opinion with the utmost respect and never question them, nor ever state that our position is any better than another's. You are adhering to this view by questioning my outlook right now, yet paradoxically purporting that all opinions are equal. You cannot have both.

Let's try an easy, simple example, to demonstrate clearly that to like something (subjectively) is different in kind to thinking something is good (inter-subjectively). Say I'm allergic to nuts, but my family harvest nuts for a living, and are experts in regards to all things nutty. I will therefore not like nuts whilst also being able to tell you which nuts are best. Clearly, liking something and knowing the quality of something are two distinct things, and by conflating them you put us in a position where we can't discuss the quality of anything, and can merely record who likes what.

As my previous example showed, a doctor can advise that you have a diet you might not necessarily like, but that is doubtless better for you. It is not a simple process to translate this into video gaming, as health is something which is easier to monitor, but the point remains that it is very goddamn important to distinguish the goodness or badness of a thing in order to improve it. Relying on 'who likes what' without needing the qualification of those views gets us nowhere. But careful examination of games, and judgements on them, even when they don't coincide and offer different perspectives on what is good or bad, are vital in improving something.

It is ridiculous to try and quell a conversation about the quality of something people are passionate about, and even more absurd to argue with someone that every opinion is valid. People should discuss, and argue, about games and everything else. We don't need people to validate our opinions for the sake of our self-esteem, we should gain self-esteem by adequately defending what we believe.
 

NBSRDan

New member
Aug 15, 2009
510
0
0
Half-Life 2 is undoubtedly the best example of this. Every aspect of the game is complete failure, yet I couldn't find a negative review of it if my life depended on it. It got a ridiculous number of "Game of the Year" awards, and one magazine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_PC] even rated it an 'eleven out of ten'.
 

b3nn3tt

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
i7omahawki said:
b3nn3tt said:
snip
Ok, I understand your distinction between opinion and judgement, and now see where you're coming from. I never said that people couldn't discuss the merits of items, such as games, and in fact I fully agree that those discussions are incredibly useful. My only problem stems from the terminology used; to me, saying that something is 'better' makes it sounds objective. However, if someone instead said that they prefer something, that is fine with me. Or prefaced it with 'in my opinion'. Neither or these proclude discussion over the various merits and downsides of a particular game (to stick with the example).

So if we were having a conversation about Game A and Game B, I would have no problem with you saing 'I preferred game A, because of these good points.' I may then follow with 'In my opinion, Game B is better. I disliked these points about Game A, but enojyed these points in Game B' and so on. I hugely enjoy those kinds of discussions, as they can help to reinforce your opinions as to why you like something and hopefully make you see some aspects of it in a different light.

Reading back what I've just written, my only problem is really semantics. I agree with just about everything else you've said, it's just the issue of how we should phrase our opinions that I took issue with.

I would disagree, however, with your examples about nuts and healthy lifestyles, as there is actually an objective answer to that. There is scientific evidence to back up the idea that eating more fruit is better for you, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that one game is better than another.
 

i7omahawki

New member
Mar 22, 2010
298
0
0
b3nn3tt said:
i7omahawki said:
b3nn3tt said:
snip
snip
Aha! Once again semantics drive the disagreement, as they often do.

But yes, I do feel that through delving between our beliefs we have found something more valuable than a mere opinion, and that therein lies the importance of disagreement.

Tone is something incredibly difficult to express in text, so it is only natural I suppose that statements which provide only a judgement from an individual may easily come across as dogmatic and objective. I wouldn't wish to hold an objective system over anybody's head, but as I've said, I think it's important to disagree and discuss, not agree to disagree so to speak.

I'm aware that the analogy between health and video games is a tenuous one, it was mostly merely to drive the distinction between good/bad and like/dislike into clearer terms. Although I do think some games are better for people than others, and I do believe that video games as medium are a healthier cultural product to digest than almost any other, purely because the activity required keeps the mind active, rather that sedating its audience. But yes, it is far from conclusive and I wouldn't try and represent it as identical with say, eating apples versus eating doughnuts.

Back on topic, I've thought of a more controversial choice, which is Bioshock.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the game is outright bad, but point out that despite its excellence in certain areas (the Andrew Ryan twist, obviously) it has just as many drawbacks which do it harm.

The thing most prominent to me is its reliance on a good/evil moral choice system which doesn't interact in any meaningful way with the Randian philosophy that is being explored everywhere else in the game. Also, the lack of punishment (from what I remember) for death seems completely illogical, as a connection between money and survival would serve as a far more powerful critique of Ayn Rand than a black and white morality system. Maybe little sisters could be harvested for lives as well as Adam, which leads sensibly to the splicers which dominate Rapture.

Again, I wouldn't say the game was bad, but it was definitely wanting in some areas to make it as good as most of the reviews say it is.
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
CoD MW2, Black Ops, WaW... (they're all repeats using a broken game engine)

Dead Island, Borderlands... (Just felt outright tacky with no real depth)

Final Fantasy's... (7 was good; all after suck)

New Vegas, Skate 3, Shift, Pure, The Saboteur, Mercenaries 2, TC's EndWar and most of all UT3... (All had massive potential but felt... flat, repetitive, shallow, cheap and no where near as good as they should have been/ as good as their predecessors)

Lost Planet 2, Devil May Cry, Far Cry 2, & MW2 are in my Top 5 most hated games list for being outright poorly designed, marketed & programmed; consisting of repetative story, horridly unfair multiplayer and littered with obvious pointers to whole sections being copied & pasted from prequels. Their hype was way over the top. MW2 holds the No.1 spot which is funny as MW1 is in my Top 5 games of all time!
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Xavier323 said:
Starke said:
Only at the most abstract level. By that definition someone masturbating in the bathroom is a plot. Though even under that definition, Mass Effect is dodgy at best.
For one thing there is no narrative climax. A plot is more than "random stuff happens, and then a goat giant terminator baby". A plot implies that there are some connective themes, elements, or just goddamn anthropomorphic rabbits, anything. Anything is precisely what we don't get here, every single mission is isolated off into its own little sub-continuity streams with minimal regard for what has happened elsewhere.
Why should we need another definition? The only contention I'm putting forward is that there exists a plot in Mass Effect 2. The word implies only that there is a deliberate series of events in a particular order so as to illicit an understanding. The events in the game are not random as you claim, nor is there a lack of cohesiveness between them.

The merit of the format of the plot is a different discussion. However, just because the game is broken into subplot "missions" does not mean it is discontinuous. One could argue that this format is necessitated by the goals of the game designers, namely that the game gives choice to the player in terms of the order of events and decisions (more on that later).
No, the mere act of splitting the game into individual segmented missions presented in the order the player chooses does not invalidate the possibility of a plot. The absence of a plot, and the lack of any narrative interconnectivity between those missions is what invalidates the possibility of a plot.

You yourself phrased it as "stuff happens" but, again, the shit that happens is completely random. Let's compare for a moment.

In the first game, you can Rescue Liara, go freeze your ass off, or go get shot at by geth. Rescuing Liara will give you a small piece of what Saren is after, and she will be able to offer more insight after each of the other two missions. Freezing your ass off will give you an idea of WHERE Seren is trying to go, and getting shot at by geth tells you how Seren planed to interpret the data he was getting his hands on. Completing two of these will let you go off and kill the squad member that's annoying you the most (a win for me), and also gives you more information, which Liara can help you process.

In rough terms all of these work towards understanding the setting, and building towards a cohesive whole. You know, events that aren't random, that are all precipitated by one individual, and it's also the person you're trying to find.

Additionally, Eden Prime, The Citadel, T'Sonni's world/Noveria/Feros (as a set), Vermire, Ilos, and the final crawl up the spire do demonstrate an increase in tension, heading towards a narrative and gameplay climax. (There is a bit of wierdness where you can insert Vermire before one of the previous set, but, whatever, these things happen, and Vermire sets up for an after the storm lull).

In contrast, none of the recruitment, except Mordin's are in any way vital to the overall plot. No one else brings any ability to the crew that cannot be replaced with a disposable meatshield. I listed Grunt's recruitment, but that's because the intent of the recruitment mission, the oddly Irish sounding named krogen would, like Mordin represent an irreplacable crew member. Of course, that's not what happens, but I'm less inclined to mock it outright.

That said, Thane, Samara, Talli, Garrus, Jack... especially fuckin' Jack, are all completely fuckin' irrelevant to the narrative, and their recruitment missions are at best distractions from what should be the plot of the game.

None of the recruitment missions, except Legion's (and, I suppose Jacob's and Miranda's if you want to call it that) have any direct implications for a potential plot, and Mordin's actually does start up a potential plot only to let it die the instant he boards the ship.

EDIT: No, wait, Jacob and Miranda's introduction mission is completely irrelevant, I forgot.

Again, this game has a plot, much the way a teenage girl's scrap book has a plot. "I was there, shit happened, I met these people, the end, turn the page."

Xavier323 said:
Starke said:
If the only missions in the game were the tutorial mission, the first colony, recruiting Mordin, recruiting Grunt (maybe), the second colony, the collector ship, the derelict, and the endgame, and you might be able to convincingly claim the game has a plot, unfortunately, that represents about 12% of the game, and the remaining 88% has nothing to do with anything, and a bit more than half of the game is mandatory to progress the game triggers.
So your argument is that only 12% of the game is actual plot, while 88% is irrelevant and only serves to muddle it up? Therefore a plot does not exist? I guess Oblivion doesn't have a plot, nor does the Empire Strikes Back. No, that tells me that there is much more content between the major plot points than in a normal work. The difference and challenge of writing a story for a video game is that, unlike film or books, there is much less of a constraint on content. Movies are two hours, games like ME2 are 25 hours plus. A story must then either be much more complex or more extensive and sometimes extraneous.
It's not the amount that's at issue here. The problem is this: For there to be a plot, there needs to be some kind of consistent theme. About 12% of the game has a consistent theme, dealing with the collectors, and what they've affected from one perspective or another, and, if we were talking about a TV series, or a comicbook, that'd probably be fine to say there's a weakly represented metaplot in place. Unfortunately, to get that 12% out and say that that's this game's plot requires us to edit the work itself, cutting out huge amounts of wasted content in order to argue that it has a plot. Now, as anyone with any training in content analysis will tell you, that's cheating. Also, it's probably worth pointing out, a metaplot isn't a plot, it's a mechanic in TV that refers to an ongoing overarching story occurring in the background, that isn't, but some day may become, the focus of the series.

So, let's go through your counter examples. Oblivion is an amusing side note because, you're right, the game itself doesn't have a plot, it's a sandbox, go anywhere, do anything, kill anyone. But, it does actually have one... well, five. Six if you count Knights of the Nine. Each of the factions has a coherent plot thread, with different themes, the Mages are dealing with dissension from the Necromancers, the Fighters Guild are dealing with a new competitor, the Thieves Gulid are trying to reclaim their place, the Dark Brotherhood move from simply killin' dudes for money to a scrabble to survive once it becomes apparent they've been betrayed from within, and of course the main quest revolves around saving the world from an invasion by hell. Well, Mehrunes Dagon's plane of Oblivion, but still. If we're counting the DLC, Knights of the Nine has you reforming the order, and going on a quest to find artifacts so you can fight off a greater evil.

It's probably worth holding KotN up in comparison to ME2 though, and here's why: Both spend most of their plot sending you around randomly collecting bits (artifacts in KotN and characters in ME2) with a goal of ultimately defeating something evil. The difference is, none of the Artifacts of the Crusader are expendable. Mechanically you need all of them, and they tend to build into a common theme of the dominant religion in Tamerial, explaining some aspects of its mythology. Additionally, collecting pieces does from time to time actually unlock methods of accessing other pieces. While with ME2 it doesn't matter, you can ignore Samara and leave her to rot over there in the corner, and not come back and say hi until long after the reaper threat is over. Or for that matter anyone else who isn't Jack, Grunt, Mordin or Garrus. Sure, Samara is the best choice for the biotic bubble, but there literally isn't anything you can assign Thane to that isn't better handled by someone else.

As for Empire Strikes Back? Yeah, that's kinda funny. Good one.

Now, if you want to say games can't have plots, go back and play the original Mass Effect. As discussed earlier, it's got a plot. If you so choose, you can wander off and fuck around until the galaxy burns, but there is a coherent plot, unlike, you know, ME2. For bonus points, the games clock in at about the same length on a straight playthrough, and a full completionist playthough actually takes longer in ME1 than 2.

Xavier323 said:
Starke said:
As a result, this isn't a plot. Hell, ignoring the endgame map, there isn't even a real gameplay climax. Each recruitment and loyalty mission has some combat challenge escalation as it progresses, but, honestly, the missions don't generate a sense of increasing stakes, or difficulty.
Look, I agree that the giant terminator baby idea is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that it's on the mission that is obviously intended to be the climax. The entire game all they talk about is going through the Omega 4 relay. I don't think difficulty progression really factors into this. The game ends with an extensive boss battle; I'd say that counts as a "gameplay climax."
Yeah, but there's no escalation, and no real consistency. Now maybe I'm forgetting something, but as I recall, the boss fight at the end of ME2 is based on different mechanics from the rest of the game. Unless I'm forgetting other giant multi-stage "shoot me in my giant glowing weak spot" enemies I'm forgetting. It's not a climax, it's a "and then a goat" moment.

Xavier323 said:
nightwolf667 said:
The side portions of Mass Effect 2 have plots, the companion collection quests and the loyalty quests, but each plays out more like its own short episode in a television series rather than part of the cohesive whole. There's a plot there, a beginning, middle, end, climax and denouement where they reflect on their actions and wind down. These are actually very good.
However, Shepard's story, the main plot of the game is virtually non-existent. To have a plot, or even a character arc, the character is required to end up in a place that is different from where they started. What was the point of stopping the Collectors? Yes, they were puppets of the Reapers and yes, they were creating a "Human Baby whatever". Why? Who cares. It doesn't actually matter. It's a mcguffin, but it means nothing to Shepherd's overall story. The Horizon mission the Collector's ship/the Derelict Reaper, and the Collector's Base. There's nothing connecting these threads together except the Illusive Man. These are events, not plot points.
A plot requires that a character have a journey, that they learn something, and that they end up in a place at the end of the story that is different than where they began.
I see what you're saying. Within the story of Commander Shepard fighting the Reapers, ME2 is basically unimportant filler. In a sense, the game is more of a spinoff or bridge than a true narrative sequel. As such, however, it makes main character development less important in a three game arc. You don't expect a character to have some great introspective revelation in every single game do you? Also, I have to point out that a character arc is not required in a plot. Look at ancient Greek tragedy or any ancient epic; the hero or heroes don?t always change. Often, they are static. We do not say these works have no plot based on these grounds.
Greek Tragedy is defined exclusively by its character arcs, and how those differ from character arcs in other genres.

Xavier323 said:
nightwolf667 said:
I could argue that Shepherd's death at the hands of the Collectors at the beginning is meaningless, and it is. Shepherd gains nothing from it and learns nothing from it.
Well, I would say that the beginning has a few purposes. One could surmise that served the purpose of justifying the player being able to re-customize their character. Assuming that's not the only reason, I think I could offer a few. For one, they reference the Bible when they name it the Lazarus project. One could also draw parallels to Nietzche?s Superman Ubermensch among other things. As well as being unexpected, it tries to make the player dislike the Collectors.
You know why you never see that translated into English? Because it's not the same goddamn concept. Shepard is to the Ubermensch what Jack Bauer is to a trauma surgeon.

Drawing direct biblical comparisons? Yeah, that's edgy... for the 1500s. The fact of the matter is, biblical alliterations are an intellectual low hanging fruit, and have been for nearly a thousand years. If you want to say calling your project to bring someone back from the fucking dead "Lazarus" is clever, you need to get out and consume more quality media. It might also be a good idea to never mention the words "Nietzsche" or "Ubermensch" again until after you've actually read some of his work, and have a functional understanding of it that doesn't include TV tropes.

The only function of waxing Shepard at the beginning of the game is to let the player re-roll the character, and to let Bioware redesign the Normandy. Are these valid things to do from a gameplay perspective? Sure. Is the method they coaxed it into the story valid so it has to be explained in character? No. It's at best condecending, saying, "hey, we shuffled up the character generation system in this game, but we don't trust you to be able to figure that out if we don't hold your hand through it."

Now... if they waxed Shepard at the beginning of ME2, and you spent the game playing as someone else, like Jacob, only to have Shepard being brought back for ME3? That might have at least had some legitimate shock value.

EDIT: Also, the collectors are in a shooter, and they're not you. Wanting to kill them isn't a function of liking them, it's a function of "I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one." Unless, you're saying we're supposed to blame the collectors for Cerberus' team pants on head naming scheme.

Xavier323 said:
That brings me to another point about video game characters that I think is important. Shepard serves as more than a mere character. The medium of the video game is distinct from that of any other in a very interesting way, methinks. The folly of many games is to directly imitate other mediums. By giving the player choices (or at least some semblance of choice), giving the option to customize the character, and making the plot less linear, the player can not only witness the experience but feel as if he/she is a part of it. Shepard is a canvas for the player to project him/herself.
nightwolf667 said:
We have Cerberus as a stand in for the Alliance, but there is literally difference between them. Shepherd could have been working for Alliance and it would have been the same game. Shepherd gains nothing and learns nothing (except for the shiny ship and the leather, but that's not plot or character growth now is it?).
I would contend that Cerberus adds a whole different element to the game and to player choice. It exemplifies the theme of moral ambiguity in that the player must choose between what is right for humans and what is right for everyone (this, of course, is also present in the end of ME1). All of this is not relevant to the plot and at this point, so you're correct in saying that they?re a stand in for the Alliance of the first game. However, I suspect that in Mass Effect 3 their circumspective purpose will be much distinguished from the Alliance.
If Cerberus actually added a level of moral ambiguity? Sure. But it doesn't.

Shepard: "Hey, you're those guys that wiped out my whole team and kept my buddy alive for tests of dubious scientific value. Fuck you."
Tim: "That was a rogue operation."
Shepard: "Okay."
---
Shepard: "Hey, you're that fucker that killed Admiral Whatsisname in the last game."
Tim: "That was a rogue operation."
Shepard: "Okay."
---
Shepard: "Hey, you fucked up Jack pretty good."
Tim: "That was a rouge operation."
Shepard: "Okay."

The list goes on. There is no difference in the moral system between games. There's also no narrative impact of any of this. Aside from voice actors, Tim is exactly as oblivious and unhelpful as Udina and Anderson combined... into one hideous mind breaking amalgamation with a side of that turian councilor.

Then again, like Captain "It was about 20 years ago" Anderson, Tim is a walking exposition dispenser... well, actually he might not even be ambulatory, I'm not sure, not a character.

Xavier323 said:
nightwolf667 said:
In fact, if one wiped out the events in the game that act as the main plot...we'd still have the exact same game.
Not true. There would be far more people complaining that the game had no plot and was just a jumble of individually well thought out missions in no particular order. :)
Hardly. They can't tell that that's all it is now. If you cut those missions, the game would still get people heralding it's plot, while everyone with any experience as a writer would continue to look at it and vomit.

Xavier323 said:
Yeah.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Joby Baumann said:
Dfskelleton said:
The F.E.A.R. games. People always say that the second and third games were no where near as scary as the first, and while I can agree to that (in the sense that F.E.A.R. 2 was the most ridiculous attempt to squeeze in a few moments of frontal nudity at the cost what most fans found scary), I never found the first game that scary either. The first few times anything happened It was kind of creepy, but by the end, the game was getting so predictable that I was just saying "Guy's gonna jump out of that, lights will flicker up there, little girl will walk across hallway in front of me, etc. etc."
What happened to games like Condemned and Blood, Monolith? While reboots can flop, I wouldn't mind a current-gen reboot of Blood. That sort of game has a lot of potential on today's market, as long as you don't do what you did with Blood 2 (shudders at the thought of boring gameplay, stupid ending, and flimsy weapons)
never thought of fear as scary, but the gunplay in the first one was great, but then it got call of dutified in the second one...
The first one had some good jump scares, but, yeah, the gunplay was the real star of the game.

In a semi-nonsequitor, didn't Monolith also do AvP2?
 

b3nn3tt

New member
May 11, 2010
673
0
0
i7omahawki said:
b3nn3tt said:
i7omahawki said:
b3nn3tt said:
snip
snip
snip
I agree with you, again, that it is very helpful to fully discuss arguments with someone else. As I said, it helps strengthen your own views, and you might even be enlightened as to a different way of seeing things. For example, you made an interesting point about video games being better than other activities because they force you to keep your mind active, which is a point that I hadn't actually thought of before, but makes a lot of sense.

Back on topic, I've thought of a more controversial choice, which is Bioshock.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the game is outright bad, but point out that despite its excellence in certain areas (the Andrew Ryan twist, obviously) it has just as many drawbacks which do it harm.

The thing most prominent to me is its reliance on a good/evil moral choice system which doesn't interact in any meaningful way with the Randian philosophy that is being explored everywhere else in the game. Also, the lack of punishment (from what I remember) for death seems completely illogical, as a connection between money and survival would serve as a far more powerful critique of Ayn Rand than a black and white morality system. Maybe little sisters could be harvested for lives as well as Adam, which leads sensibly to the splicers which dominate Rapture.

Again, I wouldn't say the game was bad, but it was definitely wanting in some areas to make it as good as most of the reviews say it is.
I'm afraid that my knowledge of Ayn Rand is rather limited, so I'll trust you that the moral choice system doesn't fit very well with the overall philosophical tone. I'll also add that I don't think it really works very well in terms of gameplay either; moral choice systems in general are not very effective, but in Bioshock there is actually very little incentive to be 'evil' which rather negates the system in the first place. You can actually complete the game by dealing with only two or three little sisters, and if you do choose to deal with all of them the rewards are far greater for rescuing them than harvesting them.

I'll also agree that the lack of any kind of punishment for death does rather take away from the atmosphere of the game, but I would disagree that having a lives system would be an improvement, aas I think lives systems are very outdated. I think it would have been better served by simply having death take you back to the title screen and having to reload the game. Indeed, there is an option to turn off the Vita-chambers which makes death actually mean death. Again, this actually improves the gameplay, as it is far more tense wandering around trying to avoid splicers when you know that, should they kill you, you can't just pop back out and head back to swinging at them with a wrench with no consequence.

I would disagree with you that these problems reduce the game's quality overall. However, I will add the caveat that this is of course my subjective opinion of the game. In spite of it's drawbacks, both from a philosophical and gameplay perspective (including the boss fight, which we haven't mentioned), I contend that Bioshock remains a very well-made game with a highly involving story which really immerses the player. Coupled with that, the world of Rapture is wonderfully realised, aside from the obvious question of why the water level never seems to increase. I think the story alone sets the game well above many others released before or since, and the gameplay serves only to add to it, in spite of the aforementioned flaws.
 

Parkway91

New member
Sep 1, 2011
108
0
0
LA Noire. That game just really did nothing for me. Good idea, didn't exactly work in my opinion. Facial animation technology was impressive I must admit.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
NBSRDan said:
Half-Life 2 is undoubtedly the best example of this. Every aspect of the game is complete failure, yet I couldn't find a negative review of it if my life depended on it. It got a ridiculous number of "Game of the Year" awards, and one magazine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_PC] even rated it an 'eleven out of ten'.
I really wanna know why you believe HL2 is the best example. Pretty please.
 

Drummie666

New member
Jan 1, 2011
739
0
0
Metroid: Other M
Fallout 3
Mass Effect 2

I hated the first two with a passion and only disliked the third.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Nazulu said:
NBSRDan said:
Half-Life 2 is undoubtedly the best example of this. Every aspect of the game is complete failure, yet I couldn't find a negative review of it if my life depended on it. It got a ridiculous number of "Game of the Year" awards, and one magazine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_PC] even rated it an 'eleven out of ten'.
I really wanna know why you believe HL2 is the best example. Pretty please.
You gotta admit, though, 11 out of 10 is fucking excessive for any game.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
OhJohnNo said:
Nazulu said:
NBSRDan said:
Half-Life 2 is undoubtedly the best example of this. Every aspect of the game is complete failure, yet I couldn't find a negative review of it if my life depended on it. It got a ridiculous number of "Game of the Year" awards, and one magazine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_PC] even rated it an 'eleven out of ten'.
I really wanna know why you believe HL2 is the best example. Pretty please.
You gotta admit, though, 11 out of 10 is fucking excessive for any game.
Better than perfect? Obviously the reviewer loved it (too much), you know how fanboys are.

I believe most scores are excessive though.
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
The_Waspman said:
Prototype. Oh dear god Prototype. I can quite honestly say that this is the worst game I have played this (or any other) generation. Yes, I know that is my opinion, but I honestly do not understand how this game got any positive reviews at all.
One of my favourite games. It's a rare title of it's kind on the PC to not get an absolutely horrible port. In fact, I'll go as far as to say it's the ONLY title of it's kind to not get a shit port - feel free to correct me, I've searched for similar games and found nothing but failures.

The 'fucking around' value of it is also pretty much unmatched. It has a lot of potential too, it's just that the story sucks arse and the environment is generic as hell, both things easily fixable. Gameplay pulls it out though and the thing where you experience the story through cinematic snippets is pretty cool too (that part of the story is actually rather alright)

OT: Civilization V. Games with more technical issues than what an alpha version should have should not make it to the marketplace, especially not at full price. It's hands down the single worst technical disaster I have ever seen.