I have to agree with itsmeyouidiot. MW3 was by no means a bad game (excluding the multiplayer) but people said it was rubbish because it's call of duty. It wasn't as good as COD4 or Mass Effect but it was still better than most games.
Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.
- Thread starter itsmeyouidiot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dont ever remember expressing a sentiment towards AAA games, unless it happens to be a realistic FPS in which case ill shit all over it regardless of its quality.
I know Resident Evil 6 has a huge budget behind it as well as having most of Capcom's dev teams working at it, but im not calling it shit until i play it and decide if its shit.
I know Resident Evil 6 has a huge budget behind it as well as having most of Capcom's dev teams working at it, but im not calling it shit until i play it and decide if its shit.
This, its the expectation game that in my opinion causes people to call foul. If its not what was advertised or expected to be then people will mouth it off.Atmos Duality said:
But I agree with the OP most AAA games aren't shit or bad. They just don't live up to the hype. I also agree with the fact though that AAA games should be better though.
There was a video i watched a while a go on this site about how games should spend more time in pre-production and the big companies could adopt the Pixar business model (i can't remember where it is) and it made sense as to improving games.
There's a HUGE gap between being shit and being contrary to your taste. You can not like GOW, and that's fine. I don't like Zelda games. But that doesn't mean I can argue that Zelda is shit. Or rather, I shouldn't. Because if I'm reasonable, I can see the strengths that simply don't click with me. In reality, if you call a game shit, your insisting that everyone else conform to you. Maybe, rather then your opinion being an objective aesthetic truth, you just have an opinion outside of the high points of the bell curve. Staatistically, we are all pretty likely to be outliers at some point.ResonanceGames said:
The problem is the sequels. They put out a lot of sequels but they don't really change a great deal. Take Gears of War for example, I loved the first one. The fighting felt nice and weighty, the weapons were good, and the cover-based combat was entertaining, but by the end i got really bored of everything. The weapon choice didn't really change a great deal throughout the game and none of them impressed me. Most of the time i just used the plain old lancer.
I wondered what they were going to do in the sequel. I was disappointed when not much changed. The weapons where very similar, there wasn't much of a change in combat, and all the cool items (like the shield. i loved the shield) were all just temporary and didn't appear that often. It was so boring i was glad that the campaign wasn't too long.
The point is, if you make solid gameplay, people will like it. It you never ever change up the solid gameplay, people will get bored of it. It makes people feel like you're just trying to bleed money out of them and do minimal work for it.
This is why so many people like valve. They always give off the feeling that they're in it to make games, not to make money. A lot of publishers lost this feeling.
I wondered what they were going to do in the sequel. I was disappointed when not much changed. The weapons where very similar, there wasn't much of a change in combat, and all the cool items (like the shield. i loved the shield) were all just temporary and didn't appear that often. It was so boring i was glad that the campaign wasn't too long.
The point is, if you make solid gameplay, people will like it. It you never ever change up the solid gameplay, people will get bored of it. It makes people feel like you're just trying to bleed money out of them and do minimal work for it.
This is why so many people like valve. They always give off the feeling that they're in it to make games, not to make money. A lot of publishers lost this feeling.
Hm.. nearly everything Valve and Blizzard produces proves your statement. The companies which are able to produce AAA titles aren't as big for no reason.
Their games have or had an appeal to the gamers.
Skyrim was hyped to the point where you could believe that playin' Skyrim will cure cancer. We know that's not true, but it's still a really awesome game.
Diablo 2 has already proven it and D3 will prove it too.
Even if BF3 was a buggy piece of shit when i bought it - and i expected it, since it had an EA lable on it - is a splendid shooter with the best atmosphere i ever had in a multiplayer shooter. (I don't count the singleplayer of both CoD / BF3, because they're clearly gimmick and not the selling point of the game).
Other examples outside Valve/Blizz? Deus Ex, Bioshock 1, Fallout, Civ 5, both SaintsRow + GTA series, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect / Dragon Age Series..
Of course not every gamer likes every genre as i do, but to say AAA games are shit pre se is ignorant - as ignorant as to say you need a million dollar budget to make a great game.
The Bastion, Limbo or Minecraft have proven otherwise.
Teh monehz can make stuff easier to create games, but also mostly bring you more pressure and complications with publishers/shareholders etc. But money is definitly not the main component to make a great game.
Their games have or had an appeal to the gamers.
Skyrim was hyped to the point where you could believe that playin' Skyrim will cure cancer. We know that's not true, but it's still a really awesome game.
Diablo 2 has already proven it and D3 will prove it too.
Even if BF3 was a buggy piece of shit when i bought it - and i expected it, since it had an EA lable on it - is a splendid shooter with the best atmosphere i ever had in a multiplayer shooter. (I don't count the singleplayer of both CoD / BF3, because they're clearly gimmick and not the selling point of the game).
Other examples outside Valve/Blizz? Deus Ex, Bioshock 1, Fallout, Civ 5, both SaintsRow + GTA series, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect / Dragon Age Series..
Of course not every gamer likes every genre as i do, but to say AAA games are shit pre se is ignorant - as ignorant as to say you need a million dollar budget to make a great game.
The Bastion, Limbo or Minecraft have proven otherwise.
Teh monehz can make stuff easier to create games, but also mostly bring you more pressure and complications with publishers/shareholders etc. But money is definitly not the main component to make a great game.
I'm NOT going to let this devolve into "The Difference Between Subjective and Objective 101" for the 10,000th time, but I do want to go on record totally disagreeing with this statement.Xanadu84 said:
You're right, but this tree has been barked up too many times. Some people just don't get it.Zoop said:
I get where you're coming from, but the problem (at least from where I stand) is this: no one bases next year's product line on the Wii Sports knock-offs or movie tie-in games. If all a AAA game gets is lauds and big piles of money, you're very likely to get games that strongly resemble it next year, regardless of whether that game had real and substantial flaws despite a significant amount of polish.
It's true that there are always going to be an annoying minority who sneer at whatever is popular just to distinguish themselves from the plebeians. But in an era where critics sometimes get their heads torn off for having the audacity to give a popular game a score of 8, it's increasingly important that we not dismiss criticism out of hand, especially with regard to AAA titles. There's plenty enough momentum going the other way, and whole PR departments manning the oars.
It's true that there are always going to be an annoying minority who sneer at whatever is popular just to distinguish themselves from the plebeians. But in an era where critics sometimes get their heads torn off for having the audacity to give a popular game a score of 8, it's increasingly important that we not dismiss criticism out of hand, especially with regard to AAA titles. There's plenty enough momentum going the other way, and whole PR departments manning the oars.
Really what your saying there is I don't like it because its not what I look for in a game not this game is bad in every possible way imaginable therefore it isn't really a shit game its just not your cup of tea.Zhukov said:
This is kind of like asking what Pi is, but your sick of all this math stuff. Sorry but subjectivity and objectivity are the lifeblood of this discussion, and if you don't want to discuss that, you don't want to be discussing this whole idea.ResonanceGames said:
I think that was in Extra Credits.sean16 said:
I can only agree that aaa titles aren't shit in general. But aaa titles are hyped and this raises the standard that is used to judge them.
SWTOR is probably a good example for it, it was promised to be different from other MMORPGs but what I have seen in videos and pictures looks a lot like WoW. I have not played SWTOR, so I don't want to say it's a bad game.
Another thing that many people probably hate about aaa titles, is that they are often just copied games with some new maps and a higher number in it's title.
I tried cod:modern warfare 2, but i lost interest in it because it's exactly like modern warfare 1.
No, that's really not a good analogy. The quality of a game is subjective, period, and any serious discussion about what games are good and what games are bad must be based on that premise, otherwise the discussion turns into this:Xanadu84 said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.336109-Is-Game-Quality-strictly-Subjective#13571642
Enjoy.
No. It's not. Or rather, it's only subjective on the positive end of the scale. But if a game is full of crippling bugs and can't run for 30 minutes without crashing, there's nothing subjective about it being, in essence, a shit game.ResonanceGames said:
I honestly think people have a problem telling the difference between "I don't like this" and "this game is low quality." Few people can say "I hate this game, but it's a good game." They conflate their opinion and the actual judgement of quality in the game design. Interesting enough they seem to be able to say "this is a bad game, but I like it" because they understand guilty pleasures but less opinions are the exact opposite.