Gamers: AAA Titles Generally Aren't Shit.

[Joccaren]

I, and millions of others, enjoyed the shit out of that game. Hypothesis rejected.

Ahem. Let me slightly reword this statement:

There's a HUGE gap between being shit and being contrary to your taste.

"There's a HUGE gap between being good and being to your tastes". It goes both ways. Ever head the saying a million drunks can't be wrong?
What objectively makes the game good, leaving out personal opinions (Kinda a double standard when you say someone else's opinion is invalid as there is a difference between an opinion and fact, but then say YOUR opinion proves a point as if it is fact).

OT: Not all Triple A games are shit, hell, few are. Mediocre would be a better way of putting it. AAA games aren't great a lot of the time, but they certainly aren't terrible.
There are, of course, exceptions;
Duke Nukem
To a lesser extent DA2
But generally AAA titles shouldn't get classed as terrible or bad, as they aren't.

 

[Relaver]

Skyrim YOUR opinion is invalid.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

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:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.336109-Is-Game-Quality-strictly-Subjective#13571642

Enjoy.

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design. The experience may be subjective, but what goes into crafting that experience is not. It may be complicated beyond much of our understanding, but it is no pres objective.

Also, you admit that subjectivity is important in this discussion.

 

[lacktheknack]

It depends what aspects of a game you value.

For example, imagine if someone put voice acting as their most important aspect of the game.

Do you expect them to enjoy Just Cause 2?

"My name is BO-LO San-to-ZEEE, and I am the LEE-duh of the revolootionaree ah-mee KNOWN as thuh REEE-puhhs."

That's a dumb example, but its idea holds. Similarly, if someone cares mostly about the combat, they're going to hate The Path, or Mirror's Edge, games that I hold in very high regard.

 

[ResonanceGames]

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design.

What? No.

Discussion of design is an attempt to dissect WHY we thought something worked or it didn't. Most people hated Duke Nukem Forever, and articulated their problems with it. Some didn't, and those people articulated why they liked it. The liking or not liking of the design is SUBJECTIVE. The mechanics of the design are OBJECTIVE, but quality judgements about them are always, always, always down to the observer.

So to say that "Duke Nukem Forever used linear level design and is therefore shit" (substitute "linear level design" for any objective element you like) is to make a subjective statement.

 

[Yellowbeard]

What even IS a "AAA" game? I mean I've heard of AAA beef...does someone actually decide this, or is it a budget category?

Personally I judge games I haven't played on their ideas.

 

[Yellowbeard]

Double post.

 

[Legion]

Most are not, you're right. However, lots, like dragon age 2 for example, have huge resources behind them, and are still massively hyped. Even though the end products are terrible.



Oh yeah, people who are into sports titles arent onthis site.

And i ran a poll, 2% of respondents said they had a wii. Most people who answered are pc and ps3 gamers

Even then, they are not *that* bad.

Okay, consider this hyopthesis:

Dragon Age 2 was not a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins.
It was not made by Bioware.
It was not advertised as being choice-heavy.

Remove that perspective and apart from the re-usage of levels and occasional bugs, it's a pretty solid game.

Most of the hatred behind sequels stems from fans expecting something due to either the previous title or from their experience with games from the developer, not the actual game itself.

 

[lacktheknack]

The quality of a game is subjective, period.

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.

That doesn't explain why people adore Fallout: New Vegas, or day-of-release Skyrim.

 

[Xanadu84]

I, and millions of others, enjoyed the shit out of that game. Hypothesis rejected.

Ahem. Let me slightly reword this statement:

There's a HUGE gap between being shit and being contrary to your taste.

"There's a HUGE gap between being good and being to your tastes". It goes both ways. Ever head the saying a million drunks can't be wrong?
What objectively makes the game good, leaving out personal opinions (Kinda a double standard when you say someone else's opinion is invalid as there is a difference between an opinion and fact, but then say YOUR opinion proves a point as if it is fact).

OT: Not all Triple A games are shit, hell, few are. Mediocre would be a better way of putting it. AAA games aren't great a lot .of the time, but they certainly aren't terrible.
There are, of course, exceptions;
Duke Nukem
To a lesser extent DA2
But generally AAA titles shouldn't get classed as terrible or bad, as they aren't.

What makes a game good? Many things, but clearly, one thing that is a valid thing for games to do is be fun for lots of people. CoD was fun for lots of people. By any non pretentious definition, that's a success. Yeah, I put plenty of less popular games on a much higher pedestal for there innovation and design sense, but CoD set a worthwhile goal and wildly exceeded those goals.
Ever hear the saying,"99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name?" The opinions of the masses is important when your raison de'etair is to have a good opinion from the masses. That 99% ARE important. When millions have fun with a thing that's is trying to be fun, by what possible metric has it failed?

 

[Xanadu84]

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design.

What? No.

Discussion of design is an attempt to dissect WHY we thought something worked or it didn't. Most people hated Duke Nukem Forever, and articulated their problems with it. Some didn't, and those people articulated why they liked it. The liking or not liking of the design is SUBJECTIVE. The mechanics of the design are OBJECTIVE, but quality judgements about them are always, always, always down to the observer.

So to say that "Duke Nukem Forever used linear level design and is therefore shit" (substitute "linear level design" for any objective element you like) is to make a subjective statement.

If games lacked any objective element, there would be no mechanism to distinguish one from another. When millions of people agree on something, and a fraction of that disagree, something is happening outside of the subjective. Sure, it a hell of a lot more complex then any single mechanic, but that doesn't make it any less objective. Chalking it all up to subjectivity amounts to nothing more then laziness.

 

[lacktheknack]

What even IS a "AAA" game? I mean I've heard of AAA beef...does someone actually decide this, or is it a budget category?

It's a really general term, but essentially, if the developer pours more than ~$25,000,000 into the production, then it's "AAA".

So yeah, budget category sounds right.

In current gaming, you have the choice between AAA (EA, Activision, Zenimax), B grade (Meridian4, Codemasters), shovelware (Zynga, most Wii third-party support), and indie (Spiderweb Software, Tale of Tales). All people really care about on this site is AAA and indie.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Modern Warfare 3. I DARE you to come up with logical, factual reasons why that game isn't a shit sandwich served with turd cola on a poo-poo platter.


Go on. I'm waiting. one of the biggest AAA releases, sold millions, is absolute shit. Campaign is shit, multiplayer is imbalanced as fuck, full of hackers, laggy, can't level on dedicated servers, it looks like arse. Prove to me the game is good despite all of that.

Easy. Taste is subjective.

Point proven.

Yes it proves his point not yours. He asked why the game is good not why someone might think the game is good as differing opinions is not a valid reason to say a game is good. At least give reasons why. Imbalanced multiplayer is not something that can be subjective but I can't speak from experience here regarding MW3.

Given the track record of recent CoD games as I will not play another one(ie I haven't played MW3) I have to make a comment on some of the recent ones. They have had pretty abysmal faults that can't be it solved in an argument "Is good due to opinion". You can like a bad game but it is still a bad game. Well at least multiplayer was bad but the single player does get leeway due to subjectivity.

OT: Congratulations you realised some people hate things that are popular and for shitty reason. People have different opinions and you can't change that. Generally no they are shit but general a lot of them tend to be bland affairs made to appeal to everyone even non gamers which every needs a starting point. This means it is perfectly valid to hate and dislike them.

 

[TrevHead]

I think most ppl who think most AAAs are shit are those oldschool and "hardcore" gamers that go out of their way to find the very best that gaming has to offer. Sometimes there isnt much separating whats an average game of its genre and the best. For thyem dumbing down and streamling isnt what they want.

Most gamers simply dont care or dont bother doing the research into which are the very best and are happy to buy the next over hyped game with the biggest marketing budget. Then there's fantards who wont even look at similar games even if they are better.

Its a shame that marketing is more important than quality but this console generation has many critically acclaimed games that didnt sell.

 

[T8B95]

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.

This=/thread. Seriously, you won. You said the best thing in the best way.

I've been saying for a while now, "Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad game." Yes, you can say that quality is subjective and all that horseshit, but if someone's going to tell me with a straight face that Skyrim or Halo are equal or lesser in quality to some licensed shovelware, that's just not true.

For everyone who calls out that a highly-rated game is shit, I just have this to say to you: what's more likely; that everyone else is wrong and that you're the one voice of truth, or that you have a differing opinion to everyone else?

 

[Xanadu84]

If that were true, Duke Nukem Forever would be as liked as Portal, and it would be pointless to put any effort into design. The experience may be subjective, but what goes into crafting that experience is not. It may be complicated beyond much of our understanding, but it is no pres objective.

Also, you admit that subjectivity is important in this discussion.

So why, then, does someone out there considers Duke Nukem Forever their favourite game of all time, despite having played Portal?

The illusion of objectivity comes from the subjective opinions of the majority. Our culture and conditioning has dictated these as 'the good things', so many people will think they're good. However, one glitch in the system, like the above example, the thousands of Morrowind haters, or me not liking BioShock eliminates any chance that game quality - or that of any other art - is anything but subjective.



I mean, even outside art this pops up. Ice cream is generally eaten at a cold temperature, say 0-10[sup]o[/sup]C. But if there's even the chance of someone liking to eat it at 100, it can never be an objective truth. Unless you want to tell them they're wrong for liking it, in which case you're a moron.

But on topic: AAA games are just the same as any other. Some of my favourite games have multi-million dollar budgets, but there are plenty of great indie games, and plenty of AAAs I hated.

I never said that games weren't subjective. They are both. Objective things are the only things that account for concensus, subjectivity the only thing that accounts for differences. Unless you disagree with me when I say that some games are generally liked, but people always disagree a little, you have to acknowledge both subjective and objective elements. And there ARE trends, and there ARE dissenting opinions.

 

[Gene O]

You're right. AAA games are generally not shit. However, since AAA games are the most expensive games to produce and buy they should be aiming their sights higher than 'not shit.'

 

[ResonanceGames]

If games lacked any objective element, there would be no mechanism to distinguish one from another. When millions of people agree on something, and a fraction of that disagree, something is happening outside of the subjective. Sure, it a hell of a lot more complex then any single mechanic, but that doesn't make it any less objective. Chalking it all up to subjectivity amounts to nothing more then laziness.

Actually, laziness would be the argumentum ad populum, which you just invoked. That is in no way evidence that something is happening "outside the subjective."

Millions of people also agree that Transformers 2 was a great movie. Are you willing to chalk that up to objectivity too? If not, then what would the percentage of the population who liked Transformers 2 have to be before you would admit that it must be objectively good, 95%? 99%?

The fallacy here is very clear.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm kind of tired of hearing everyone in online gaming forums complain about how some AAA title that's gotten heavily positive reviews is actually shit.

Stop listening? It's not that hard to do.

Generally speaking, games that are very high-profile and were made by a respected developer with a large budget generally aren't terrible. If you're going to complain that they're overrated, fine, but unless the game is universally panned by critics and gamers, it's not going to be awful.

Duke Nukem Forever? Spore? Shadow Harvest: Phantom Ops? Duke Nukem:Critical Mass? Transformers: Dark of the Moon edition?

Basically, I'm just asking for the gaming community to have a bit of perspective, that's all.

How about you take the same perspective and work out that this is less about overall quality, and more about false hype.

If something is really turdworthy, it will disappear from radar very quickly.

If something is very high profile, made by a respected developer and have a large budget; they will have just-short-of-outright-lies printed about them. This is what people are raging about. In the same way they rage about ANY item that doesn't live up to it's hype, because they feel they will have been lied to.

Which, realistically, they have. Games like Modern Warfare 3 exist to make you feel a yearly update gets more intense each year, when that's technically impossible.

So "Shit", in this case, means "going back on what is claimed to the extent that an earlier iteration is actually more enjoyable".

And if you don't want to hear about it, just go outside for a bit. I hear it's nice out there.

 

[Bomberman4000]

What I see a lot of people saying is that "hype" is more the problem than quality of the games in question. People see commercials, read articles, watch trailers and expect a lot from games, as they should. I agree with the original poster that most AAA Titles (which in no way refers to how good the game is, Kane and Lynch is a AAA Title, as are Too Human and Two Worlds, but I digress) are quality if somewhat formulaic games. The companies that make poor quality games don't get to make games for long. Anyone ever heard the phrase "the cream will rise to the top"? The people who are at the top of the industry are there for a reason. They may not make games you personally like, but OVERALL (we all know there are exceptions) the OP is right on the money.

To address the "hype" issues I keep reading about: hype only gets you as excited as you let it. You have to take everything with a grain of salt. People who run websites, create commercials, or sell products are there to keep your attention/interest for the duration of their product. Advertising agents want to hype products because the better that product sells, the better their company looks. It's all a business model. A commercial is not going to show you the bugs or flaws in a game, and they're also going to only give you snippets of information about the game just to create that spark of intrigue.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about what they like to play, that goes without saying really. But please keep this in mind: hype only works as well as you let it. If you personally don't get excited about something, it'll be a lot harder to be let down by it.

Also keep this in mind, Advertisers are not concerned with the quality of the game they're peddling. The games you see constant advertising for are going to be games that the developer believes will sell the most copies and make the advertiser, and the developer the most money.