Do people understand that there's a difference between "good" and "different?

[xodax]

I ask this question mostly for one recent game that it's hated by so many people and reviewers: Beyond: Two Souls.

Let's face it, the game is awful. But there's so many people defending this game by using just one argument: "It tried something different". Does that mean it doesn't sucks? No.

I've seen alot of reviewers and users making tons of valid points about why the game is mediocre on it's genre and criticizing its poor narrative.

Yea, it is different, so what?

Oh of course, they also point out that the game has an "amazing and compelling story" but they don't even explain why, why it is so "Awesome and deep".

Same happens with so many games, i think the best examples are Final Fantasy XIII and Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. "You just hate it because is different". No matter how valid criticism those games get, they always use the same argument.

Can't they understand that being "different" and "good" is not the same thing?

Now im wondering, someone has used this argument against you?

P.S: Sorry, my english is not good really

 

[tippy2k2]

For some, being different IS enough to get a good grade.

I have given mediocre games (Spec-Ops: The Line, Telltale's Walking Dead, Mirror's Edge, Alpha Protocol, & Heavy Rain to list a few examples off the top of my head) high scores because they did something very different, even if the game itself isn't always up to par.

Sometimes, I will take the OK game that does something different over the most perfect by-the-books AAA title.

 

[Orange12345]

Because games that try to be different could have just of easily been a COD/WOW/GOW/etc clone. So I am going to make an analogy with food

lets say you like hamburgers and there is this one place that makes the perfect burger you go there all the time, pretty soon other restaurants decide to sell their own burgers but they all fall short. Some places try do the exact same recipe, some change the ingredients slightly but very rarely do any of them ever improve on the burger because it was done so well in the first place. Then one day the joint across the street comes up with this new thing called pizza you decide to give it a try but it's not exactly what you wanted there are olives and pineapple on it and its just not for you. It's no where near as good as the burger but it was very different and maybe once in a while you get tired of the same old burgers and want some pizza even if it is not as good objectively. But then next year they come up with a new kind of pizza with peperonni and mushrooms and it tastes amazing and it's just as good or better then the burgers so now you are glad they tried something so different because they were able to build on their failure and make something better.

so yeah if a company decides to make something really different they should be celebrated for trying because making a shitty original game and making a shitty clone of another game are not the same thing

variety is the spice of life

 

[krazykidd]

Different is good. Why , because different makes things move foward. Different is interesting. Different is compelling. Different is exciting. I feel that a game that dares to try something different should be cut some slack. Because it tried something new, it's an experiment.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Depending on what it is, different can be equated to good. Hell, the 2D side-scrolling build of Duke Nukem 4-Ever looked good if only because of how different it also looked. Then there are games like Skyward Sword which was different in that it requires near-constant re-calibration of the Wii Mote and while many people say it's great I can't see how it's anything but terrible to play.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Trying something new always affords it a degree of respect, in my book. It may not be actually good, but it's better, from an artistic perspective to fail at something new than to continue to go entirely by the book.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

It really depends. For instance, I believe that Slaughterhouse-5 is a very different kind of story but I also think it's poorly written. It has an interesting idea but there's absolutely no heart in it, and I don't mean in the sense of it being touchy feely, I mean it has interesting stuff but utterly fails to make you care about any of it (Which, ironically, seems to be a theme of the story of things being pointless and not caring about things).

On the flipside, I think everyone can agree that Katamari Damacy is veeeeery different and I think it utilizes that very well.

And in the middle there are games like Stretch Panic which I find very different but also not fully realized and rather short but I don't find its failings hurt it enough to make it a bad experience but more of a curiosity that sparks thinking outside the box.

So I guess I agree that just being different isn't enough. I revel in making weird or different stories or characters or what have you but it's not enough to just be weird or different, it has to be done well, there has to be some sort of thought behind it, even if that thought is to make there be as little thought as possible.

Depending on what it is, different can be equated to good. Hell, the 2D side-scrolling build of Duke Nukem 4-Ever looked good if only because of how different it also looked. Then there are games like Skyward Sword which was different in that it requires near-constant re-calibration of the Wii Mote and while many people say it's great I can't see how it's anything but terrible to play.

Well people say it's great because it doesn't need constant recalibration, at least not while I was playing it.

 

[Fox12]

Beyond Two Souls is not a good game, it's just pretentious. The story is terrible, and it's filled with plot holes. I respect that David Cage wants to make "art" games, but he's not very good at it. Studios like Telltale make games very similar to David Cage, except they're actually good. David Cage doesn't understand proper story structure. The people who praise him, quite frankly, don't understand what good writing is. Unfortunately he actually gets praised by critics.

The sad thing is that Cage actually has some really good ideas buried beneath the garbage. The torture scene in Beyond would have been gut wrenching if I'd actually cared about the character. Can you imagine what it would have felt like if it had been Garrus, or Ellie, or Tifa up there being tortured? That would have been agonizing. The scene where you wander around homeless while people avoid you could have been absolutely amazing. Sadly it felt out of place and contributed nothing to the "narrative." Again, I can respect Cage's idealism, but he's a terrible writer, he's creepy, and he's full of himself. As a result I feel like he actually hurts the genre more than he helps it. His games aren't even innovative, they're just flashy adventure games, a genre that I believe predates him by several decades.

Also, your English is fine. You have better grammar than most of the native English speakers who write on the internet.

 

[Malevolentcafe]

Considering the amount of people who consider a complex story to be a "clever" one(*coughfinalfantsyeightcough*), I would say they do. But sometimes different is good, we get less Call of Duty clones and more Bioshocks and Spec Ops: The Lines.

 

[The_Echo]

I ask this question mostly for one recent game that it's hated by so many people and reviewers: Beyond: Two Souls.

Let's face it, the game is awful. But there's so many people defending this game by using just one argument: "It tried something different". Does that mean it doesn't sucks? No.

But... it's not trying anything different.

It's trying the same thing Heavy Rain did, which tried the same thing Indigo Prophecy did, which tried the same thing Omikron: The Nomad Soul did.

And apparently, Beyond: Two Souls has done it worse than its predecessors.

There's something to be said for developers who do things like Quantic Dream and thatgamecompany do, in that they try to experiment with how a game is played or how its narrative is delivered. It's nice to have the diversity and new ideas, but I don't believe in giving a game bonus points for its place in the industry as a whole.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Being different is absolutely something that should be commended but, of course, that is not in any way tied to quality. Something can be different and good. Something can be different and bad. Something can be similar to things that have come before it and good or bad as well.

At the end of the day, different and bad is better than similar and bad, but it's still bad.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Can't they understand that being "different" and "good" is not the same thing?

Or alternatively that being different does not make it immune to criticism.
Yeah props for trying something different and not marching in step behind current trends, but the end result was still crap.

 

[siveon]

I agree. Well, to an extent.

Being different for the sake of being different can backfire horribly. Sometimes even reek your game of pretentiousness to the point of annoyance.

However, sometimes an idea can make even the most objectively bad games seem much better. Much more refreshing. Should people cut the game some slack, even if it's still a bad game? Yes and no. If people did the developers might not improve upon their execution and we may never see that idea in a polished state. We should always be willing to point out the flaws of a game, so it can be made better.

But it is a fair point that someone can enjoy the game, even if they just enjoy the ideas made and not the actual game itself. I think it's a valid argument. It's technically terrible, but you still like it? Okay, good enough. Are you willing to complain about the flaws? You are? Well then we're fine.

We shouldn't say that "different" is a get-out-of-jail-free card, but we shouldn't dismiss it as a factor.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

Basically, people get so inured to sameness sometimes that anything different is hailed as a breath of fresh air, even if it doesn't live up to the same standards. That said, I would prefer different and bad to the same and bad, though that's beside the point.

I will say with regard to the example of David Cage that I'm glad the AAA industry is letting SOMEONE work on a high budget outside the normal expectations for similarly-expensive games. Though Beyond: Two Souls sounds like pure crap and the guy can't tell a story to save his life, some aspects of his work have had good qualities (though his strengths and priorities are weirdly at odds with each other).

But that's still kind of beside the point. Overall...yeah, people will like works that aren't that great. Hell, there are people who defend Sonic 2006, which is an actual objectively bad game. If you put something in front of enough people, someone WILL like it, and at least in the case of experimental stuff they have a reason, even if it would be more constructive overall to say "okay, now someone make the good version of this."

 

[ungothicdove]

P.S: Sorry, my english is not good really

You're English isn't bad, it's just...different. Just kidding, your English is fine. I don't even have a second language that I can be conversational in, much less write in, so you'll get no judgement from me!

Anyway, I'm of two minds. On one hand, being different just to be different shouldn't give a game a free pass. But if someone is really trying to create something unique and fails spectacularly, at least they gave it their best shot and I think it's commendable.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Different is good because it leads to new things.
Doesn't always make a it a great game, but I'd prefer a mediocre game that tried something new rather than a good/decent game that is basically something i have already played just reskinned.

 

[Sarge034]

Sinp

You know what else was different and completely sucked? The Ford Model T. It was overpriced, unreliable, slower than a trotting horse, and only came in one color. But without it we would likely not have as advanced vehicles as we have today. Acknowledging that something is different does not make it good or bad, but rather shows that it has fresh ideas that others can improve upon. Did B:TS suck? Yes. Did it try something new? Yes. Could others improve upon those ideas? Well, it would be hard for them to implement the ideas any worse than B:TS did... So yes.

 

[littlealicewhite]

Being different doesn't automatically make it good in my opinion, but it should be congratulated on trying something new and taking a risk, especially in an industry where we have yearly-release- franchises that only improve the graphics and add some new token mechanic between installments. I'd happily take Beyond: Two Souls over Assassin's Creed 3 any day.